After the federal district court denied relief, Amrine sought habeas relief from the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing that application of the manifest injustice standard to his actual innocence claim entitled him to habeas relief despite having had a constitutionally adequate trial and sentencing.
Freestanding Claim of Actual Innocence: The Missouri Supreme Court held that state law did allow for habeas relief on a freestanding claim of actual innocence when sufficient evidence is produced to undermine confidence in the underlying judgment that resulted in a death sentence. In doing so, the court interpreted the state’s death penalty statute, which charges the court to determine both the sufficiency and the strength of the evidence, as providing a judicial recourse to an individual with sufficient evidence of innocence even after the time for appeals has passed. 102 S.W. 3d at 547. Further, the court distinguished the appropriate clear and convincing burden of proof from the higher standard used in federal courts as well as the lower “more likely than not” standard governing gateway claims of innocence. In assessing the conviction in light of all the evidence now available, the court observed additional evidence of innocence in the case, including: a correction officer identifing a different inmate as the killer, six inmates testifying that Amrine was playing cards in a different part of the room, and no physical evidence linking Amrine to the murder. Therefore, Amrine’s conviction was “based solely on the testimony of three fellow inmates, each of whom have now completely recanted their trial testimony,” creating “the rare circumstance in which no credible evidence remains from the first trial to support the conviction.” 102 S.W.3d at 548. The court held this to constitute a manifest injustice requiring his conviction and sentence to be set aside.
Amrine was ordered to be released or given a new trial. The State did not file new charges, and Amrine was released in 2003.