Because the habeas petitioner did not claim that she did not, in fact, commit the crime for which she was convicted, her contention that the evidence upon which her conviction was based was obtained in violation of her constitutional rights was of no moment and could not, as a matter of law, support a claim of actual innocence. Priscilla Dickman's husband was appointed conservator of the estate and person of his brother, injured in a motor vehicle accident. Allstate Insurance Company would not speak with Dickman about the related insurance claim without proof of her authority to speak for her brother-in-law. She sent Allstate a facsimile of a probate court form she allegedly altered, including by adding her name to the box entitled "fiduciary."  Following a jury trial, Dickman was convicted of forgery in the third degree. She pursued a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming actual innocence. She based her claim upon allegations and proof that the state did not learn of her commission of forgery, and, thus, could not have convicted her of that offense, without conducting an unwarranted, unconsented to search of her computer files at the University of Connecticut Health Center where she worked, in violation of the state's own procedures for accessing such files and her right against unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The court denied her habeas petition but granted certification to appeal. Dickman appealed, claiming that the court erred in rejecting her search and seizure claim and in concluding that such a claim could not serve as a viable basis for an actual innocence claim. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the challenge to the search could not establish the claim of actual innocence as a matter of law. The petitioner presented no evidence of factual innocence. She admitted to engaging in the conduct upon which her conviction was based. Because she did not claim that she did not, in fact, commit the crime for which she was convicted, her contention that the evidence upon which her conviction was based was obtained in violation of her constitutional rights was of no moment and could not, as a matter of law, support a claim of actual innocence.

VIEW FULL CASE