Whether an original writ of habeas corpus is appropriate in the case of a death-sentenced individual who was convicted and sentenced to death on a theory of liability that has been proven false, is repudiated by the State, and was never presented to the jury?

QUESTION PRESENTED This original petition presents two compelling reasons for this Court to grant the petition. First, Mr. Acker is due to be executed on Thursday, September 27, 2018 based ona theory of liability that the State itself has repudiated in federal court. All facets of Mr. Acker’s trial were based on the State’s allegations and false evidence that he strangled the victim which has now been shown to be false. His appellate and state post-conviction proceedings were completely inadequate, amounting to a disgraceful farce. The State has adopted three differing and contradictory versions of his guilt, and the current version is not supported by witness testimony and was never presented to his jury. Second, since this Court decided Herrera v.Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), there has been confusion regarding the standards for actual innocence, new technology has added greater significance to these claims, and there are compelling reasons under the Eighth Amendment to recognize a free-standing actual innocence claim since Herrera was handed down. This petition thus presents the following question: Whether an original writ of habeas corpus is appropriate in the case of a death-sentenced individual who was convicted and sentenced to death on a theory of liability that has been proven false, is repudiated by the State, and was never presented to the jury? -ii