McQuiggin v. Perkins | |
---|---|
Argued February 25, 2013 Decided May 28, 2013 | |
Full case name | Greg McQuiggin, Warden, Petitioner v. Floyd Perkins |
Docket no. | 12–126 |
Citations | 569 U.S. 383 (more) 133 S. Ct. 1924; 185 L. Ed. 2d 1019; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4068 |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | Perkins v. McQuiggin, No. 2:08-cv-139 (W.D. Mich. June 18, 2009); 670 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 977 (2012). |
Holding | |
Actual innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass whether the impediment is a procedural bar or the expiration of the AEDPA statute of limitations. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Dissent | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas; Alito (Parts I, II, and III) |
Laws applied | |
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 |
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that actual innocence, if proven, is sufficient to circumvent the one-year statute of limitations for petitioners to appeal their conviction enacted within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).[1]
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) gives a state prisoner one year to file a federal habeas petition, starting from “the date on which the judgment became final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244.[2] But if the petition alleges newly discovered evidence, the filing deadline is one year from “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim . . . could have been discovered through . . . due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244.[3]