CA11: Newly discovered evidence that officer committed perjury years after obtaining def’s SW wasn’t sufficient for successor habeas

Newly discovered evidence that the police officer involved in obtaining the search warrant for petitioner had committed perjury in some other proceeding years later wasn’t sufficient to show actual innocence for successor habeas. In re Taylor, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19236 (11th Cir. July 13, 2018):

Although Taylor has identified evidence that was not previously available to him, as FMPD’s internal investigation and Gutridge’s termination occurred several years after his conviction and after the denial of his original § 2255 motion, he has not demonstrated that this new evidence would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1). While FMPD’s internal investigation found that Gutridge committed perjury on four separate occasions, this evidence has no bearing on whether Taylor is factually innocent of the offense. See Everett, 797 F.3d at 1290; Boshears, 110 F.3d at 1541-43. Taylor admits that Gutridge’s supporting affidavit led to the discovery of contraband and the charges reflected in two counts of his six-count indictment. Further, Taylor never asserts that this newly discovered evidence is proof of his actual innocence, especially given that he pled guilty to all of the charges against him. Rather, he argues that the evidence seized pursuant to the Zana Drive search warrant should have been suppressed. Therefore, even if Gutridge had made untrue written statements when he completed the sworn affidavit and application for the Zana Drive search warrant, this does not necessarily demonstrate that no reasonable factfinder would have found Taylor guilty of the offense at issue.