Scott Jones v. Jeri Taylor
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15968
9th Cir.2014Background
- In 2003 Scott Jones was convicted in Oregon of three counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration based principally on victim S.J.’s testimony and admissions allegedly made by Jones to his father and sister.
- S.J.’s trial testimony and two videotaped interviews (2000, 2002) described digital vaginal penetration when she was ~9 and Jones ~17.
- Around 2012–2013 S.J., her father (Ken Jones), and sister (Jennifer Pond) recanted portions of their trial testimony; S.J. now says she did not understand anatomy and was mistaken about penetration.
- Jones conceded he touched S.J.’s genitals but argues he did not penetrate her vagina; he sought habeas relief on a freestanding actual-innocence theory.
- The district court credited the recantations and granted habeas relief on a freestanding actual-innocence claim; the State appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that even assuming such a freestanding claim is cognizable, Jones did not meet the extraordinarily high showing required (a holistic assessment of old and new evidence shows no probability that reasonable jurors would unanimously acquit).
Issues
| Issue | Jones' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cognizability of a freestanding actual-innocence claim in non-capital habeas | Freestanding claim is available and warrants relief based on recantations | Even if cognizable, the claim fails on the merits here | Court assumes cognizable for purposes of decision but does not decide definitively; proceeds to merits and denies relief |
| Standard of review for district court’s ultimate actual-innocence conclusion | District court’s factual finding should be reviewed for clear error | Court should review holistically (de novo or abuse of discretion) | Court applies de novo holistic review (clarifies appellate review) |
| Sufficiency of recantations and new evidence to establish actual innocence | Recantations (victim and family) are credible and show Jones did not penetrate S.J. | Recantations are unreliable, self-interested, delayed, and do not overcome trial evidence | Recantations alone are insufficient; they only undercut trial evidence and do not affirmatively prove probable innocence |
| Application of Schlup/House standard (probable innocence based on new evidence) | New testimony makes it more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict | New evidence is neither reliable nor conclusive; other incriminating evidence remains | Jones fails the extraordinarily high Schlup/House showing; habeas relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (establishes actual-innocence gateway standard and holistic review of old and new evidence)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (applies Schlup standard; courts must assess probable effect of new evidence on reasonable jurors)
- Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1997) (describes the extraordinarily high showing required for freestanding actual-innocence claims)
- Jackson v. Calderon, 211 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2000) (rejects freestanding innocence claim where new evidence merely cast doubt)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (addresses possibility and high burden of freestanding innocence claims, especially in capital context)
- Dobbert v. Florida, 468 U.S. 1231 (1984) (Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of cert.) (observes general unreliability of recantation testimony)