In Re Christopher Dunn

Mr. Christopher Dunn’s petition presents exceptional circumstances that have sharply divided courts below and left both state and federal courts with an unanswered question by this Court: does innocence matter? Since Mr. Dunn’s murder conviction in 1991, a Missouri Circuit Court justice found that no jury would convict Dunn had the jury heard the evidence that Mr. Dunn presented in his last post-conviction proceedings in 2018. Despite hearing the evidence Dunn presented and finding that no jury would convict Dunn had any jury heard this evidence, the Missouri state court denied Mr. Dunn’s habeas petition because freestanding claims of innocence apply only to prisoners who are sentenced to death pursuant to Missouri precedent under Lincoln v. Cassady, 517 S.W.3d 11 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2016). The following questions are presented.

1. Is it cruel and unusual punishment and a substantive due process violation for an innocent man to remain in prison?

2. Is the claim of freestanding actual innocence a cognizable claim for petitioners sentenced to either incarceration or death under the United States Constitution when a state court has concluded, after taking testimony and hearing evidence at a post-conviction hearing, that no jury would convict the petitioner?

3. Is “clear and convincing evidence” the standard to meet a freestanding actual innocence claim?