Reply #58: In Herrera he basically said it. New evidence supporting innocence not grounds for habeus relief,

[DrunkenBoat]

i.e. no right to review after trial, even if new evidence = innocence.

(Herrera) urged in a second federal habeas proceeding that newly discovered evidence demonstrated that he was "actually innocent" of the murders... and that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee therefore forbid his execution. He supported this claim with affidavits tending to show that his now-dead brother had committed the murders. The District Court, inter alia, granted his request for a stay of execution so that he could present his actual innocence claim and the supporting affidavits in state court. In vacating the stay, the Court of Appeals held that the claim was not cognizable on federal habeas absent an accompanying federal constitutional violation.

Held: Herrera's claim of actual innocence does not entitle him to federal habeas relief. Pp.398-419.

(a) Herrera's constitutional claim for relief based upon his newly discovered evidence of innocence must be evaluated in light of the previous 10 years of proceedings in this case. In criminal cases, the trial is the paramount event for determining the defendant's guilt or innocence. Where, as here, a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which he was charged, the constitutional presumption of innocence disappears. Federal habeas courts do not sit to correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution. See, e. g., Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86, 87-88. Thus, claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief...

Petitioner urges us to hold that this showing of innocence entitles him to relief in this federal habeas proceeding. We hold that it does not.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/506/390/case.html