In the USA, innocence isn't grounds for an appeal. Actual, post-conviction DNA tests aren't a basis. Errors at trial are. So good lawyers find one. Jury instructions, evidentiary errors, procedural, etc., which is why money buys justice.

"Innocence" is an unknowable state of fact. Insufficiency of evidence to prove guilt is a basis for direct appeal. And new evidence showing actual innocence is a basis for federal habeas review after appeal. See McQuiggin v. Perkins. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

Clarification: McQuiggin continues to leave open the question of whether "actual innocence" can be the basis for habeas review standing alone. In practice, there is something else that can be alleged to "bootstrap" the "actual innocence" claim.

Just going to jump in here and point out rayiner is an appellate lawyer.

Indeed he may be, but the case of Herrera v. Collins is pretty clear - laws are about procedures, not facts. If someone has been found guilty in a trial, and there were no flaws in the prodecures followed, then it is not unconstitutional to follow through with the punishment, even if later evidence shows the person is innocent.

More importantly, it would be procedurally problematic if convicted criminals could appeal on the basis of a claim of innocence, even if it's due to new evidence. Following procedures is more important than getting at the truth. (I conjecture it's because getting at the truth is unreasonably difficult. For example, there's no guarantee that a subsequent trial will be more reliable than the original.)

Hererra v. Collins must be considered in the (unfortunately complicated) context of post-conviction review law. There are state and federal post-conviction review procedures for dealing with new evidence. In addition, while Herrera and later cases reserve the question of whether "actual innocence" is by itself a basis for habeas relief, in practice there is a "bootstrap" Constitutional violation (usually ineffective assistance of counsel) that in conjunction with the actual innocence claim will provide a basis for habeas review. And in McQuiggin v. Perkins, the Supreme Court cleared pretty much any procedural hurdle to such claims when "actual innocence" is shown.

Here is an article that discusses the context surrounding Herrera v. Collins: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl....

Many (and, I hope, all) jurisdictions will reopen a trial when significant new evidence appears, but not just for any new evidence. For example, "I suddenly remember that, the morning of the crime, I woke up five minutes earlier than usual" or "it turns out there are not 20, but 21 HD videos of the crime" may be new, but is very unlikely to be deemed reason to reopen a trial.

Problem is to determine what is both significant and new.

Even somebody else confessing or new evidence showing up that the convicted has an alibi to the crime may not be deemed significant, as somebody must judge whether the new information is true.

For example, blindly trusting confessors to speak the truth would open the door for groups of people to keep each other unconvicted (A gets indicted and, a few months later, convicted, B suddenly shows up claiming he was with A, giving A an alibi, a year later A gets convicted again because that alibi didn't turn out to be watertight, C (who may already be in jail for something else) confesses, C gets convicted, D, who's dying, confesses, etc.)

So, some judge must determine whether new evidence warrants reopening a case. If that judge is (consciously or unconsciously) biased, this easily can lead to injustice. From what I read, that seems to have been the case quite a few times in the US.

Speaking of pretty clear, later evidence is pretty clear grounds for a new trial according to U.S. law, at least up to 3 years after they're found guilty. Beyond that I'd leave it to the lawyers to figure out.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_33

But that challenges the whole foundations of a civilized society, does it not? I suspect if prominent people are being caught on the wrong side of such procedural issues, ways would be found to tweak the law in a hurry.

Convictions get vacated when an alternate perpetrator is identified or confesses.

Still, that alternate confession must be credible. For high-profile crimes, there often seem to be dozens of alternate confessions, and they are usually obviously untrue so they should not be grounds for appeal of the convicted.

The hard part is how to establish that alternate confessions or new evidence are really significant (as they indeed sometimes are).

Ok then, what happens if new evidence comes up. For example, lets say you were accused of murder, and later on a video is found on some security camera that wasn't noticed before of someone else killing the person in question, so that you are 100% proven to NOT be the murderer?

Would that be grounds for an appeal? I'm pretty sure it would be...

New evidence and errors in previous trials are the only reasons for a new trial.

Death sentenced are always granted an appeal, however.

What are you smoking? I'd ask for sources but this is an absurd idea. You don't even need innocence in the US. You need to show there is reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty. At least that's how it works during trial. I'm not going to claim this works flawlessly, nor that it justifies a death penalty, but let's be real here.

You are completely misinformed. Reasonable doubt applies at trial, not on appeals. Also, the ad hominem adds nothing to your point.

Edit: look at Herrera v. Collins (SCOTUS): "Petitioner's claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is not ground for federal habeas relief. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed."

Two questions were presented for the Supreme Court's review:

Do the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to execute an individual who is innocent of the crime for which he or she was convicted and sentenced to death? What post-conviction procedures are necessary to protect against the execution of an innocent person?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins

Is the critical distinction in "federal habeas relief"? Does that mean that state appellate courts can/do consider evidence of innocence in order to vacate a conviction?

No it doesn't. It just means that this particular case doesn't speak to states doing that or not. It has no applicability outside of federal habeas relief.

I see all that Terraria playing didn't interfere with your bar review! ;)

>>At least that's how it works during trial.

That is for the first trial, and the first trial only

After that you are guilty, the only thing that matters to the legal system then is their arbitrary rules. The other commenter is 100% correct that actual innocents is irreverent for any appeal.

The US Legal System is completely off the rails of any common sense, justice, or rational thought at this point.

"The law perverted! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!" -- Frédéric Bastiat

The intention behind debating guilt only at the first trial is to prevent endless retrials for the same thing. Imagine if you were cleared of a charge but someone kept re-accusing you over and over, dragging you back to trial again and again. Or similarly, if someone was found guilty of the murder of someone you loved, but kept being re-tried again and again, and you had to keep giving testimony as a witness each time.

What is "perverted" about the system is that people have found ways around it to essentially get retrials for the same crime. Because there are so many laws, and so confusingly worded, the prosecutor can often just keep throwing things at you until something sticks (especially for white-collar crimes.) And appeals, which ought to be rare, somehow have become routine for many cases.

>> Imagine if you were cleared of a charge but someone kept re-accusing you over and over, dragging you back to trial again and again.

Well that is turning the double jeopardy rule on its head, using that to defend not considering innocence on appeal is something only a lawyer wishing to pervert the law would consider...

The purpose of double jeopardy is to limit state power to put people in a cage, not to increase state power to keep them there...

>And appeals, which ought to be rare, somehow have become routine for many cases.

I dont think so, I think any sentence over 5 years should come with an automatic appeal to a 3 judge panel and any sentence of Life or more, should come with a automatic retrial with a whole new jury.

I have zero faith in the Jury system and police state, and I think the wrongful conviction rate is vastly under reported. That is with out even getting started in the immoral extortion racket called "plea bargain"

“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”

One could argue that the 10th Amendment counts here. Of course it's such a "catch all" that it's basically always ignored...

OTOH, the govt. chooses to acknowledge the vague and fuzzy parts of the Constitution (eg, the "necessary and reasonable clause") when it's convenient for the State. But if a vague and fuzzy part of the Constitution could be seen as establishing more of a check on the power of the State, well...

Not in Texas. There's a Frontline for that: "Cameron Todd Willingham – Innocent and Executed"

( and I am a Texican my own self, but Ron White wasn't kidding... "we have the death penalty, and we USE it" ).

Exists in Texas too: http://www.johntfloyd.com/actual-innocence

> It was against this muddled constitutional backdrop that the Texas Supreme Court significantly changed the “actual innocence” debate this past May in In Re Billy Fredrick Allen. Allen was arrested for two murders in 1983 by Dallas County authorities. He was subsequently convicted and was sentenced to two concurrent 99-year terms. His convictions were upheld on direct appeal. Over the next quarter century Allen filed several writs of habeas corpus in state courts alleging constitutional violations and claims of actual innocence—the latter claim having been recognized as cognizable in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings in 1996 in Ex parte Elizondo. In 2009 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) found that Allen’s “newly discovered evidence” demonstrated a sufficient showing of “actual innocence” under Schlup v. Delo to warrant the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and a release from custody.

Wow, thanks for that. Perhaps progress is possible on this front.

I've never completely understood the tendency towards severity in Texas, other than the long period in which it was simply very violent, but that would depend on a questionable reading of the effects of institutional memory.