Post conviction

Last updated

In law, post conviction refers to the legal process which takes place after a trial results in conviction of the defendant. After conviction, a court will proceed with sentencing the guilty party. In the American criminal justice system, once a defendant has received a guilty verdict, he or she can then challenge a conviction or sentence. This takes place through different legal actions, known as filing an appeal or a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The goal of these proceedings is exoneration, or proving a convicted person innocent. If lacking representation, the defendant may consult or hire an attorney to exercise his or her legal rights. [1]

Contents

The post-conviction process is in place to protect innocent individuals from inherent human error in the criminal justice system. One study cites 10,000 innocent people are convicted each year in the United States. [2]

Criminal appeals

The appeals process is the request for a formal change of a decision made by a court of law. The litigant who files the appeal is known as the "appellant". A successful appeal must demonstrate to a higher court that the trial court made a decision affected by legal error. The appellate procedure in the United States takes place in appellate court, and that court normally makes its judgment based only on the record of the original case. The appellant generally submits a document of legal arguments called a "brief", a written attempt to persuade the judges of appellate court that the decision of the trial court should be reversed. If selected for an "oral argument", appellants may present a short spoken argument to the court. No additional pieces of evidence or witnesses are considered.

The ruling made by the appellate court is usually final. [3] The decision of the appellate court generally affirms the original decision of the trial court. However, 10–20% of civil and criminal appeals are successful in reversing the decision of the original trial. [4] If the appeals process is unsuccessful, a convicted person may pursue other options, depending upon the severity of his or her sentence and the crime committed.

Writs

Writs are directives from a higher court to a lower court or government official, and are only issued when the one seeking the writ (the moving party) has no other options. [5] Most states in the United States allow convicted parties to file several specific writs (legal actions). These writs require that the detainee be considered by a judge or court, and are in place to prevent unconstitutional imprisonment.

Habeas Corpus

Also known as the "great writ' Habeas Corpus writs are most common. Many countries, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Canada have adopted the practice from English common law. [6] [7] [8] [9] Habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official which orders that an inmate be brought to trial to determine whether the imprisonment is lawful and if it should continue. Typically, an inmate will argue that his imprisonment is unconstitutional. While habeas corpus can be filed in state or federal court, all state avenues must be exhausted first.

In the United States federal court system the writ of habeas corpus is used most frequently to review state court convictions. Federal statutes (28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2256) outline the procedural aspects of federal habeas corpus proceedings. [10] Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States may use the certiorari writ to review United States Courts of Appeals cases or cases from state courts. Error coram nobis is another writ issued only rarely at the federal level in cases of federal criminal convictions when "no other remedy is available". [11] This process is similar to the state writ process, though inmates must consume all state appeals and writ options before moving forward. This is an important part of the legal strategy, especially for those inmates who have legitimate claims.

Capital cases

Cases that involve the death penalty are especially significant in the post conviction stage. These inmates will often file numerous appeals to courts at every level. In these unique cases, inmates can file an appeal which could potentially be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. The court has the ability to stay the execution if some legal flaw in the original trial comes to light. The Court does not often exercise this power, though several individuals from around the world sentenced with capital punishment have been exonerated in the past thirty years.

Inmates in this position can also file for clemency or pardon. Practices vary from state to state, but the clemency process usually requires the governor or board of advisors or both. Since 1976 273 death row inmates have been granted clemency for humanitarian reasons. These include doubts about the petitioner's guilt or a governor's personal stance on capital punishment. [12]

Innocence work

Overturning a conviction after dozens of appeals and petitions have been denied is notoriously difficult, though prisoners have some options at their disposal. They can still attain freedom if legitimate innocence can be proven. The most common method is by using DNA evidence to disprove a crime that happened before DNA testing was a viable option. [13] The Innocence Project, founded to exonerate those convicted wrongfully, has found more than 300 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the history of the United States. [14] Attorneys can file a motion to introduce strong new evidence to the courts. Other common innocence efforts center on victim recantations if applicable. [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Appellate procedure in the United States</span> National rules of court appeals

United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.

<i>Harvey v. Horan</i>

Harvey v. Horan, 278 F. 3d 370 is a federal court case dealing with felons' rights of access to DNA testing. The Eastern Virginia District Court originally found that felons were entitled access to DNA testing on potentially exculpatory evidence, but this finding was later overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, the case paved the way for the Innocence Protection Act, which ensures that convicted offenders can try to prove their innocence by requesting DNA testing on evidence in government's possession that was used in their case.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by 6 votes to 3 that a claim of actual innocence does not entitle a petitioner to federal habeas corpus relief by way of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Napoleon Beazley was a convicted murderer executed by lethal injection by the State of Texas for the murder of 63-year-old businessman John Luttig in 1994.

Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals</span> United States Article I court

In the United States military, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) is an appellate court that reviews certain court martial convictions of Army personnel.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Ellis Wayne Felker was an American convicted and executed in 1996 in Georgia for the 1981 murder of Evelyn Joy Ludlam, a young woman who was working as a waitress while she attended college.

Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 (1975), is a U.S. Supreme Court case which held that when state law permits a defendant to plead guilty without giving up his right to judicial review of specified constitutional issues, such as the lawfulness of a search or the voluntariness of a confession, the defendant is not prevented from pursuing those constitutional claims in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.

District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the Constitution's due process clause does not require states to turn over DNA evidence to a party seeking a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (1894), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the appellant, John McKane, had no federal constitutional right to an appeal. They held that state courts had the right to grant appellate review at their discretion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Innocence Project</span> American legal non-profit founded 1999

The California Innocence Project is a non-profit based at California Western School of Law in San Diego, California, United States, which provides pro bono legal services to individuals who maintain their factual innocence of crime(s) for which they have been convicted. It is an independent chapter of the Innocence Project. Its mission is to exonerate wrongly convicted inmates through the use of DNA and other evidences.

Brendan Ray Dassey is an American convicted murderer from Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, who at 16 confessed to being a party to first-degree murder, mutilation of a corpse, and second-degree sexual assault. He was sentenced to life in prison with the earliest possibility of parole in 2048. His videotaped interrogation and confession, which he recanted at trial, substantially contributed to his conviction. Parts were shown in the Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer (2015). The series examined the 2005–2007 investigation, prosecution, and trials of Dassey and his uncle, Steven Avery, both of whom were convicted of murdering the photographer Teresa Halbach on October 31, 2005.

Fundamental error is a legal term provided by United States Courts to describe an error which occurs whenever a judgement violates a federal fundamental right. In United States constitutional law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as "fundamental" by the U.S. Supreme Court. State courts within the United States may define fundamental error rules independently of the federal courts. State fundamental error rules may include errors which violate rights in additional to those rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but these rules may not infringe upon federal fundamental rights. Any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.

United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which provides the writ of coram nobis as the proper application to request federal post-conviction judicial review for those who have completed the conviction's incarceration in order to challenge the validity of a federal criminal conviction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alissa Bjerkhoel</span> American wrongful conviction advocate

Alissa Leanne Bjerkhoel is an American litigation coordinator at the California Innocence Project (CIP), a law school clinic that investigates cases of factual innocence while training law students. Bjerkhoel was born in Truckee, California, and later graduated from California Western School of Law (CWSL) after previously obtaining a B.A. degree She has been an attorney with CIP since 2008. Bjerkhoel has served as counsel for CIP on numerous criminal cases, and achieved the legal exoneration of a number of convicted prisoners. Bjerkhoel serves as CIP's in-house DNA expert and also serves as a panel attorney with the nonprofit law firms Appellate Defenders, Inc. (ADI) and Sixth District Appellate Program (SDAP). She is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Bjerkhoel has won a number of awards.

Steven A. Drizin is an American lawyer and academic. He is a Clinical Professor of Law at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, where he has been on the faculty since 1991. At Northwestern, Drizin teaches courses on Wrongful Convictions and Juvenile Justice. He has written extensively on the topics of police interrogations and false confessions. Among the general public, Drizin is known for his ongoing representation of Brendan Dassey, one of the protagonists in the Netflix documentary series, Making a Murderer.

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case which considered whether criminal defendants ever have a right to the effective assistance of counsel in collateral state post-conviction proceedings. The Court held that a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel if there was no counsel or ineffective counsel in an initial-review collateral proceeding.

References

  1. "Crime Victims' Rights in the Post-Conviction Process". Oregon Department of Justice. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  2. Huff, Ronald C. "10,000 Innocent People Convicted Each Year, Study Estimates". Ohio State University. Archived from the original on 17 February 2012.
  3. "The Appeals Process". US Courts. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  4. "Appeals Court Case Statistics FY2008-2012". Massachusetts Appeals Court. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  5. "The Appeal, Writ and Habeas Corpus Petition Process". Findlaw. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  6. Clarke, Stephen (March 2009). "Habeas Corpus Rights: Canada". Library of Congress. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
  7. bin Ahmad, Abd Shukor (2013). The Remedy of Habeas Corpus in Malaysia. International Islamic University Malaysia.
  8. Clark, David; McCoy, Gerald (2000). Habeas Corpus: Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific. Federation Press. ISBN   9781862873025.
  9. Turley, Jonathan. "Habeas Corpus". Heritage Foundation. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
  10. "Habeas Corpus". Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  11. "Definition of Writ" . Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  12. "Clemency". Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  13. "Understanding DNA Evidence: A Guide for Victim Service Providers". U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  14. "Innocence Project Case Profiles". Innocence Project. Archived from the original on 18 December 2013. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  15. Lupel, Warren (1986). "Recanted Testimony: Procedural Alternatives for Relief from Wrongful Imprisonment". DePaul Law Review. 35 (2): 477. Retrieved 15 December 2017.

Further reading