actual-innocence,ineffective-assistance-of-counsel,capital-case,forensic-pathology,procedural-default,habeas-corpus

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED * Mr. Tilley alleged that he is actual innocent, and his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call expert . witnesses as requested by Mr. Tilley, nor did he visit ; the crime scene in a "Capital Case" along with other ; errors. The only evidence linking Tilley to Thirkill's murder was Anderson's testimony, that was contrary to the physical evidence presented by the state at trial. Tilley cites two affidavits of far more experience experts in forensic pathology that refuted the testimany of witnesses who were never call to speak on his behalf at his trial, who gave credible (affidavits) that the keystone witness (Anderson) committed the acts for which he (Tilley) was convicted and sentenced. (The case thus presents the following questions). Whether Tilley has met the actual innocence standard for overcoming procedural default in (Schlun v. Delo, 513 W.S.298,315-16, 324, 327-29 (1995)... House v.:Bell,’ 547°U.S. ~ 578%. (2006) but also was he entitle to immediate release under the (Herrera Standard)...and whether . Tilley's constitutional rights to the sffective assistance of counsel defined in Strickland V. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 was violated, and whether the judgement of the Fifth Circuit adopting the District Court opinion and refusing to review his merits and set aside his sentence or grant a certiorari was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, within 4 the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1): and §2244(b)(2)(B) (ii).