Advocate for the release and / or exoneration of individuals whose cases present meritorious innocence claims based on
evidence of actual innocence;
Courts have authority to consider new
evidence of actual innocence without regard to the statutory one - year limitation period for newly discovered evidence, and that the standard for granting a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence should not be a strict «outcome - determinative» test, at least where the state relied at trial upon facts that turned out to be false.
Statutes of limitations, limiting the time in which a prisoner can seek a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, can not limit courts» ability to consider new
evidence of actual innocence.
When
evidence of actual innocence is uncovered later on, courts may find technicalities to refuse to consider it; to refuse to consider the truth that a mistake was made.
Not exact matches
Unless the pardoner presents strong
evidence for the pardonee's
actual innocence, a pardon tends to convict the recipient in the court
of public opinion.
If, however, you were convicted, and the Court found that you knew that the victim hadn't died at the time
of trial, but you did not raise the fact that the victim wasn't dead, it isn't clear if you could have the original conviction vacated because it was a fair trial and you knew
evidence sufficient to get yourself acquitted (which you may have refrained from presenting to avoid conviction on a lesser charge like kidnapping or aggravated assault), and the status
of an «
actual innocence» grounds for vacating a conviction after trial is hotly disputed, conservatives like the late Justice Scalia generally say «no», liberals generally say «yes», moderates like to say «yes» but make it almost impossible to establish except in rare cases like one where a live person walks in when there was a murder conviction for killing that actually living person.
From that we can conclude that there were other grounds that the majority did not agree with: they presumably concluded that there was not sufficient
evidence to sustain a conviction, but also not enough enough
evidence to support a declaration
of actual innocence.
Post-conviction petitioners, who can establish their
actual innocence through newly - discovered
evidence of any type, are entitled to seek relief.
Relevant exculpatory DNA
evidence can satisfy the Schlup v. Delo
actual Innocence gateway standard for permitting habeas review
of otherwise procedurally defaulted claims.
Instead, according to the Colorado Supreme Court, criminal defendants seeking a return
of funds paid in conjunction with a later - vacated conviction must bring a separate civil suit under a Colorado statute — the Exoneration Act — in which, among other burdens, plaintiffs apparently have to prove their
actual innocence by clear and convincing
evidence in order to recover.