1.   A habeas court reviewing a claim of actual innocence does not write on a clean slate.

2.   Federal habeas courts, often reviewing the cold record as much as a decade after the initial determination, are in an inferior position to make this assessment.

3.   I would say, as the statute does, that habeas courts need not entertain successive or abusive petitions.

4.   In such a case, the habeas court may have to make some credibility assessments.

5.   Instead, they resolve mixed questions of law and fact and therefore warrant independent review by the federal habeas court.

6.   To the contrary, Schlup comes before the habeas court with a strong and in the vast majority of the cases conclusive presumption of guilt.

7.   Under Carrier, in contrast, the habeas court must consider what reasonable triers of fact are likely to do.

8.   Where the habeas court cannot say that an error resulted in harm, it seems particularly disrespectful to resolve doubts against the propriety of state court judgments.