Whether the lower courts violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying Petitioner's claim of actual innocence and right to review evidence supporting his innocence

ESTIONS PRESENTED Witten THE LOW? COVATS OUTRIGHT DENY HABEAS PETITIONERS RiGNT To SHOW ACTVAL INNOCENCE IN THE DISTRICT COVAT 64 FAILING TO ADJVDICA% THE SCHLUP V, DELO 513 Usd. 293 (1995) ACTVAL INNOCENCE 1SSVE AS RZAVIRED TO MAKE A _GOTEWAY DETERMINATION, If BeOS THE QVESTIONS OF | 4, Ween THE LowGR Courts Violateo THE FovaizenTH Aminoment BY DENYING TonATN ZVGENE BRUNSOS RIGHT +o Stow ACtval INNOCENCS IN THe DISTRICT CoveT ? A, WHETHER Te LowWce CoueTs WO LATED THE Fove teenth AMSNOMENT BY Fang TO ADJVOICAT. BRINSONS SCULYP ACTVAL INNOCENCE ISSUE ? 3, WYETLA BaRvNsons Novl SXCULPATDAY SVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE MST THe SCHLUP STANDAgD BY PROVING CONCLYSWSLY THAT NOT VROR, ACTING P4ASONDBLY would HAVZ VoTeOo 1 Fido Him Gvyiuty Beyono A REASONABLE Dovet, 513 U.S. AT 304 ? 4. WHETNTR BaunSans Newt S¥CULPAtDGA ZVIOSNCS OF INNOLENCE MGT THe SCHLUP StanpAgo BY PROVING. CONCLUKSLY THat “A Covet CandoT Have CONFIDSWCE IN THE OUTcoms OF THs Taal (Noe Be) SaNSFIéD Thay THE TRIAL WAS FREE OF NONHARMLESS ConStITUNON AL 40Lon 517 Vise Ae 3b 7 5 Whence Tre Lowz2 CoumtS VioLARO THE Four ReNTH AMENDMENT BY Ealing To AnTup cate Baunsons Feysea CONSttrUNONAL CLAIM AFTER His NEW SXCuLPATDOY ZVIDENLE OF INNOZENC. SoTMBLISHED ScHLUe Gateway 2 a 6. Wien, unner te TumeY vV OWI0 (BiASEO TRIRL TUOLE) STANDARD OF REVIEW THE STAR TRIAL TVOGS Viotato the Fourtzennt AMiNOMENT AND DePAVeOD Baunson oF Due PRocess OF LAW BY HAVING “ny Dieéct, Peasonal, [AND SVBSTANTIAL in [VoLvement’] iN BREACHING A Con(ViCTioN] AGMIAST RIM IN His case 413 Vise AT 593 7? it OSS 6 S _ALL Paphos Kopena In THE CAPTION OF THE CASE On THe Covéa Pace, PeNToneR, Touaninn S<¢ ___ Basson, 15 An inmage, RtSponoenly , Torr HeMaing, 16 hk WARDEN OF A NORTH CACOLIN® ORAMENON AL FAO TBE OF Contents __COnSMTYNoNAL Any SrpqviDey PROVISIONS woWeD Oe STM ENT of TH CSE AL STATE Taine peocesoilgs » ge a The ceme 2 8 3, nePtAL _B, STE POST Convichon Panceemings ee _G, FRDER ML HAGENS CoRDUS Procecowes (CLAimielg, ACTUAL INNOCENCE) In THE DISTeCt Covat _ A, Tie New sxcuLPATORY ZuiDiNCe PROVING BRUNSON ACTUAL INNogeNCe eT __ THE SCHLUP vi DELO ACIVAL INNOCENCE STANDARD OF REVIEW BY Paovid Concuswelf a ReASowasle poveT, SIZ USM 3a | _bs Bavilsons wew ZXcoLrarom evinence EsmMBUSHE HIS ACIVALINNOCeNee UNGER THs ScHLUP Vv. Belo ACTUAL INNOCENCE STANDARD OF Review BY PROVING ConciUsieL} “kh CouRt Cpwnlot Have Confpancs pn TS OUTCOME oF THE TRIAL (Nop.6¢] Sanstiéo Heat THE TAL WAS FRee OF NON AeMLESS CONSTITNONAL eneok, 513 US, At Blob qiM a, THe Distercy Covel FinvinGS . . . + ew oe ee ee i}~ 12 D, THE U.S. Covet of APPEALS DECLSION |... a 1a SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ,, » . 2 » ee a, tA ARGVMENT « « « , 2 7 aw 2 ow Ye Ue oe » = |, . I LL. THe Lowse cougts Depagtves From 1% ACCEPTS ANO USUM Coufss OF TUMICiAlL PROLEZOINGS CVARANISce HABEAS PENTONERS ASSERNING ACTVAL INNOCENCE AS A PRolenvRal Gatiwhy Violas MH FourtzidMt AMINOMANT ee —— 13 A. Schlve 2sTna.ten A STANDARD Foe GATEWAY CLAIMS OF ACTUAL INNDLENCE WACK AFFoROS Petonses PrtsenTiNG NEW Evinedce A MEANINGHL AVENUE FOR R4GNigw OF Feperit CONsh Tonal VIOLATIONS TtHat contasvity To kh i WeonGful CONVICTION |. n ee te we pe ee 1316 B, New saculPatoary EVIDENCE OF INNOCENC] EXCEEDS SCHLVP ReaVIREMeNT 2 je, V7 JL. 1 Fount Ciecuits Decision To AF AEM Tie DISTRICT COURTS DELISION TO DENY BRANSONS RAGHT TO SHOW ACTUAL INNOCENCE 19 THE Distaict Covet BY EaLved To ADIvb1 cate Tite SCKLUP ACTUAL INNOCENCE ISSUZ IS IN DIRECT ConFiict WITH tS OWN DECSION in WOLEZ Vs Jonson ANO THS RELAANT DEUSIONS OF THIS Covet iN Boustzy v, VNITZO SMES _ a -. ~ — (7-14 TIC, THs Fovend Circuits DeaSION To AFHAM Tie DISTRUCT CovAts DZCISION To APPLY A 8 2944 SECond 02 SVCLESSWe PETITION PROCEDVEAL BAR TD BRYNSONS ACIVAL INNOCENCE GATEWOY CLAIM As An IMPZOIMENT TO HIS SHOWING ANO GATEWAY PASSAGE 1S IA iv DICST CONFUCT WITH ITS OWN DECISIONS IN REID V, TONS AND WOLFS v, TOdNSOW AND THe RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THIS SUPREME COUOT IN MCQVIGGIN vs PeeKins 2. (Va TW. THe oven ciacvits Dec