From my reading, it appears that Virginia finds any new evidence of innocence discovered twenty one days after conviction inadmissable, even in death penalty cases. Can someone explain what the reasoning behind this is? Is this type of law in use elsewhere? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of such a rule in the UK.
My whole family is in Virginia and I have never ever heard of that rule. I can’t say for sure, but I think that I have heard of incarcerated persons in Virginia being exonerated…
Apparently, it’s been revoked. Although my question still stands - why so restrictive?
It was probably to prevent frivolous appeals? So, the convicted person couldn’t present one new piece of evidence, and then, when that appeal didn’t work, present a second, and so on. You’ll see the article that talks about it being repealed says that, in its place is the restriction that says that convicted felons are limited to filing one writ of innocence.
In general prosecutors want closed cases to remain closed. A Florida (I think it was) attorney general said that even if he was presented with absolute proof of a condemned man’s innocence, he would go ahead with the execution and would vigorously fight any attempt to free him. I think this is an extreme position that not very many other prosecutors would defend, it does illustrate how reluctant they are to reopen cases.
In my mind, you have to clearly distinguish evidence that might possibly suggest innocence from clearly exonarating evidence. I don’t think even a court made of 5 Thomases and 4 Scalias would exclude the latter.
In light of the discussion going on in the thread on the issue of double jeopardy, and the raising of the Paul William Powell case therein, it is good to see that Virginia understands finally that both sides should be able to use new evidence if it turns up in the future.
You may be thinking of Herrera Vs Collins.
I’m sure a lawyer will be along in a moment to give a detailed explaination of the case, but my understanding is as follows. Herrera appealed against his pending execution on constitutional grounds, claiming that he was innocent. The Federal Habeas Court refused to consider his claim of innocence. The grounds were that they only had the power to consider constitutional issues, and innocence is not a constitutional matter. Even if given 100% conclusive proof of innocence, they would not have the power to stop the execution
Some information here, if you can understand the legalese : http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZS.html