Lee v. Lampert
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15830
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Lee was convicted in Oregon state court of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and two counts of first-degree sodomy and sentenced to 170 months.
- He pursued state postconviction relief; the state courts denied relief and his appellate judgment became final in 2001.
- Lee filed a federal habeas petition in 2002; the district court initially dismissed as untimely, then reinstated on appeal.
- The district court later held that an actual-innocence showing tolls AEDPA’s 1-year limit and granted relief on the merits, which the Ninth Circuit reversed panelwise.
- The en banc court held that an actual-innocence exception exists to AEDPA’s statute of limitations, but Lee failed to present sufficient new evidence to meet Schlup’s standard.
- The court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does actual innocence toll AEDPA’s limitations period? | Lee asserts actual innocence allows merits review despite lateness. | State argues no exception exists to overr—AEDPA time bar unless procedurally defaulted. | Yes, actual innocence tolls AEDPA; but Lee failed to prove innocence. |
| What standard governs the Schlup actual-innocence gateway? | Lee contends the new evidence makes it more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict. | State argues the standard is stringent and not met here. | A credible actual-innocence showing may allow merits review; not met here. |
| Did Lee present sufficient new reliable evidence to pass Schlup? | Lee offered expert reliability testimony, a police report, and other material about witnesses and defendant. | State contends evidence is weak, cumulative, and does not create reasonable-doubt-level innocence. | No; evidence did not meet Schlup’s stringent threshold to undermine guilt. |
| Should the petition be heard on the merits or dismissed as time-barred? | If Schlup applies, merits review should occur. | Even with Schlup, the petition should be dismissed due to insufficient innocence showing. | Dismissed as untimely; no merits review required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (actual-innocence gateway to habeas review)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling applies to AEDPA)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (U.S. 2006) (Schlup gateway requires strong new evidence)
- McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (U.S. 1991) (fundamental miscarriage of justice concept)
- Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2005) (actual-innocence equitable exception recognized)
- San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) (actual-innocence tolling recognized)
- Lopez v. Trani, 628 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2010) (actual-innocence exception recognized)
- Sistrunk v. Armenakis, 292 F.3d 669 (9th Cir. 2002) (Schlup gateway requires new reliable evidence)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1986) (Carrier standard for habeas relief)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (reiterated threshold for innocence evidence)