Post-conviction relief (PCR) is the legal process where individuals convicted of crimes challenge the validity of their conviction or sentence. While direct appeals are generally filed soon after a conviction, PCR petitions can be made later, often years after the initial trial. PCR allows defendants to raise issues that might not have been fully addressed in their initial trial or appeals. Various legal arguments can be raised during PCR, some of which are specific to individual circumstances, but many follow common patterns. In this blog post, we’ll look at some of the most common post-conviction relief arguments defendants raise when seeking post-conviction relief.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: A Common Post-Conviction Relief Argument

One of the most frequently raised arguments during PCR is ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the Sixth Amendment, every defendant is entitled to a competent defense, and if their attorney failed to meet a standard of reasonable competence, it could be grounds for relief.

To succeed with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendants must demonstrate:

1. Deficient Performance: The attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
2. Prejudice: The deficient performance was so significant that it affected the outcome of the case.

For example, if a defense attorney failed to interview critical witnesses or neglected to file appropriate pretrial motions, the court may find their performance substandard. Defendants can also claim ineffective assistance if the attorney advised them to accept a plea bargain without adequately explaining its consequences, especially if the plea resulted in a harsher sentence than necessary.

Key Case: Strickland v. Washington (1984)

In Strickland v. Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court established a two-part test (deficiency and prejudice) for evaluating IAC claims. The burden is on the defendant to prove that their attorney’s conduct negatively impacted the the trial’s fairness or reliability.

Newly Discovered Evidence: A Common Post-Conviction Relief Argument

Another common argument raised during PCR is the discovery of new evidence. New evidence can potentially exonerate a convicted individual or cast serious doubt on their guilt. To succeed with a newly discovered evidence claim, the defendant typically must show:

1. The evidence was not available at trial.
2. The evidence could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.
3. The new evidence is credible and likely would have resulted in a different verdict if presented at trial.

Examples include DNA evidence that was unavailable at the time of the trial or a witness recanting their testimony. Courts may also consider other factors such as forensic advancements that undermine the original scientific evidence used at trial.

Many wrongful convictions have been overturned due to DNA testing advancements as seen in cases handled by organizations like The Innocence Project. Defendants previously convicted based on faulty forensic techniques or incorrect witness identifications have successfully had their convictions vacated or overturned due to new evidence brought forward during post-conviction proceedings.

Prosecutorial Misconduct: A Common Post-Conviction Relief Argument

Prosecutorial misconduct refers to inappropriate or illegal actions taken by prosecutors that violate the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Misconduct can take many forms such as:

1. Withholding Exculpatory Evidence: This is when the prosecution fails to disclose evidence that could exonerate the defendant.
2. Improper Statements During Closing Arguments: Prosecutors cannot make inflammatory or prejudicial remarks that sway the jury.
3. Coercing Witnesses: Encouraging or forcing witnesses to testify falsely is grounds for relief.

If prosecutorial misconduct is proven, the court may vacate the conviction, reduce the sentence, or grant a new trial.

Key Case: Brady v. Maryland (1963)

In Brady v. Maryland, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), the Supreme Court held that prosecutors are required to disclose all evidence favorable to the accused. Failure to do so, especially if the evidence could have altered the outcome of the trial, is a violation of due process.

Constitutional Violations: A Common Post-Conviction Relief Argument

Post-conviction relief often involves claims that a defendant’s constitutional rights were violated during their trial or at sentencing. Constitutional violations can include:

1. Fourth Amendment Violations: If the police unlawfully searched the defendant’s property or obtained evidence through illegal means, the defendant can argue that their conviction was based on inadmissible evidence.
2. Fifth Amendment Violations: Defendants may argue that their rights were violated if they were coerced into confessing or were not properly advised of their right to remain silent.
3. Sixth Amendment Violations: Apart from ineffective assistance of counsel, defendants can claim violations of their right to a speedy and public trial or the right to confront witnesses.

If the court finds that any of these constitutional rights were violated and the violation had a significant impact on the trial’s outcome, the conviction could be overturned or a new trial granted.

Sentencing Errors: Common Post-Conviction Relief Arguments

Errors during sentencing are another common argument raised in PCR. Sentencing errors can occur if the court:

1. Imposed a sentence outside the statutory guidelines.
2. Failed to consider mitigating factors.
3. Relied on incorrect or inaccurate information when determining the sentence.

For example, if a defendant is given a longer sentence than is allowed by law, or if the sentencing judge considered inadmissible evidence when deciding the penalty, the defendant may seek relief to correct the sentence.

Key Case: Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000)

In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision emphasized the importance of ensuring proper legal processes during sentencing.

Actual Innocence: A Common Post-Conviction Relief Argument

A claim of actual innocence can be raised during PCR proceedings. Defendants who assert actual innocence must provide compelling new evidence or arguments that were not previously available or presented during their trial. These claims are often supported by newly discovered evidence such as DNA, alibi witness, or forensic analysis that contradicts the prosecution’s case.

However, proving actual innocence is a high bar because courts typically give great deference to jury verdicts. Therefore, defendants must offer significant and credible new evidence to succeed with such claims.

Juror Misconduct: A Common Post-Conviction Relief Argument

Juror misconduct refers to actions by jurors that violate the fairness of the trial process. Juror misconduct can occur if:

1. Jurors engage in improper communication with witnesses, attorneys or the judge.
2. Jurors conduct independent research about the case outside of the evidence presented in court.
3. Bias or prejudice among jurors is discovered after the trial.

If proven, juror misconduct can be grounds for a new trial or for overturning a conviction. The defendant must demonstrate that the misconduct likely influenced the verdict in a prejudicial way.

Double Jeopardy Violation: A Common Post-Conviction Relief Argument

The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being tried for the same offense more than once. If a defendant can show that they were convicted after they were tried for the same crime in a previous proceeding, they may raise this as a ground for PCR.

Double jeopardy claims can also arise if the court improperly allowed multiple punishments for the same offense or if a case was retried after an acquittal.

Retroactive Application of New Legal Precedents: A Common Post-Conviction Relief Argument

Sometimes, changes in the law after a conviction may offer an avenue for relief. Defendants can raise PCR claims arguing that recent court decisions or new interpretations of the law should be applied retroactively to their case. These claims often arise in response to landmark rulings or changes to sentencing guidelines.

Key Case: Miller v. Alabama (2012)

In Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), the Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles are unconstitutional. Many defendants who were sentenced to life without parole as minors have sought relief under this precedent.

Invalid Guilty Plea: A Common Post-Conviction Relief Argument

Defendants who pleaded guilty may still raise PCR claims if they can show that their plea was invalid. A plea is considered invalid if:

1. The defendant was not fully informed of the consequences of the plea.
2. The plea was made under coercion or duress.
3. The defendant was not competent to enter a plea.

In such cases, a defendant can seek to withdraw the plea or argue that they did not voluntarily or knowingly waive their right to a trial.

My Final Thoughts

Post-conviction relief is a critical part of the criminal justice system, allowing individuals convicted of crimes to challenge errors or injustices that occurred during their trial, sentencing, or plea process. Common arguments such as ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct are among the most frequently raised. While PCR proceedings offer a valuable opportunity for redress, they are often complex and require a thorough understanding of the legal principles involved.

If you, or someone you know, will be proceeding to trial, challenging an imposed sentence or pursuing any type of post-conviction relief, our book, The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations, is a crucial resource in the pursuit of justice. Our books are soft cover, institution friendly, in stock, and ready for immediate shipping. Order your copy today, or on behalf of someone incarcerated.