No. 22-569

In Re Christopher Dunn

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2022-12-20
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedRelisted (2)
Tags: actual-innocence clear-and-convincing-evidence constitutional-rights cruel-and-unusual-punishment due-process freestanding-actual-innocence habeas-corpus lincoln-v-cassady missouri post-conviction-relief
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment HabeasCorpus Punishment CriminalProcedure Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-04-14 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does innocence matter?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Mr. Christopher Dunn’s petition presents exceptional circumstances that have sharply divided courts below and left both state and federal courts with an unanswered question by this Court: does innocence matter? Since Mr. Dunn’s murder conviction in 1991, a Missouri Circuit Court justice found that no jury would convict Dunn had the jury heard the evidence that Mr. Dunn presented in his last post-conviction proceedings in 2018. Despite hearing the evidence Dunn presented and finding that no jury would convict Dunn had any jury heard this evidence, the Missouri state court denied Mr. Dunn’s habeas petition because freestanding claims of innocence apply only to prisoners who are sentenced to death pursuant to Missouri precedent under Lincoln v. Cassady, 517 8.W.3d 11 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2016). The following questions are presented. 1. Is it cruel and unusual punishment and a substantive due process violation for an innocent man to remain in prison? 2. Is the claim of freestanding actual innocence a cognizable claim for petitioners sentenced to either incarceration or death under the United States Constitution when a state court has concluded, after taking testimony and hearing evidence at a post-conviction hearing, that no jury would convict the petitioner? 3. Is “clear and convincing evidence” the standard to meet a freestanding actual innocence claim?

Docket Entries

2023-04-17
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2023.
2023-03-17
2023-03-08
2023-02-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 8, 2023.
2023-02-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 6, 2023 to March 8, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-01-06
Response Requested. (Due February 6, 2023)
2022-12-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/13/2023.
2022-12-16

Attorneys

Christopher Dunn
Justin Colin BonusJustin C Bonus Attorney at Law, Petitioner
Missouri
Andrew Jacob CraneMissouri Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Eric Stephen SchmittOffice of the Missouri Attorney General, Respondent