James A. Dellinger v. State of Tennessee

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a freestanding claim of actual innocence based on new scientific evidence is cognizable in an initial petition under the Tennessee Post-Conviction Procedure Act, reversing the Court of Criminal Appeals on that issue of first impression, but it affirmed the denial of relief because Dellinger's time-of-death expert evidence was a 'battle of the experts' that failed to satisfy his clear-and-convincing burden. The Court also held that the post-conviction trial court applied the correct burden of proof to the ineffective-assistance claims — clear and convincing proof of the factual allegations under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110(f), followed by the Strickland deficient-performance and prejudice inquiry — and concurrently amended Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28 section 8(D)(1) to eliminate any apparent inconsistency. Finally, the Court held that Dellinger was not denied effective assistance of counsel and affirmed the intermediate court's rejection of his Brady claim, his full-and-fair-hearing claim, and his constitutional challenges to the death penalty.