In re Kareem Jackson

Summary

The Sixth Circuit held that a death-row prisoner's habeas petition raising newly discovered Brady and Napue claims was "second or successive" under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), rejecting the argument that the claims were unripe until disclosure. The court granted leave to file the successive petition, finding a prima facie showing that suppressed eyewitness statements and evidence of coerced testimony could establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have convicted him. The concurrence argued that *In re Wogenstahl* was wrongly decided and that such claims should not be subject to § 2244(b) gatekeeping, while the dissent contended the petitioner failed to meet the prima facie standard. The case addresses the interplay between AEDPA's restrictions on successive petitions and claims of prosecutorial misconduct under *Brady* and *Napue*.

Holdings

1. The petition is second or successive under In re Wogenstahl, 902 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2018), because the facts underlying the claims had already occurred when he filed his first petition, even though he was unaware of them.
2. Jackson has made a prima facie showing that the factual predicate for his claims could not have been discovered previously through due diligence and that the facts, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jackson's motion to remand should be denied because his habeas petition is 'second or successive' under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
2. Whether Jackson has made a prima facie showing that his Brady and Napue claims satisfy the requirements of § 2244(b)(2)(B) to authorize the filing of a second or successive petition.

Disposition

other