"If I had heard that evidence I could not have voted to convict." We still may not know what reasonable doubt is, but at least now we have a better picture of the reasonable juror.

The majority plainly forgot that "the question is not whether House was prejudiced at his trial because the jurors were not aware of the new evidence, but whether all the evidence, considered together, proves that House was actually innocent, so that no reasonable juror would vote to convict him." House, (U.S. Sup. 06/12/06).

Several judges did not find House's new evidence was reliable or sufficient to positively show his innocence or a true alibi. That is where things should have ended.

Admittedly I have read it only one time but it seems the facts called out for some sort of relief. For me the only real problem is the SCOTUS dodging the question remaining after Herrera--can a freestanding claim of actual innocence be heard? Something the Fifth Circuit doesn't accept. Otherwise, House doesn't really erode any prior law. But I am more than happy to stand corrected.

[This message was edited by John Stride on 06-14-06 at .]

I liked that the court maintained a distinction between Schlup gateway and Herrera substantive claims. The CCA has once or twice misdescribed Schlup, so that we get claims asserting that the preponderance standard of proof applies to substantive relief if they concurrently allege a constitutional claim.

I did not like that the Court did not give deference to some credibility determinations made by the district court, and the mention of considering evidence that would be inadmissible at trial in determining whether the defendant is actually innocent.

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 06-14-06 at .]

I did not like that the Court did not give deference to some credibility determinations made by the district court

I think that's my only real problem with House -- who makes the decision of what "new reliable evidence" is? Do you just have to present something that looks good on paper and keep presenting it to successive courts until one of them agrees it's persuasive? Or should there be a court making a credibility determination and other courts defer to that? House has muddied the waters on those grounds, but otherwise it doesn't seem to be a problem case -- just bad facts!