Kidd v. Norman, No. 10-1375 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's limitation of his "new" evidence to a co-defendant's testimony, arguing the new evidence in support of a Schlup v. Delo claim of actual innocence should include any evidence not presented at the original trial. The court held that the district court correctly interpreted Amrine v. Bowersox as requiring defendant to come forward not only with new reliable evidence which was not presented at trial, but to come forward with new reliable evidence which was not available at trial through the exercise of due diligence. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's intervening decision in House v. Bell casted doubt on Amrine's standard. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of defendant's habeas petition.
Court Description: Prisoner case - habeas. The district court correctly interpreted Amrine v. Bowersox, 238 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2001) as requiring Kidd to come forward not only with new reliable evidence which was not presented at trial, but to come forward with new reliable evidence which was not available at trial through the exercise of due diligence; as result, under these facts, the district court did not err in finding Kidd had failed to present new reliable evidence in support of his Schlup "gateway" clam of actual innocence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.