The thing that frustrates and outrages me the most about wrongful convictions is the

available remedies. It seems like the government is making people jump through hoops for no

real benefit. It seems like they drag the process out on purpose sometimes. The case that you told

us about on the bus ride to Columbus where the man received a longer sentence based on his

juvenile record, he will be out of prison before his appeal will even be heard. Another aspect of

the process that seems very questionable to me is the time constraint. I cannot understand why

there would need to be a time limit on establishing an appeal. So many people were convicted

before advanced DNA testing existed but now they’re unable to take advantage of it because of

how much time has passed. What about people who didn’t know about the appeals process at all?

That’s just downright cruel. Oh, sorry, you might be innocent but it doesn’t matter because you

waited too long to complain about it. That is not how a developed, leading nation treats its

citizens. I also don’t like how much weight is placed on the original trial lawyer. If they file

something wrong or wait too long, your entire avenue of post-conviction relief is gone forever. If

they’re incompetent and get you convicted in the first place, how can we realistically expect

them to be on top of filing an appeal?

Another huge issue in the appeal process is the judges. Many state judges are elected to

the bench and have to make conservative rulings in order to be re-elected. No one wants a Willie

Horton case that can be used to attack them come election season so they give out tougher

sentences then are necessary. Also, state judges have to cozy up to the local prosecutors for re-

election support and donations, which automatically makes their courtrooms unfairly biased. A

judge could completely agree that your client was wrongfully convicted, but wouldn’t want to

acknowledge it because it makes the prosecutor look bad and then the prosecutor won’t help

them get re-elected. Ideally, the judicial system needs major reform, but that is unlikely to
happen any time soon. The next best solution to this is to try and get the case into federal court

because the judges there are appointed, not elected, and don’t have to worry about what the

public thinks of their decisions. However, the avenue into federal court is incredibly difficult.

The only way a federal judge will hear your case is if it is a Constitutional issue. This leads to

defense attorneys having to sometimes be really creative with the facts of their cases to make

them a Constitutional issue. I remember reading a case where the argument to get into federal

court was that having to register as a sex offender was a form of state custody and that the client

should therefore qualify for a habeas petition.

It should not be this hard! We pride ourselves on being a democratic nation where

equality is a priority, but none of what I read in this chapter strikes me as particularly fair.

Prosecutors should not hold so much power, in either pre or post conviction negotiations. This

leads to cases like Nancy Smith’s where the prosecutor gets personally insulted by her innocence

claim and bullies her into agreeing never to seek compensation by threatening her with jail time.

That is a move that screams “mobster” to me, not “the state’s most competent and skilled

attorney.” Why aren’t more people outraged about this? It feels like I’m yelling into the void

about these issues sometimes. I think the only way for this broken system to even begin to be

repaired is to make the appeals process easier. Seriously, what do we lose by letting people argue

their innocence?