B.2(y). Wrongful Conviction Review

When new evidence likely would have changed a verdict resulting in a conviction and incarceration, any official possessing it must notify the court. The court must review; if confidence in the verdict is undermined, the Person shall be released, the conviction vacated, and the record expunged.

Widely available estimates based on research suggest that anywhere between 1% and 10% of the prison population is wrongly convicted. Even taking the most conservative of these estimates (1%), with roughly 2.3 million people incarcerated, that translates to 23,000 people imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. No nation that prides itself on freedom and the rule of law can consider that an acceptable state of affairs.

The case of Gary Dotson is an example of how, not only do we wrongfully convict people at a horrendous rate, but when evidence changes, we drag our feet about releasing them. He was convicted of rape based on the alleged victim’s testimony and flawed forensic evidence. Six years later, his accuser recanted her testimony, but courts refused to overturn the conviction. It was only after DNA testing definitively proved his innocence that he was legally exonerated. I’ll point out that the fact that the alleged victim recanted her testimony was enough to introduce reasonable doubt. That’s supposed to be the bar for conviction, but it wasn’t enough to exonerate him; it required positive proof that someone else committed the crime. That stands presumption of innocence on its head. “But he was already convicted!” Yes, but the question in front of everyone is whether that conviction was valid and whether the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another man, Maurice Hastings, was convicted of abduction, sexual assault, and murder. His conviction was based largely on circumstantial evidence. Twelve years into his sentence, he requested DNA testing, but was denied by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Twenty-one years after his initial request for DNA testing, he submitted a claim of innocence to the DA’s Conviction Integrity Unit. The subsequent retesting not only proved Hastings’ innocence, but it also definitively identified another man, Kenneth Packnett, as the perpetrator. It took a total of 38 years for Hastings to win his freedom, despite being convicted only after a retrial (the first trial had ended in a hung jury) based on circumstantial evidence.

This right cannot reverse that trend on its own. However, it does provide a mechanism that mandates any government official who uncovers evidence that would have had a likelihood of changing a verdict must bring that evidence to the court. It isn’t optional. Similarly, the court must review that evidence. It isn’t optional. If confidence in the verdict is undermined, that means reasonable doubt exists and the verdict is invalid, since that was the standard for conviction in the first place. That’s a simple syllogism. The right then mandates that the convicted person must be released. Their conviction must be vacated. And the record of the conviction must be expunged. It isn’t optional.

Critics may argue that this provision could overwhelm the courts. I’ll address the moral aspect first, then the logistics. Morally, it simply does not matter whether it overwhelms the courts. First, convictions can result in the death penalty. In fact, in Hastings’ case, at his first trial, the prosecution was requesting the death penalty. An innocent man could have been executed. Second, concerning the foundational philosophy of this Charter, the state has no interests; only the People do. Government exists to secure the rights of the People. There can be no right more fundamental than to be free from incarceration and/or execution for a wrongful conviction. As far as the logistics go, “overwhelming the courts” seems unlikely. If it does, then create more judges. This argument, at its core, boils down to, “It’s too hard to do the right thing, so those people will just have to stay in jail.” That isn’t who we are.