Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986)

JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.

When a district court is confronted with the question whether the "ends of justice" would be served by entertaining a state prisoner’s petition for habeas corpus raising a claim that has been rejected on a prior federal petition for the same relief, one of the facts that may properly be considered is whether the petitioner has advanced a "colorable claim of innocence." But I agree with JUSTICE BRENNAN that this is not an essential element of every just disposition of a successive petition. More specifically, I believe that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in entertaining the petition in this case, although I would also conclude that this is one of those close cases in which the District Court could have properly decided that a second review of the same contention was not required, despite the intervening decision in United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980).

On the merits, I agree with the analysis in Part II of JUSTICE BRENNAN’s dissent. Accordingly, I also would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.