The U.S. Supreme Court did not give substance to the "ends of justice" inquiry until 1986 in Kuhlmann v. Wilson. The defendant in this case was arrested for the murder of a taxicab dispatcher. In order to elicit a confession, the police placed an informant in the defendant's cell. The defendant eventually admitted his participation in the murder to the informant. At trial, the defendant moved to have his admission suppressed, arguing that it was obtained in violation of his sixth amendment right to counsel. The trial court denied his motion and he was later convicted. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether a court had to consider the "ends of justice" in dismissing a successive or abusive habeas petition even though that language was deliberately taken out of the amended habeas statute. The defendant in Schlup v. Delo was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. After exhausting his appeals, the defendant filed a habeas petition in Federal district court alleging he was being held in violation of his constitutional rights because his attorney was ineffective at trial. This court decided against the defendant, and he appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority decision by the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished the "actual innocence" claim presented by the defendant. Federal statutory law dealing with successive and abusive habeas petitions is reviewed, and the development of the "actual innocence" doctrine is analyzed. The Schlup v. Delo decision is reviewed, with unresolved issues noted. 53 footnotes