Carrie Sperling, When Finality and Innocence Collide, in CONTROVERSIES IN INNOCENCE CASES IN AMERICA 139 (Sarah Lucy Cooper, ed., 2014)
Abstract
The innocence movement in the United States focuses on wrongful convictions, where criminal defendants either pleaded guilty to a crime or were convicted but did not actually commit the crime. Because they claim innocence after the criminal justice system has deemed them guilty, they face different processes than before their guilt had been determined. These convicted defendants are no longer presumed innocent. It is in this unique setting that the claims of innocence collide with the notion of legal finality.
When criminal defendants have been afforded a trial and their cases has been decided on direct review, a presumption of finality attaches to the conviction and sentence. To re-open cases after a final decision would, some contend, foster a lack of confidence in the justice system. As Justice Harlan once wrote, "No one, not criminal defendants, not the judicial system, not society as a whole is benefited by a judgment providing a man shall tentatively go to jail today, but tomorrow and every day thereafter his continued incarceration shall be subject to fresh litigation." Thus, innocent defendants face a labyrinth of procedures designed to enforce this notion of finality. This chapter will identify the narrow cracks through which an innocent defendant must slip in order to obtain relief in the courts and will argue that the post-conviction procedures currently in place do not adequately protect the actually innocent defendant.
