![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Three weeks and one day ago was August 11, 2005. Suppose on that day you were fired from your job, after an investigation showed that you had stolen your employer's property.
Suppose, just suppose, that today you find out that there is independent evidence showing that the theft was committed by a coworker. You present it to your boss and he or she says...
"Too bad. It's too late. We don't care if you can prove you're innocent."
Suppose, just suppose, that your life was in the balance, not your job.
You would then be living in Virginia.
The penal code of the state of Virginia states that new evidence may not be introduced after twenty-one days after the recording of judgment against the defendant. Twenty-one days. Three weeks.
It doesn't matter what the evidence is: it could be a confession by another person, a witness recanting, evidence withheld by the police, a new forensic test which exonerates you, anything. It doesn't matter. And any state or federal habeas corpus petitions you file have to be based on constitutional claims, such as violations of the fourth amendment or ineffective assistance of counsel. New evidence of innocence is not admissable, or, in the words of William Rehnquist, "a claim of actual innocence is not in itself a constitutional claim."
Texas is only slightly less draconian: you get ninety days. Ninety days in which to discover all possible evidence that might not have been brought forth at trial which could prove you are innocent. In Florida, you get all of six months. (Except for DNA evidence: in Florida you have two years, to submit DNA evidence, provided you did not plead guilty. So, if your attorney talks you into pleading guilty, but the DNA evidence exonerates you, you're totally screwed.)
And it doesn't matter why the deadline was missed, either: your attorney screws up his calendaring? Too bad. Doesn't matter. You're as good as dead. And in Virginia, until recently, there was no requirement that the court preserve evidence after a conviction -- so they can destroy that pair of bloodstained scissors that was presented at the trial, to free up space in the evidence room . At least until the Supreme Court stayed the execution of Robin Lovitt in July, 2005. The Court stayed the execution without comment, so we will have to see what happens next.
And it's not just the Big Three that have such restrictions: fifteen states have shorter time limits than Florida. Eighteen more have limits between 1 and 3 years. Only nine have no limits on the introduction of new evidence. All of this matters because at this point the average time between conviction and relase for prisoners on death row is seven years.
There is a grim irony in all of this. Law and order types for years have been screaming about defendants walking free on "technicalities," such as gasp! violations of a defendant's Constitutional rights. They are perfectly willing to resort to technicalities not based on anything but a need for efficiency and "finality of judgment" and "closure" to kill people.
Because, of course, executing people who might be killers is so much more important than sparing people who might be innocent.
Suppose, just suppose, that today you find out that there is independent evidence showing that the theft was committed by a coworker. You present it to your boss and he or she says...
"Too bad. It's too late. We don't care if you can prove you're innocent."
Suppose, just suppose, that your life was in the balance, not your job.
You would then be living in Virginia.
The penal code of the state of Virginia states that new evidence may not be introduced after twenty-one days after the recording of judgment against the defendant. Twenty-one days. Three weeks.
It doesn't matter what the evidence is: it could be a confession by another person, a witness recanting, evidence withheld by the police, a new forensic test which exonerates you, anything. It doesn't matter. And any state or federal habeas corpus petitions you file have to be based on constitutional claims, such as violations of the fourth amendment or ineffective assistance of counsel. New evidence of innocence is not admissable, or, in the words of William Rehnquist, "a claim of actual innocence is not in itself a constitutional claim."
Texas is only slightly less draconian: you get ninety days. Ninety days in which to discover all possible evidence that might not have been brought forth at trial which could prove you are innocent. In Florida, you get all of six months. (Except for DNA evidence: in Florida you have two years, to submit DNA evidence, provided you did not plead guilty. So, if your attorney talks you into pleading guilty, but the DNA evidence exonerates you, you're totally screwed.)
And it doesn't matter why the deadline was missed, either: your attorney screws up his calendaring? Too bad. Doesn't matter. You're as good as dead. And in Virginia, until recently, there was no requirement that the court preserve evidence after a conviction -- so they can destroy that pair of bloodstained scissors that was presented at the trial, to free up space in the evidence room . At least until the Supreme Court stayed the execution of Robin Lovitt in July, 2005. The Court stayed the execution without comment, so we will have to see what happens next.
And it's not just the Big Three that have such restrictions: fifteen states have shorter time limits than Florida. Eighteen more have limits between 1 and 3 years. Only nine have no limits on the introduction of new evidence. All of this matters because at this point the average time between conviction and relase for prisoners on death row is seven years.
There is a grim irony in all of this. Law and order types for years have been screaming about defendants walking free on "technicalities," such as gasp! violations of a defendant's Constitutional rights. They are perfectly willing to resort to technicalities not based on anything but a need for efficiency and "finality of judgment" and "closure" to kill people.
Because, of course, executing people who might be killers is so much more important than sparing people who might be innocent.
Tags: