Coleman v. Thompson

Supreme Court

Coleman v. Thompson

504 U.S. 188, 112 S. Ct. 1845, 119 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3118

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided May 20, 1992·No. A-877 (91-8336)·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

As the District Court below observed, this is now the 12th round of judicial review in a murder case which began 11 years ago. Yet despite having had 11 years to produce exculpatory evidence, Coleman has produced what, in the words of the District Court, does not even amount to a “colorable showing of ‘actual innocence.’” Civ. Action No. 92-0352-R (WD Va., May 12, 1992), p. 19. We are hardly well positioned to second-guess the District Court’s factual conclusion — we certainly have no basis for concluding that Coleman has produced “substantial evidence that he may be innocent.” Post, at 189 (emphasis added). Indeed, a good deal of Coleman’s effort in this latest round is devoted to an attempt to undermine an expert’s genetic analysis that further implicated him in the crime — an analysis conducted after trial at Coleman’s request under the supervision of the Commonwealth’s courts.

Contrary to the dissent’s characterization, Coleman’s claim is far from “substantially identical” to that of Leonel Herrera, see Herrera v. Collins, No. 91-7328, cert. granted, 502 U. S. 1085 (1992). In Herrera the District Court concluded that the evidence of innocence warranted further inquiry. [189]*189See 954 F. 2d 1029 (CA5 1992), Here, in contrast, the District Court reviewed Coleman’s claim of innocence and rejected it on the merits.

The application for stay of execution presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the full Court is denied.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens concurs in the denial of a stay and would deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

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

Per Curiam.

As the District Court below observed, this is now the 12th round of judicial review in a murder case which began 11 years ago. Yet despite having had 11 years to produce exculpatory evidence, Coleman has produced what, in the words of the District Court, does not even amount to a “colorable showing of ‘actual innocence.’” Civ. Action No. 92-0352-R (WD Va., May 12, 1992), p. 19. We are hardly well positioned to second-guess the District Court’s factual conclusion — we certainly have no basis for concluding that Coleman has produced “substantial evidence that he may be innocent.” Post, at 189 (emphasis added). Indeed, a good deal of Coleman’s effort in this latest round is devoted to an attempt to undermine an expert’s genetic analysis that further implicated him in the crime — an analysis conducted after trial at Coleman’s request under the supervision of the Commonwealth’s courts.

Contrary to the dissent’s characterization, Coleman’s claim is far from “substantially identical” to that of Leonel Herrera, see Herrera v. Collins, No. 91-7328, cert. granted, 502 U. S. 1085 (1992). In Herrera the District Court concluded that the evidence of innocence warranted further inquiry. [189]*189See 954 F. 2d 1029 (CA5 1992), Here, in contrast, the District Court reviewed Coleman’s claim of innocence and rejected it on the merits.

The application for stay of execution presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the full Court is denied.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens concurs in the denial of a stay and would deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

Coleman v. Thompson, 504 U.S. 188, 112 S. Ct. 1845, 119 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 3118 (1992).

Pincite

504 U.S. 188 (Coleman v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related