amna: Amid the flurry of supreme
court rulings late last month,
the justices also handed down a
decision on what seemed to be a
rather technical question of law
around federal habeas petitions,
a fundamental right that
protects against unlawful and
indefinite imprisonment.
But as John yang reports, the
decision has big consequences
for federal prisoners trying to
challenge their convictions.
John: Amna, the case involved a
man who was convicted in 2000 of
having guns, despite being a
felon, a violation of federal
law.
He was sentenced to more than 27
years in prison.
But nearly two decades later,
the supreme court changed the
interpretation of the law used
to convict him.
Under the new interpretation, he
would be innocent.
And on those grounds, he went to
court to have his conviction
thrown out.
But in a 6-3 decision that fell
along ideological lines, the
court said he couldn't appeal,
because he'd already challenged
his conviction once before.
Daniel medwed is a professor at
northeastern university school
of law and the author of
"Barred: Why the innocent can't
get out of prison."
What does this do for people
like Mr. Jones in this case,
people like him who want to have
their convictions reviewed?
Prof. Medwed: In a sense, this
slams the door on people trying
to raise claims of legal
innocence, that they can prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
after they have filed a
petition.
This relates to federal habeas
corpus which is one of the
potentially greatest
postconviction remedies we have
in our country.
But the supreme court has
gradually whittled away that as
a tool for justice.
John: You mentioned justice
Jackson.
Another line in her dissent, she
called trying to get a review,
an appeal in the federal court,
aimless and chaotic exercise in
futility.
Artificial barriers, arbitrary
dead ends, and traps for the
unwary.
How did we get here?
Prof. Medwed: We got here over a
series of twists and turns that
were charted both by the supreme
court and by congress.
There was a 1993 case called
Herrera versus Collins in which
the supreme court said a claim
of actual innocence by itself
won't be recognized in one of
these habeas corpus
petitions.
In 1996, congress changed the
law governing these habeas
corpus procedures to make it
very difficult to get into
court.
There are strict statutes of
limitations, restrictions on
when you can file second or
successive visions and other
owners procedural barriers.
This case is part of a
multi-decade trend towards
narrowing the federal habeas
corpus remedy.
John: Is this something the
court is doing or worthy laws
written to be hard for prisoners
to get out of prison?
Prof. Medwed: If I were to
allocate claim I could go to
court and congress but mainly it
lies at the feet of congress.
John: In this decision, Clarence
Thomas he wrote the majority
decision, said congress had
chosen finality over error
correction.
What do you think of that?
Prof. Medwed: I think it is an
interesting issue.
On the one hand, finality is
often highlighted as a variable,
or as a factor in terms of
curtailing postconviction
remedies.
The idea is that at some point
litigation should be final, or
else victims will not have
closure and the litigation
system will not have the
capacity to absorb new cases.
But on the other hand, I think
finality is often a fallacy.
What good is finality if there
is an underlying question of
legal or factual innocence?
That is a problem.
I think accuracy is more
important than finality.
And sometimes that means we
should take a closer look, maybe
a second look at a meritorious
claim.
John: People who were wrongly
convicted who are innocent and
can prove their innocence, I
think we all have the image from
movies or television that
someone rushes into a court and
said this man is innocent and is
released.
But why is it so hard to correct
a wrongful conviction?
Prof. Medwed: A wonderful and
important question.
A couple thoughts.
First of all there is a
misimpression that biological
evidence, scientific evidence is
available in all of these cases
and if you could just find it
intestate after your conviction,
while, the prison Gates will
open.
That is not true.
Biological evidence suitable for
DNA testing is estimated to be
available in only 10% to 20% of
criminal cases to begin with.
And it assumes it is retrieved
at the crime scene and
adequately stored.
Second, even without scientific
evidence, it is incredibly hard
to reverse a conviction because
after a conviction, the
presumption of innocence
disappears.
A presumption of guilt takes
hold.
And all of the procedures are
stacked in favor of reinforcing
and supporting that finding of
guilt.
It is so hard not only to find
new evidence, but once you have
found it, you have to overcome
an array of procedural obstacles
just to get into court.
John: Daniel medwed from the
northeastern university school
of law, thank you very much.
Prof. Medwed: Thank you so much,
John.
♪♪