Larsen v. Soto
742 F.3d 1083
9th Cir.2013Background
- June 6, 1998, Larsen was arrested at the Gold Apple bar for possession of a deadly weapon; officers Rex and Townsend identified him at the scene and he gave a false name.
- Larsen was convicted of a felony deadly-weapon offense under former Cal. Penal Code § 12020(a) and sentenced under California’s Three Strikes Law.
- Larsen filed a state habeas petition in 2005 with declarations from witnesses asserting someone other than Larsen threw the knife.
- Federal habeas petition was filed July 15, 2008 and the operative amended petition on October 27, 2008; the petition was facially untimely under § 2244(d).
- Magistrate Judge Segal held evidentiary hearings in 2009 and recommended relief based on actual innocence, which the district court adopted, remanding for a new state trial; the Warden appealed.
- This court affirmatively held that Larsen’s actual-innocence gateway allows consideration of the merits despite untimeliness, affirming the district court’s writ of habeas corpus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actual innocence permits review despite AEDPA’s time bar | Larsen argues Schlup gateway applies due to new evidence | Warden contends delay undermines credibility of new evidence under Perkins | Yes; Schlup gateway applied; delay not fatal to credibility of new evidence |
| Whether Larsen satisfied the Schlup standard for innocence | New witnesses credibly cast doubt on guilt | Prosecution witnesses’ trial testimony remains credible | Yes; new evidence undermines confidence in guilt; more likely no reasonable juror would convict |
| Whether Larsen's delay in filing undermined reliability of the new evidence | Delay explained by counsel failures and pursuit of representation | Delay shows lack of diligence; prejudice to State | Delay properly considered but not dispositive; credibility sustained under Perkins guidance |
| Whether Perkins governs the district court’s analysis of delay and credibility | Perkins supports considering credibility; delay viewed as a factor | Remand unnecessary; the district court’s analysis was proper under Perkins | No remand needed; district court’s analysis aligned with Perkins |
| Whether the district court erred in its application of Schlup to the evidence | Evidence casts serious doubt on guilt; credible and consistent over time | Counsel’s failure to call witnesses at trial undermines defense | No error; Schlup standard met; evidence sufficient to pass gateway |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (establishes the actual-innocence gateway to otherwise time-barred claims)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (demands credible evidence of innocence to pass through Schlup gateway)
- Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1997) (post-conviction evidence can overcome confidence in guilt to pass Schlup gateway)
- Sistrunk v. Armenakis, 292 F.3d 669 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc; post-conviction evidence undermining proof of guilt can pass Schlup gateway)
- Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc; governs standard for new evidence under Schlup in the Ninth Circuit)
- Perkins v. McQuiggin, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) (Supreme Court clarifies delay analysis under Schlup in AEDPA context)
- Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 724 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2013) (discusses remand and district-court analysis in habeas review)