CA11: Def doesn’t show searching officer’s arrest two years after his trial would have changed outcome for successor habeas

Defendant’s searching officer’s arrest two years after defendant’s conviction didn’t qualify for a successor habeas because he couldn’t show that the new information would have affected the officer’s credibility at a suppression hearing or trial, nor does he allege prejudice. In re Bradley, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6084 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2021):

Forister’s arrest occurred after Bradley filed his original § 2255 motion and, thus, may constitute newly discovered evidence. Nevertheless, this evidence alone is not “sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found [Bradley] guilty of the offense.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1). First, Bradley has failed to allege how Forister’s arrest in 2020 would discount his testimony or credibility during the trial in 2018. Second, this newly discovered evidence of Forister’s arrest years after Bradley’s trial does not demonstrate Bradley’s actual, factual innocence of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Finally, while it is true that Forister was the lead detective and principal government witness in Bradley’s case, other witness testimony and evidence was presented at trial that: Bradley was a convicted felon; multiple firearms were seized in a search of a house in which Bradley purportedly lived; and the firearms were not manufactured in Alabama. See In re Boshears, 110 F.3d 1538, 1541 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that the application must be denied if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”).

This entry was posted in Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.