Connection lost
Server error
Herrera v. Collins Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A death row inmate claimed “actual innocence” based on new evidence. The Supreme Court held that a freestanding claim of actual innocence, without an accompanying independent constitutional violation in the state trial, is not a basis for federal habeas corpus relief.
Legal Significance: The case establishes that federal habeas corpus is not a vehicle to re-litigate guilt. A claim of “actual innocence” serves only as a gateway to hear a procedurally barred constitutional claim, not as a freestanding constitutional claim itself, leaving executive clemency as the primary remedy.
Herrera v. Collins Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Ten years after his capital murder conviction and death sentence in Texas, petitioner Leonel Herrera filed a second federal habeas corpus petition. Herrera’s conviction was supported by eyewitness testimony and substantial circumstantial evidence, including his Social Security card found near one victim and a handwritten letter in which he seemed to take responsibility for the killings. In his habeas petition, Herrera asserted a claim of “actual innocence,” arguing that his execution would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He supported this claim with several affidavits, obtained years after his trial, which contended that his deceased brother, Raul Herrera, Sr., had actually committed the murders. One affidavit was from the brother’s attorney, and another was from the brother’s son, who was nine at the time of the crime. Texas law provided no judicial avenue to hear such a claim, as motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence had to be filed within 30 days of sentencing. Herrera presented no independent claim of a constitutional violation in his original state trial.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state death row inmate’s freestanding claim of actual innocence, based on newly discovered evidence presented years after conviction, state a ground for federal habeas corpus relief under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments?
No. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud ex
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state death row inmate’s freestanding claim of actual innocence, based on newly discovered evidence presented years after conviction, state a ground for federal habeas corpus relief under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion
This decision significantly limits the scope of federal habeas review by establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
Legal Rule
A freestanding claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence, absent Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labor
Legal Analysis
Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, reasoned that federal habeas courts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A freestanding claim of “actual innocence,” based on newly discovered evidence,