People v. Prante

Summary

The court held that Prante's successive postconviction due process claim was not cognizable because he did not allege that the State knowingly used false bite-mark testimony or failed to exercise diligence in discovering its falsity. It also held that the newly presented scientific evidence and related impeachment evidence did not make a colorable showing of actual innocence because substantial independent evidence would remain admissible and would not probably produce a different result. The court reversed the appellate court's ruling on the due process claim, affirmed its ruling on actual innocence, and remanded for consideration of three unresolved claims.