Johnson v. Kiser
In brief
The Supreme Court declined review, leaving the Virginia court's judgment in place without deciding the actual-innocence question.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 26, 2020
- What it’s about
- Raheem Johnson asked the Supreme Court to review whether Virginia violated due process by requiring an indigent defendant to meet additional requirements before receiving a mental-health expert for the sentencing phase of his trial.
- Who it affects
- For Johnson, the Supreme Court of Virginia's judgment remains in place, and this case did not decide whether the exception can apply after a guilty plea.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court denied review, leaving the Virginia court’s judgment in place.
Johnson, a defendant who could not afford an expert, asked for a mental-health expert during the sentencing phase of his Virginia case. He argued that Virginia's added requirements for receiving that help violated due process.
The petition came from a Supreme Court of Virginia judgment involving expert help at sentencing and a federal filing-deadline question after a guilty plea.
Question presented
Whether the “actual innocence” exception to the statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus petitions, as recognized in McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), applies to a petitioner who pleaded guilty?
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished this docket action, leaving the Supreme Court of Virginia's judgment in place. The record shows no further step in this docket.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
More questions
- Did the Court decide Johnson's mental-health-expert challenge?
- No. The Court did not decide whether Virginia's requirements violated due process; its denial left the Supreme Court of Virginia's judgment in place.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.