Actual innocence
Encyclopedia
Actual innocence is a state of affairs in which a defendant in a criminal case is innocent of the charges against them because they did not in fact commit the crime of which they have been accused.
A claim of actual innocence is the most widely used—yet often the least studied—defense to crime. Most law school
criminal law
courses focus on defenses that apply where the accused in fact committed a criminal act, but presents an excuse
that eliminates their liability for that act. In such cases, the defendant may be acquitted despite the concession that the defendant committed a criminal act. In the vast majority of cases, however, the defense put forth for crime is that the evidence
supports the claim that the defendant committed no criminal act at all.
The Tarlton Law Library
at the University of Texas at Austin
maintains an "Actual Innocence awareness database" containing "resources pertaining to wrongful convictions, selected from the popular media (such as newspaper articles and segments which aired on television news magazines), journal articles, books, reports, legislation and websites".
The only difference between a finding of innocence and a finding of actual innocence is where the burden of proof lies. Actual Guilt is not required in the United States for person to be found culpable. Only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". After the trial the burden of proof shifts from the state to the convicted person. If they obtain post-conviction relief from the conviction it is a finding of 'Actual Innocence'. At the initial trial, when the burden of proof is on the state, an acquittal or not-guilty finding is considered a finding of 'innocence' because the proof was on the state.
The phrase is most often found in the debate that has taken place in the Courts of the United States over when a convicted person, that has exhausted all reviews of the conviction permitted by statutory law of a State, may have an additional review. The Law is now well established by the United States Supreme Court, and in the State of Texas. A convicted person may file an otherwise barred petition for habeas corpus review if they can make a showing of 'actual innocence'. The Court that receives the petition then reviews the new evidence, or constitutional error that for some reason was not previously raised (usually due to ineffective assistance of counsel) to determine if the 'showing' of actual innocence is sufficiently clear and convincing to justify granting relief from the conviction. See Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 205 (Tex. Cr. App. 1996). The prior precedent, Herrera v. Collins
, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), created a public outcry when a slim majority, under Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment would not be violated by executing a person who could show actual innocence but was procedurally barred from another review of their conviction.
Examples of an actual innocence defense include:
Many celebrated criminal cases have rested solely on the defense that the defendant did not commit the crime - for example, O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake
, and Michael Jackson
all claimed that they simply had not committed the acts charged. By contrast, defendants such as Jeffrey Dahmer
, Susan Smith
, and Lorena Bobbitt conceded that they committed the criminal act, but raised defenses such as insanity or diminished capacity.
of the judicial process in order to maintain the integrity of the system.
Interestingly, however, actual innocence can have a procedural effect, in that it will excuse procedural default and permit the filing of a successor collateral relief petition. This is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schlup v. Delo, in which a death row inmate filed a second federal habeas corpus petition, asserting as substantive claims the claims that his trial lawyer had ineffectively failed to present alibi witnesses and that the Government had wrongly concealed exculpatory evidence. Schlup also argued that he was actually innocent --- not because that was a substantive ground for relief, but because his actual innocence excused his failure to raise his ineffective-counsel and prosecutorial-nondisclosure claims in his state court pleadings and in his first federal habeas petition. Whether or not relief was to be granted, the Schlup Court held, depended on the merits of his ineffective counsel and prosecutorial nondisclosure claims.
is generally permitted in criminal cases, a defendant may claim to have not committed the crime itself, but at the same time may claim that if the defendant had committed the crime, the act was excused for a reason such as insanity or intoxication, or was justified due to provocation or self defense.
, whose standard analysis is that (with the exception of strict liability offences) a crime is made up of two parts: (i) the guilty act (actus reus
) (ii) and the guilty intention (mens rea
). A court examines the issues in sequence since there is little point in establishing intent if the accused did not commit the act. The court will convict only if the actus and the mens are shown beyond reasonable doubt
. If convicted, the accused may contest either or both of the findings of actus or mens. England does not have the specific concept of "actual innocence"; rather the courts are concerned to ensure that an innocent person is not subject to a criminal penalty. The appeal process will not impose an onus of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" to show innocence, but (even if the process takes years) a court will allow new evidence to be adduced if it tends to show that the accused did not (or could not) commit the crime. The UK
, like all 47 Member States of the Council of Europe
, is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights, and is prohibited by Article 3 from using the death penalty; so there is no longer the fear that an innocent man may be executed. The case of prisoner Troy Davis, executed 21 September 2011, illustrates the difficulties that a person has, once convicted, to prove his "actual innocence" in the USA.
A claim of actual innocence is the most widely used—yet often the least studied—defense to crime. Most law school
Law school
A law school is an institution specializing in legal education.- Law degrees :- Canada :...
criminal law
Criminal law
Criminal law, is the body of law that relates to crime. It might be defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is not allowed because it is held to threaten, harm or endanger the safety and welfare of people, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on people who do not obey...
courses focus on defenses that apply where the accused in fact committed a criminal act, but presents an excuse
Excuse
In jurisprudence, an excuse or justification is a defense to criminal charges that is distinct from an exculpation. In this context, "to excuse" means to grant or obtain an exemption for a group of persons sharing a common characteristic from a potential liability. "To justify" as in justifiable...
that eliminates their liability for that act. In such cases, the defendant may be acquitted despite the concession that the defendant committed a criminal act. In the vast majority of cases, however, the defense put forth for crime is that the evidence
Evidence (law)
The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence...
supports the claim that the defendant committed no criminal act at all.
The Tarlton Law Library
Law library
A law library is a library designed to assist law students, attorneys, judges, and their law clerks and anyone else who finds it necessary to correctly determine the state of the law....
at the University of Texas at Austin
University of Texas at Austin
The University of Texas at Austin is a state research university located in Austin, Texas, USA, and is the flagship institution of the The University of Texas System. Founded in 1883, its campus is located approximately from the Texas State Capitol in Austin...
maintains an "Actual Innocence awareness database" containing "resources pertaining to wrongful convictions, selected from the popular media (such as newspaper articles and segments which aired on television news magazines), journal articles, books, reports, legislation and websites".
The only difference between a finding of innocence and a finding of actual innocence is where the burden of proof lies. Actual Guilt is not required in the United States for person to be found culpable. Only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". After the trial the burden of proof shifts from the state to the convicted person. If they obtain post-conviction relief from the conviction it is a finding of 'Actual Innocence'. At the initial trial, when the burden of proof is on the state, an acquittal or not-guilty finding is considered a finding of 'innocence' because the proof was on the state.
The phrase is most often found in the debate that has taken place in the Courts of the United States over when a convicted person, that has exhausted all reviews of the conviction permitted by statutory law of a State, may have an additional review. The Law is now well established by the United States Supreme Court, and in the State of Texas. A convicted person may file an otherwise barred petition for habeas corpus review if they can make a showing of 'actual innocence'. The Court that receives the petition then reviews the new evidence, or constitutional error that for some reason was not previously raised (usually due to ineffective assistance of counsel) to determine if the 'showing' of actual innocence is sufficiently clear and convincing to justify granting relief from the conviction. See Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 205 (Tex. Cr. App. 1996). The prior precedent, Herrera v. Collins
Herrera v. Collins
Herrera v. Collins, , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a claim that the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the execution of one who is actually innocent is not ground for federal habeas relief.-Background:On September 29, 1981,...
, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), created a public outcry when a slim majority, under Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment would not be violated by executing a person who could show actual innocence but was procedurally barred from another review of their conviction.
The typical innocence defense
Because the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant asserting actual innocence need only raise a reasonable doubt as to whether they were the person who committed a particular crime, or whether the acts that they committed amount to the commission of a crime. In point of fact, the defendant is not obliged to present a defense at all.Examples of an actual innocence defense include:
- AlibiAlibiAlibi is a 1929 American crime film directed by Roland West. The screenplay was written by West and C. Gardner Sullivan, who adapted the 1927 Broadway stage play, Nightstick, written by Elaine Sterne Carrington, J.C...
- the defendant will present evidence of having been in a different location, thereby making it impossible for the defendant to have committed the crime. - Mistaken identityMistaken identityMistaken identity is a defense in criminal law which claims the actual innocence of the criminal defendant, and attempts to undermine evidence of guilt by asserting that any eyewitness to the crime incorrectly thought that they saw the defendant, when in fact the person seen by the witness was...
- although the prosecution bears the burden of proving that a defendant has been properly identified, the defendant may still need to call into question the memory and/or credibility of witnessWitnessA witness is someone who has firsthand knowledge about an event, or in the criminal justice systems usually a crime, through his or her senses and can help certify important considerations about the crime or event. A witness who has seen the event first hand is known as an eyewitness...
es claiming to have seen the commission of the crime. - FrameupFrameupA frame-up or setup is an American term referring to the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime....
- the defendant will assert that the falsification of evidence has resulted in the creation of a meritless case against him, usually by the policePoliceThe police is a personification of the state designated to put in practice the enforced law, protect property and reduce civil disorder in civilian matters. Their powers include the legitimized use of force...
or similar persons of authority with access to the crime sceneCrime sceneA crime scene is a location where an illegal act took place, and comprises the area from which most of the physical evidence is retrieved by trained law enforcement personnel, crime scene investigators or in rare circumstances, forensic scientists....
, or by private parties hoping to profit from the defendant's misfortune. If the prosecution is relying on the defendant's confession, the defendant may assert that a false confessionFalse confessionA false confession is an admission of guilt in a crime in which the confessor is not responsible for the crime. False confessions can be induced through coercion or by the mental disorder or incompetency of the accused...
was extracted through coercive means.
Many celebrated criminal cases have rested solely on the defense that the defendant did not commit the crime - for example, O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake
Robert Blake (actor)
Robert Blake is an American actor who starred in the film In Cold Blood and the U.S. television series Baretta. In 2005, he was tried and acquitted for the 2001 murder of his wife, but on November 18, 2005, Blake was found liable in a California civil court for her wrongful death.-Early...
, and Michael Jackson
Michael Jackson
Michael Joseph Jackson was an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman. Referred to as the King of Pop, or by his initials MJ, Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records...
all claimed that they simply had not committed the acts charged. By contrast, defendants such as Jeffrey Dahmer
Jeffrey Dahmer
Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer was an American serial killer and sex offender. Dahmer murdered 17 men and boys between 1978 and 1991, with the majority of the murders occurring between 1987 and 1991. His murders involved rape, dismemberment, necrophilia and cannibalism...
, Susan Smith
Susan Smith
Susan Leigh Vaughan Smith is an American woman sentenced to life in prison for murdering her children. Born in Union, South Carolina, and a former student of the University of South Carolina Union, she was convicted on July 22, 1995 of murdering her two sons, 3-year-old Michael Daniel Smith, born...
, and Lorena Bobbitt conceded that they committed the criminal act, but raised defenses such as insanity or diminished capacity.
No "actual innocence" plea in post-conviction collateral proceedings
In jurisdictions that provide post-conviction collateral relief, there is generally no "actual innocence" grounds for relief absent some constitutional violation. Thus, in order to obtain post-conviction collateral relief, a defendant must often plead a specific statutory grounds for relief, i.e., that the conviction was obtain in violation of the Constitution of the United States. In jurisdictions that restrict a court's power to hear a post-conviction petition to a time period defined by statute, the court cannot grant post-conviction relief upon expiration of the time period regardless of the discovery of proof of "actual innocence" of the crime for which he was convicted. The jurisdictional bar is often rationalized by citing the requirement of finalityFinality (law)
Finality, in law, is the concept that certain disputes must achieve a resolution from which no further appeal may be taken, and from which no collateral proceedings may be permitted to disturb that resolution...
of the judicial process in order to maintain the integrity of the system.
Interestingly, however, actual innocence can have a procedural effect, in that it will excuse procedural default and permit the filing of a successor collateral relief petition. This is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schlup v. Delo, in which a death row inmate filed a second federal habeas corpus petition, asserting as substantive claims the claims that his trial lawyer had ineffectively failed to present alibi witnesses and that the Government had wrongly concealed exculpatory evidence. Schlup also argued that he was actually innocent --- not because that was a substantive ground for relief, but because his actual innocence excused his failure to raise his ineffective-counsel and prosecutorial-nondisclosure claims in his state court pleadings and in his first federal habeas petition. Whether or not relief was to be granted, the Schlup Court held, depended on the merits of his ineffective counsel and prosecutorial nondisclosure claims.
Pleading in the alternative
Because pleading in the alternativeAlternative pleading
Alternative pleading permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive by making use of legal fiction....
is generally permitted in criminal cases, a defendant may claim to have not committed the crime itself, but at the same time may claim that if the defendant had committed the crime, the act was excused for a reason such as insanity or intoxication, or was justified due to provocation or self defense.
An English perspective
Much of US criminal law is derived from the English common lawCommon law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
, whose standard analysis is that (with the exception of strict liability offences) a crime is made up of two parts: (i) the guilty act (actus reus
Actus reus
Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions...
) (ii) and the guilty intention (mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
). A court examines the issues in sequence since there is little point in establishing intent if the accused did not commit the act. The court will convict only if the actus and the mens are shown beyond reasonable doubt
Beyond reasonable doubt
Beyond a reasonable doubt refers to the legal principle of reasonable doubt, the standard of proof required in most criminal cases.Beyond Reasonable Doubt may also refer to:...
. If convicted, the accused may contest either or both of the findings of actus or mens. England does not have the specific concept of "actual innocence"; rather the courts are concerned to ensure that an innocent person is not subject to a criminal penalty. The appeal process will not impose an onus of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" to show innocence, but (even if the process takes years) a court will allow new evidence to be adduced if it tends to show that the accused did not (or could not) commit the crime. The UK
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIn the United Kingdom and Dependencies, other languages have been officially recognised as legitimate autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages...
, like all 47 Member States of the Council of Europe
Council of Europe
The Council of Europe is an international organisation promoting co-operation between all countries of Europe in the areas of legal standards, human rights, democratic development, the rule of law and cultural co-operation...
, is a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights, and is prohibited by Article 3 from using the death penalty; so there is no longer the fear that an innocent man may be executed. The case of prisoner Troy Davis, executed 21 September 2011, illustrates the difficulties that a person has, once convicted, to prove his "actual innocence" in the USA.
Further reading
- Jim Dwyer, Peter NeufeldPeter NeufeldPeter Neufeld is an American lawyer and is most famous as a cofounder, with Barry Scheck, of the Innocence Project, located at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law...
, Barry ScheckBarry ScheckBarry C. Scheck is an American lawyer. He received national media attention while serving on O.J. Simpson's defense team, winning an acquittal in the highly publicized murder case. Scheck is the director of the Innocence Project and a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York...
, Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and how to Make it Right (2001) ISBN 0-451-20365-8. - Jon B. Gould, The Innocence Commission: Preventing Wrongful Convictions and Restoring the Justice System (2008), ISBN 0-8147-3179-1.