Richard M. Arnold v. Reed A. Richardson, 14 F.4th 780

Arnold was convicted in Wisconsin of repeatedly sexually assaulting his son M.A.; as a persistent repeater he received life without parole.
After state appeals failed, M.A. signed a notarized recantation affidavit in November 2011 claiming his trial testimony was false and influenced by a juvenile-treatment Program counselor. State courts denied relief, viewing the affidavit as cumulative or legally insufficient.
Arnold filed a federal §2254 habeas petition in December 2015, which the district court dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1); the court held Arnold had not met the Schlup actual-innocence gateway.
This Court (Arnold I) vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of M.A.’s recantation and its likely impact on reasonable jurors under Schlup v. Delo.
The district court held a two-day evidentiary hearing (testimony from M.A., his former counselor, and an expert). It found the recantation unreliable (delay, opportunities to recant earlier, third-party initiation, inconsistencies) and concluded Arnold failed to show it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court properly applied Schlup’s probabilistic standard and did not need to make an independent dispositive finding that the court itself personally found the recantation credible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Arnold overcame the §2244(d)(1) one-year time bar via the Schlup actual-innocence gateway	M.A.’s notarized recantation is new, credible evidence of actual innocence that excuses untimeliness	Recantation is unreliable and, even considered with the record, does not make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict	District court: Schlup not met; petition untimely. Seventh Circuit: affirmed.
Whether the district court on remand was required to make an explicit credibility finding about M.A.’s recantation rather than a juror-focused probabilistic assessment	District court erred by failing to state whether it personally found the recantation credible; an explicit credibility finding was necessary	Schlup requires a probabilistic determination of what reasonable jurors would do; the court properly assessed credibility through that lens and need not state a separate dispositive credibility finding	Seventh Circuit: district court applied the correct probabilistic Schlup standard and did not err.

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (establishes actual-innocence gateway standard and probabilistic juror-focused inquiry)
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual innocence can excuse procedural bars; delay/diligence relevant but not dispositive)
Arnold v. Dittman, 901 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2018) (remanded for evidentiary hearing to assess recantation under Schlup)
Simms v. Acevedo, 595 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard of review: de novo review of dismissal as untimely)
Pidgeon v. Smith, 785 F.3d 1165 (7th Cir. 2015) (factual findings after an evidentiary habeas hearing reviewed for clear error)