Omar Sitto v. Blaine C. Lafler

06-2203United States Court Of Appeals For The 6th Circuit28 de mai. de 2008

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0299n.06
Filed: May 28, 2008
No. 06-2203
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
OMAR SITTO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BLAINE C. LAFLER,
Respondent-Appellee.
/
On appeal from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan
BEFORE: RYAN, SILER, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
RYAN, Circuit Judge. The petitioner, Omar Sitto, was convicted in a Michigan
court of a drug conspiracy offense. His state court efforts to have his conviction set aside
were not successful. He then sought federal habeas relief in the district court under 28
U.S.C. § 2254, again without success. He now appeals the district court’s judgment,
arguing that the Michigan state courts deprived him of his right to due process by refusing
to conduct an evidentiary hearing or grant a new trial based on his claim of newly
discovered evidence; that he is actually innocent; and that the prosecutor’s conduct denied
him a fair trial. We affirm the district court’s judgment.
I.
The district court correctly concluded that the Michigan courts did not violate Sitto’s
federal due process right by refusing to grant a hearing on his claim that newly discovered

-- 1 of 2 --

(No. 06-2203) - 2 -
evidence showed that a key witness perjured himself at trial; that Sitto has not shown that
he is actually innocent; and that the prosecutor’s conduct did not deny him a fair trial.
In a comprehensive and well-written opinion, the district court judge, the Honorable
David M. Lawson, set forth in detail the reasons why Sitto’s claims are without merit. We
agree with the district court’s reasoning and conclusion and we add only that we continue
to adhere to the rule that a free-standing innocence claim is not cognizable for habeas
review. Cress v. Palmer, 484 F.3d 844, 854 (6th Cir. 2007).
II.
We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated in its
opinion denying Sitto’s habeas petition. See Sitto v. Bock, No. 00-10267-BC, 2006 WL
2559765 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2006).

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.