New evidence in innocence claims
Johnson v. William "Chris" Rankins
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Raymond Johnson’s case against Warden William “Chris” Rankins comes from the Tenth Circuit. The specific legal dispute and the Supreme Court’s action are not identified.
- What's at stake
- Johnson has no Supreme Court ruling on either question; the Court has yet to decide whether to review them.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
A petition asks the Supreme Court to take a case; the Court must separately agree to hear it.
Question presented
1. WHETHER A FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 201(c) (2)-WHEN SUPPLIED WITH THE NECESSARY INFORMATION — IT DENIES A PROPERLY FILED REQUEST FOR IT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACT OF A PETITIONER ’ S EVIDENCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PLANTING EVIDENCE AT CRIME SCENE? 2. WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT DISMISSES A HABEAS PETITION CONTRARY TO HOUSE AND MCQUIGGIN WHEN IT FAILS TO ASSESS HOW A REASONABLE JURY WOULD REACT TO AN OVERALL, NEWLY SUPPLEMENTED RECORD-WHEN PETITIONER SEEKS TO SUPPLEMENT WITH EVIDENCE NOT HEARD AT TRIAL?
What happens next
The next step is the Court's decision on whether to hear the case. No argument date or later decision timetable is available.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What evidence does Johnson say the appeals court should recognize?
- His petition says law enforcement planted evidence at the crime scene.
- What new evidence does Johnson say the court should consider?
- He argues the court should assess how a reasonable jury would react to added evidence that was not heard at trial.
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.