Billy Turner, Jr. v. Jay Cassady

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 12, 2019
Docket16-3484
StatusUnpublished

This text of Billy Turner, Jr. v. Jay Cassady (Billy Turner, Jr. v. Jay Cassady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Billy Turner, Jr. v. Jay Cassady, (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 16-3484 ___________________________

Billy Ray Turner, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

Jay Cassady

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: September 5, 2019 Filed: September 12, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Billy Turner, who was sentenced to 49 years in prison after a Missouri jury found him guilty of first-degree sodomy and incest, appeals following the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. During the section 2254 proceedings, Turner claimed that he was actually innocent and asserted a related prosecutorial-misconduct claim. On appeal, Turner has moved to submit supplemental briefing, to strike the State’s brief, and to amend his motion to strike.

After careful de novo, we conclude that Turner failed to satisfy the standard for an actual-innocence claim, and that the district court thus did not err in denying his section 2254 petition. See McCoy v. Norris, 125 F.3d 1186, 1190 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review); see also Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 315-29 (1995) (to establish gateway actual-innocence claim, petitioner must show that, in light of all evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him given new, reliable evidence). Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant Turner’s motions to file supplemental briefs and to amend his motion to strike, and we deny his amended motion to strike. ______________________________

1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Nannette A. Baker, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Schlup v. Delo
513 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Billy Turner, Jr. v. Jay Cassady, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billy-turner-jr-v-jay-cassady-ca8-2019.