holding that “in order to be entitled to relief on a claim of factual innocence the applicant must show that based on the newly discovered evidence and the entire record before the jury that convicted him, no rational trier of fact could find proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “in order to be entitled to relief on a claim of factual innocence the applicant must show that based on the newly discovered evidence and the entire record before the jury that convicted him, no rational trier of fact could find proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”
- holding that the trial court was without jurisdiction to issue an injunction, “[n]otwithstanding that respondent held [it] was necessary to protect its jurisdiction over the appeal of Graham’s civil case”
- holding that any order by another state court purporting to stay an execution unlawfully circumvents the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals in a death-penalty conviction
- stating that actual innocence claims for inmates sentenced to death are cognizable in a habeas corpus application
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MILLER, J.,
dissents. Judge CAMPBELL, in his concurring opinion’s discussion of “The Clemency Process,” appeal’s to mirror my earlier comments in my Dissent to the Order Filing and Setting Relator’s Mandamus Actions, footnote 2. To that extent I agree with his “observations.” Nevertheless, Judge MEYERS has the proper view of the correct disposition of this matter, and thus I join his opinion.