DISCLAIMER: Any unofficial case summaries below are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
163699P.pdf 01/23/2018 Keith Baranski v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 16-3699
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges]
Criminal case - Criminal law. For the court's prior opinions in the
matter, see U.S.v. Baranski, 75 F. App's 566 (8th Cir. 2003) and Baranski
v. U.S. 515 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2008). In this petition for a writ of error
coram nobis, Baranski alleged various acts of government misconduct at his
trial. Held: a coram nobis petitioner whose motion for Section 2255 relief
was denied while he was in custody does not have to obtain authorization
from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals in accordance with
Section 2244(b)(3)(B) before filing his writ petition; AEDPA's
restrictions on the grant of successive relief set forth in Section
2255(h)(1) and (2) limit the grant of coram nobis relief to a petitioner
whose motion for Section 2255 relief was denied while he was still in
custody. In order to be entitled to relief, Baranski must present newly
discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as
a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence
that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the
offense; here the district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that there was no fundamental error warranting issuance of the
writ.