Crawford v. State of Minnesota, No. 12-1878 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff was convicted in state court of three counts of criminal sexual conduct for raping a thirteen year old girl. After filing postconviction motions and a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, plaintiff discovered that a crime lab had improperly handled his DNA sample. He filed this new habeas petition, arguing that the state's failure to disclose the error violated his constitutional rights. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition because plaintiff had failed to obtain preauthorization, but it granted a certificate of appealability on whether preauthorization was required. The court concluded that plaintiff's section 2254 petition was second or successive and denied his motion for preauthorization.
Court Description: Prisoner case - Habeas. Crawford's petition was a second or successive habeas and the district court did not err in determining it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition in the absence of preauthorization for its filing; application for preauthorization is denied.
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.