Herrera v. Collins and Fourth Amendment legal development

Herrera v. Collins

The findings and aftermath of the Herrera v. Collins case are often pointed to the Eight Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. However, there are Fourth Amendment implications as well. Indeed, Herrera was facing charges and conviction for the murder of two police officers. Based on eyewitness testimony and an admission, he was later convicted. However, about ten years later there was an appeal based on the claim that there was new evidence and that the defendant's late brother was the actual assailant. A temporary stay was granted but was later rescinded and Herrera was executed.

Facts

In two separate but close-together incidents, two police officers were killed by a man that was later identified to be Herrera. Added to a handwritten letter that ostensibl admitted guilt and some circumstantial evidence, Herrera was convicted. There was an appeal right after the conviction that fell short and the conviction was upheld. A second habeas request was later issued as a last ditch effort to stop the execution.

Issue

The basis of the second habeas brief was that new evidence had surfaced and that executing Herrera would be a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Namely, this second appeal asserted that executing Herrera would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Holding

The court held that since Herrera had been tried and convicted in court proceedings that did not include a violation of Herrera's constitutional rights, the conviction was legitimate and thus should be upheld.

Reasoning

The court held, in a 6-3 vote, that while the concept and idea of not allowing an innocent man to be executed is not unworthy of consideration, the prior courts had found he was technically guilty and this was upheld on appeal. As such, the temporary stay of his appeal was taken off and he was eventually put to death.

Dissent

The dissent in the Herrera v. Collins case, voiced by Blackmun and concurred with by Stevens and Souter, asserted that just the possibility of an innocent person dying or serving jail time for a crime he/she did not commit was reason enough to allow for a new trial or further consideration. The dissent asserted that even if the constitutional muster of a conviction was passed, that an appeal based on new evidence should be allowed.