Appeals Court “Re-defines” Due Diligence

Fairness and “Reasonableness” Questioned in Court’s Order

A three panel federal appeals court has ruled against the new and recanted testimony of a
jailhouse informer, ten years after the murder trial and conviction of Daniel Meehan, of Orange,
TX. Although the sworn Affidavit of informer Gary Harris was taken timely, and rightfully and
legally presented as new evidence, the Fifth Circuit has stated in an Order that “Meehan has
failed to show that the factual predicate for this claim ‘could not have been discovered
previously through the exercise of due diligence.”

The legal definition of “due diligence” states that: such diligence as a reasonable person under
the same circumstances would use: Use of reasonable but not necessarily exhaustive efforts -
reasonable care or attention to a matter, which is good enough to avoid a claim of negligence, or
is a fair attempt (as in due diligence in a process server's attempt to locate someone) - The effort
required to carry out a responsibility or to meet a standard of care.

Meehan says that he is sure that legal scholars would agree with him that the court is being
unreasonable. “There was no way of knowing until Gary Harris' timely Affidavit of June 2,
2008, that the prosecution got Harris to testify falsely,” reports Meehan’s Beaumont attorney
Bruce Cobb. “Also, Harris disclosed the conflict of interest with Meehan’s court appointed
attorney; we did not know she had previously represented Harris.”

What this ORDER implies is that the Fifth Circuit Judges’ re-definition of “due diligence “ must
mean that they would have wanted or expected Gary Wayne Harris to be forced in some way to
confess to his wrongdoing much sooner than now and to force Harris or Rogers to confess that
Meehan’s court appointed defense attorney, Rogers, had previously represented Harris.