Feather v. United States, No. 20-3371 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims in his motion for 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief on the merits. Assuming without deciding that the government's use of false or discredited scientific evidence could violate a criminal defendant's right to due process, the court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant failed to prove that his trial and conviction were fundamentally unfair. The court also concluded that it need not decide whether a freestanding actual innocence claim is cognizable because, as in
Rouse III, appellant's newly discovered victim recantations, medical science evidence, and juror bias evidence do not meet the extraordinarily high burden of proving actual innocence. The court further concluded that the district court properly concluded that appellant's Sixth Amendment claim, filed over 20 years after his conviction, is untimely under section 2255(f)(1), and even if the claim is not time-barred, it fails on the merits. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Wollman, Circuit Judge] Prisoner case - Habeas. For background on the case, see Rouse v. U.S., 14 F.4th 795 (8th Cir. 2021). Assuming without deciding that the government's use of false or discredited scientific evidence could violate a criminal defendant's right to due process, the district court did not err in concluding that Feather failed to prove that his trial and conviction were fundamentally unfair; the court need not decide whether a freestanding actual innocence claim is cognizable because Feather's newly discovered victim recantations, medical science evidence and juror bias evidence do not meet the extraordinarily high burden of proving actual innocence; the district court correctly determined that Feather's claim of racial bias in the jury was untimely under Sec. 225(f)(1); even if it was not time-barred, it would fail on the merits - see Rouse, 14 F.4th at 802; the district court did not err in denying Feather's claims without an evidentiary hearing.
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.