I’m sorry, what?
U.S. District Court Judge Keith Ellison:
Federal law does not recognize actual innocence as a mechanism to overturn an otherwise valid conviction.
The judge denied a motion for a new trial.
14 Responses to “I’m sorry, what?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 13th, 2012 at 10:47 am
That is truly amazing.
March 13th, 2012 at 10:48 am
Federal law does recognize actual innocence, for a long time now, but the burden is on the prisoner and it’s pretty heavy. Allegations are not enough, proof is needed, and ineffective assistance of counsel no way cuts it.
I don’t trust that blogpost for giving the whole story, even though I’m supposed to believe everything I read on the internet.
March 13th, 2012 at 10:48 am
It’s true. You can’t come back on appeal and say, “the jury got it wrong.” You have to come back with some new evidence that the jury didn’t get to see.
There’s not much justice left in the justice system.
March 13th, 2012 at 10:56 am
You can come back on appeal and say the jury got it wrong. It’s after all your appeals have all been turned down that you go into collateral (habeas corpus/post-conviction) proceedings where you are suing the government for wrongfully imprisoning you or executing you and you are the prosecutor and have to prove your case. Which is the case here.
March 13th, 2012 at 11:05 am
Its a legal system, not a justice system.
March 13th, 2012 at 11:06 am
What nk says.
March 13th, 2012 at 11:26 am
A better illustration of the fact that the U.S. has a “legal system” rather than a “justice system” has not been found.
Aaaand Mike beat me to it.
March 13th, 2012 at 11:41 am
I defended death penalty cases and my worst result was 80 years for a double murder with kidnapping, rape and sodomy.
I never worked with crusaders because they were a hindrance without a clue about the laws and would destroy our credibility before the court.
March 13th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Like it or not, the justice system is based on thousands’ of years of experience and not on adolescent ideals.
March 13th, 2012 at 11:57 am
Remember the mantra of the legal system: “It’s better to be consistent than to be right.”
March 13th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
@nk: So innocence is an adolescent ideal? Spoken like a true lawyer.
March 13th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
nk, just saying “Federal law does recognize actual innocence, for a long time now,” doesn’t make it so. Who are we to believe, a pseudonymous commenter or the federal judge quoted who presumably studied the law and heard arguments on the subject? Antonin Scalia has said that the Constitution doesn’t prohibit executing an innocent person, but perhaps you know the case law better than him.
March 13th, 2012 at 8:11 pm
If you’re referring to In re Davis, Scalia was dissenting, along with Thomas, from the majority opinion which had remanded the case to the district court for a trial on “actual innocence” and his dissent was based on what he considered the limitations placed on habeas corpus relief by the Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Act.
March 13th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Because Article III of the Constitution gives plenary power to Congress over the jurisdiction of the federal courts, federal habeas is both a maze and a very steep uphill battle for a prisoner. We saw that better with the Guantanamo cases than the death penalty cases.
But Barry Sheck’s Innocence Project (and Northwestern University Law School here in my hometown) has taken a lot of people out of death row and/or prison.