Defendant\u2019s searching officer\u2019s arrest two years after defendant\u2019s conviction didn\u2019t qualify for a successor habeas because he couldn\u2019t show that the new information would have affected the officer\u2019s 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):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Forister’s arrest occurred after Bradley filed his original \u00a7 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. \u00a7 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”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s searching officer\u2019s arrest two years after defendant\u2019s conviction didn\u2019t qualify for a successor habeas because he couldn\u2019t show that the new information would have affected the officer\u2019s credibility at a suppression hearing or trial, nor does he allege prejudice. … Continue reading