Did the Missouri courts err in failing to find that Petitioner had established a gateway-claim of actual-innocence so that his defaulted constitutional-claim could be addressed, violating his rights to due-process, effective-assistance-of-counsel, and to be free from cruel-and-unusual-punishment?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner Robert Barnes is serving a life sentence for crimes that he did not commit. The state’s complaining witness was five-years old at the time of the alleged incident and did not testify against Petitioner until nine years later. Against this backdrop, the complaining witness’s mother attempted to kill Petitioner and was convicted of first-degree assault and received a fifteen-year sentence. Both the complaining witness and his mother gave testimony that either conflicted with prior statements or could not have happened. The Circuit Court, Court of Appeals, and Missouri Supreme Court denied Petitioner habeas relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing or appointing a special master to review the case. The question presented is: Did the Missouri courts err in failing to find that Petitioner had established a gate-way claim of actual innocence so that his defaulted constitutional claim could be addressed violating his rights to due process, effective assistance of counsel, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment? -ii