Unfortunately, many judges and district attorneys do not view innocence as being relevant in handing down or upholding prison sentences or even executions. Read the views expressed by Supreme Court justices in the High Court's ruling granting Troy Davis a post-conviction hearing before a Georgia federal judge on August 17, 2009. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Davis would be granted a new trial-by-jury.
*******
“'The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing,' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.
But Antonin Scalia, joined in the minority by Clarence Thomas, was unconvinced and unmoved.
'This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.'”
Scalia’s fellow justices noted that his position allows no legal avenue for even an obviously innocent person to have his or her case heard.
*******
There are judges and prosecutors across the country who feel it is perfectly acceptable to imprison and even execute innocent people as long as the accused parties had their day in court. They entirely miss the point that the judicial process is intended to discover the truth of a matter and bring justice. Justice is never served by ignoring evidence of a convicted person's innocence because it arrived late or because reversing a wrongful conviction would be inconvenient to a prosecutor's career, costly to prison profiteers, or burdensome to the court process.
*******
“'The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing,' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.
But Antonin Scalia, joined in the minority by Clarence Thomas, was unconvinced and unmoved.
'This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.'”
Scalia’s fellow justices noted that his position allows no legal avenue for even an obviously innocent person to have his or her case heard.
*******
It is good that some Supreme Court justices have qualms about imprisoning and executing people who are "actually innocent" without a post-conviction hearing during which the inmate may present credible evidence of actual innocence.
There are judges and prosecutors across the country who feel it is perfectly acceptable to imprison and even execute innocent people as long as the accused parties had their day in court. They entirely miss the point that the judicial process is intended to discover the truth of a matter and bring justice. Justice is never served by ignoring evidence of a convicted person's innocence because it arrived late or because reversing a wrongful conviction would be inconvenient to a prosecutor's career, costly to prison profiteers, or burdensome to the court process.
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling may help many inmates who are beyond the deadline for filing a petition for habeas corpus. "A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody" (Cornell Univ. Law School).
Wikipedia reports, "In 1996, following the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress passed (91–8–1 in the Senate, 293–133–7 in the House) and President Clinton signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA was intended to "deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes." The AEDPA introduced one of the few limitations on habeas corpus. For the first time, its Section 101 set a statute of limitations of one year following conviction for prisoners to seek the writ. The Act limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of the claim has resulted in a decision that
~Is contrary to, or has involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
~Has resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.
It generally, but not absolutely, barred second or successive petitions, with several exceptions. Petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were required first to secure authorization from the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, to ensure that such an exception was at least facially made out."
~Is contrary to, or has involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
~Has resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.
It generally, but not absolutely, barred second or successive petitions, with several exceptions. Petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were required first to secure authorization from the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, to ensure that such an exception was at least facially made out."
Read about the U.S. Supreme Court delivering this legal victory to the American People at the Washington Post article, "Supreme Court Gives Inmates More Leeway to Challenge Convictions," dated May 28, 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-gives-inmates-more-leeway-to-challenge-convictions/2013/05/28/f144e6a0-c7aa-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-gives-inmates-more-leeway-to-challenge-convictions/2013/05/28/f144e6a0-c7aa-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html
The time ALWAYS right time to do the right thing. ~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
so this means that the Habeas Corpus I filed in October 2012 can be revived that was dismissed as being untimely when I amended to it a month later?
ReplyDelete