In the case Herrera v. Collins, the defendant petitioned for habeas relief claiming new evidence showed he was innocent. Unfortunately, Texas law has a thirty day deadline (after initial sentencing) for filing an appeal based upon new evidence. After that month, you're out of luck. The Supreme Court denied Herrera's claim and upheld Texas law. They wrote "Federal habeas courts do not sit to correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution."
This is usually interpreted to mean that it is not unconstitutional to put an innocent man to death so long as he has received a fair trial.
Re:Well ...
Ovid on 2004-01-28T04:44:06
You're interpretation of habeas corpus is perfectly correct. However, it creates a curious dilemma in this case. The court ruled that the presumption of innocence is removed once a person is found guilty. At that point, the burden is no longer on the prosecution to "reprove" that someone is guilty, but rather it's on the defendant to prove that he or she is innocent.
So far, everything seems perfectly reasonable to me. However, we now have a curious facet of Texas law. Because defendants are only allowed 30 days with which to find new evidence, the defendant could theoretically find a videotape of the real killer, have him confess and obtain DNA evidence to exonerate the defendant, only to be denied the chance to prove their innocence because they were a day late. So what recourse does Herrera have? Here's what the Supreme Court has to say.
Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual innocence claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas law, which contains specific guidelines for pardons on the ground of innocence. History shows that executive clemency is the traditional "fail safe" remedy for claims of innocence based on new evidence, discovered too late in the day to file a new trial motion.Now, instead of a judicial avenue to pursue claims, the life or death of someone hangs in the balance of an elected official and puts a sitting governor in Texas in an awkward spot. An elected official fearing to be perceived as "soft on crime" should not be put into the awful position of allowing someone to die lest they lose votes. Given that Texas governor's are not exactly known for granting clemency, even in cases which generate international outcry, for the Supreme Court to leave this as the only recourse is tantamount to a death sentence.
But rather than read this, consider this paragraph from the dissent authored by Blackmun:
This Court has ruled that punishment is excessive and unconstitutional if it is "nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering," or if it is "grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime." Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 592 (1977) (plurality opinion); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 173 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). It has held that death is an excessive punishment for rape, Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S., at 592, and for mere participation in a robbery during which a killing takes place. Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 797 (1982). If it is violative of the Eighth Amendment to execute someone who is guilty of those crimes, then it plainly is violative of the Eighth Amendment to execute a person who is actually innocent. Executing an innocent person epitomizes "the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering." Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S., at 592.Thus, by the logic of Blackmun and the Supreme Court justices who agreed with the dissent, a habeas proceeding has every right to consider whether the Texas law is unconstitutional when it prohibits someone from demonstrating their innocence.
Reading the rest of the dissent is interesting.
Re:Well ...
pudge on 2004-01-28T15:59:32
I agree it is troubling, but I cannot fathom the chaos that would ensue if federal courts started evaluating evidence that state courts would not accept, to determine if there is a Constitutional violation. Defense attorneys would kill for this to become law, because they'd never be out of work ever again.
Similarly, SCOTUS overturning the Texas law here -- that disallows new evidence after 30 days -- is a pretty scary proposition. On what grounds? Is the law itself really unconstitutional? I'd be loathe to assert it.
The quote from Blackmun is, to me, unpersuasive. Yes, it is violative of the 8th to execute someone who is innocent, but he is not innocent, according to the law. However, he does bring up a good point, because this is a capital case, and in most states it has become the norm for the state to go above and beyond normal burdens of proof, to the point of the state essentially needing to retry the case (via a string of mandatory appeals).
Apparently he had run out of appeals, but I think it could be argued it is violative of the princples in place to ensure the integrity of a death sentence to not consider evidence, even up until the end. However, I believe this argument should be argued in the state, not federal court, as these protections are not federal (unless you could somehow shoehorn it into an equal protection claim).
The bottom line is I think this is an issue for the state to deal with. I do not believe that federal protections of a fair trial should extend past the trial itself: once the trial is over, it is up to the state to deal with it. I don't really see a viable alternative, apart from federal-mandated rules that would way overstep the federal government's authority and create havoc in the judicial system.
Re:Well ...
Ovid on 2004-01-28T17:06:03
The problem here is that the introduction of evidence could not be argued at the state level because Texas law forbids state courts to consider the evidence. It was because of that law that Herrera was forced to appeal to a District Court. However, I think there are valid concerns about denying a federal role in considering a fair trial.
Federal judges, barring impeachment and subsequent removal from office, hold their positions for life. Theoretically, this frees them from political pressures. State judges, on the other hand, are subject to political pressure and thus have the conflict that issuing legally correct rulings may cost them their jobs.
Re:Well ...
pudge on 2004-01-28T20:34:53
State judges, on the other hand, are subject to political pressure and thus have the conflict that issuing legally correct rulings may cost them their jobs.
But that is not an issue for the federal court to consider, unless the federal government is prepared to mandate how judges must be selected by the states, which isn't going to happen any time soon.Re:Well ...
chromatic on 2004-02-03T00:11:12
Defense attorneys would kill for this to become law, because they'd never be out of work ever again.That's one way to increase your customer base. (Emphasis mine.)
