Herrera v. Collins
1993 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Herrera v. Collins?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by 6 votes to 3 that a claim of actual innocence does not entitle a petitioner to federal habeas corpus relief by way of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2016) |
Quick Facts Herrera v. Collins, Argued October 7, 1992 Decided January 25, 1993 ...
Herrera v. Collins | |
---|---|
Argued October 7, 1992 Decided January 25, 1993 | |
Full case name | Leonel Torres Herrera, Petitioner v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division |
Citations | 506 U.S. 390 (more) 113 S. Ct. 853; 122 L. Ed. 2d 203; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 1017; 61 U.S.L.W. 4108; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 512; 93 Daily Journal DAR 1024; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 882 |
Case history | |
Prior | Defendant convicted, 197th Judicial District Court of Cameron County, Texas; affirmed, 682 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1131 (1985); petition for writ of habeas corpus denied, 819 S.W.2d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1085 (1992); denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus affirmed, 904 F.2d 944 (5th Cir. 1990); certiorari denied, 498 U.S. 925 (1990); stay of execution vacated, 954 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1992); cert. granted, 502 U.S. 1085 (1992). |
Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 507 U.S. 1001 (1993). |
Holding | |
Petitioner's claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is not ground for federal habeas relief. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
Concurrence | O'Connor, joined by Kennedy |
Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
Concurrence | White |
Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Stevens, Souter (parts I–IV) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. VIII, XIV |
Close