Framing § 2254 Fourth Amendment claim as “actual innocence” claim fails

Habeas petition claiming a Fourth Amendment violation as a square peg in a round hole [my words]: It is not a claim of “actual innocence” somehow avoiding AEDPA limitations; it is “legal innocence,” which is barred and equitable tolling does not apply. Benjamin v. Wynder, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5810 (E.D. Pa. January 25, 2008):

In arguing that the jury’s verdict depended on illegally obtained evidence, petitioner confuses the concepts of actual innocence and legal innocence. Petitioner has presented no new evidence casting doubt on whether he committed the offense of conviction. Furthermore, while petitioner has challenged the methods by which evidence used against him was obtained, he has not demonstrated that the evidence itself was unreliable or misleading. Thus, petitioner has made no showing of actual innocence.

Defendant who was pursued by the police was not “seized” until actually apprehended after his flight, which itself added to the justification for the stop. United States v. Olea-Diaz, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5954 (S.D. Cal. January 25, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.