302 F.3d 1182, 1186 n. 1 (10th Cir.2002) (finding that the actual innocence exception did not apply to petitioner’s claim that he is legally innocent because his conduct was justified by the doctrine of self-defense, on which the jury was not accurately instructed); Beavers v. Saffle, 216 F.3d 918, 923 (10th Cir.2000) (rejecting as arguments going to legal innocence petitioner’s claim that he was not guilty of first degree murder because he was intoxicated and acted in self-defense); Jones v. Hanks, 1997 WL 355515, at *2 (7th Cir. June 24, 1997) (unpublished opinion) (finding that petitioner’s assertion that he was innocent because his conviction was based on erroneous jury instructions merely raised a claim of legal innocence); Williams v. Delo, 82 F.3d 781, 784 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Canaan v. Davis, 2003 WL 118003, at *30
holding that petitioners challenge to jury instructions did not demonstrate his actual innocence because it rested upon asserted legal error holding that a codefendants sentence is not relevant to an appellants guilt innocence or punishment holding that police officer is not required to explore and eliminate all theoretically plausible claims of innocence holding that petitioners challenge to jury instructions in light of some new cases did not demonstrate his actual innocence because petitioner only asserts legal innocence not actual innocence holding petitioner must establish factual innocence in order to show fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from application of procedural default