In the criminal justice system, a conviction is not necessarily the end of the road for someone convicted of a crime. Post-conviction relief (PCR) offers convicted individuals an opportunity to challenge their conviction or sentence after the trial and direct appeals have been exhausted. It is a vital part of the legal process that can correct injustices and safeguard constitutional rights. But post-conviction relief is not automatic or guaranteed to succeed. There are specific circumstances when post-conviction relief works and when it doesn’t.

In this post, we’ll explore what post-conviction relief is, when it can be used effectively, and the common grounds on which it succeeds.

What is Post-Conviction Relief?

Before delving into whether post-conviction relief really does work, you must first understand what post-conviction relief is. Post-conviction relief refers to a legal procedure that allows someone convicted of a crime to challenge their conviction or sentence after the conclusion of a trial and any direct appeals. Unlike direct appeals, which focus primarily on errors made during the trial process, PCR petitions address broader issues, including constitutional violations, newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and issues that were not or could not have been raised on appeal.

Post-conviction relief is governed by state or federal laws, and the process may differ depending on the jurisdiction.

Common Grounds for Post-Conviction Relief

Post-conviction relief does work when there are valid reasons to revisit the conviction or sentencing. Several grounds can form the basis for a successful PCR petition:

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

One of the most frequently cited grounds for post-conviction relief is ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the Sixth Amendment, defendants have the right to effective legal representation. If the defendant’s attorney failed to provide competent legal assistance during the trial, this could constitute a violation of the defendant’s rights.

To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance, the petitioner must generally prove two things:

  1. Deficient Performance: The attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
  2. Prejudice: The deficient performance affected the outcome of the case, meaning that, but for the attorney’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different. Cases where ineffective counsel led to wrongful convictions or unfair sentencing often succeed in post-conviction relief petitions.
when does post conviction relief work
Photo by EKATERINA BOLOVTSOVA from Pexels

Newly Discovered Evidence

Post-conviction relief may also work when new evidence emerges after the trial that could exonerate the defendant or significantly change the outcome of the case. The new evidence must typically meet the following criteria:

  1. Materiality: The evidence must be significant enough that it could have led to a different result if it had been presented at trial.
  2. Timing: The petitioner must show that the evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before or during the trial.
  3. Reliability: The new evidence must be credible and reliable. DNA testing is one of the most well-known forms of newly discovered evidence that has successfully led to the exoneration of wrongfully convicted individuals through post-conviction relief.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

When a prosecutor engages in unethical or illegal behavior during the trial, it can serve as a basis for post-conviction relief. Prosecutorial misconduct can include:

  1. Withholding Exculpatory Evidence: Known as a Brady violation, this occurs when the prosecution withholds evidence favorable to the defendant that could have affected the outcome of the trial.
  2. Improper Arguments: Prosecutors may engage in misconduct by making improper comments, using inflammatory rhetoric, or introducing prejudicial evidence that unfairly biases the jury.
  3. Tampering With Witnesses: Manipulating or coercing witnesses to provide false testimony or conceal important facts can be grounds for successful post-conviction relief.

Successful PCR claims based on prosecutorial misconduct often lead to overturned convictions or new trials.

Constitutional Violations

A PCR petition may succeed if there were significant constitutional violations during the trial or sentencing process. This can include violations of the defendant’s:

  1. Fifth Amendment Rights: Protections against self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
  2. Sixth Amendment Rights: The right to a fair trial, an impartial jury, or to confront witnesses.
  3. Eighth Amendment Rights: Protections from cruel and unusual punishment.

For example, a PCR petition may be filed if a defendant’s confession was coerced in violation of their Fifth Amendment rights or if a judge imposed an excessive or unconstitutional sentence.

Changes in Law

In some instances, changes in the law can create new opportunities for post-conviction relief. This is particularly true when courts rule on new constitutional issues that affect previous convictions. For instance:

  1. Supreme Court Rulings: If the U.S. Supreme Court makes a decision that impacts criminal procedure or substantive rights, it may create new grounds for relief.
  2. Retroactive Legislation: Sometimes, legislatures pass laws that provide retroactive relief to individuals convicted under outdated legal standards.

When such changes occur, convicted individuals may be eligible for a reduced sentence or to have their conviction overturned.

Limitations and Challenges to When Post-Conviction Relief Does Work

While post-conviction relief is a critical tool for correcting injustices, it does not always work. There are several limitations and challenges associated with PCR petitions:

  1. Timeliness: One of the most common barriers to obtaining post-conviction relief is the statute of limitations. In many jurisdictions, PCR petitions must be filed within a specific timeframe after the conviction becomes final. Missing this deadline can result in the petition being dismissed, even if there are valid grounds for relief. However, some exceptions, such as newly discovered evidence, may extend these deadlines.
  2. Procedural Barriers: Many states have strict procedural rules governing post-conviction relief. For example, petitioners may be required to raise certain issues at trial or on direct appeal before they can be considered in a PCR petition. Issues not raised earlier may be procedurally barred, meaning the court will not consider them during post-conviction proceedings.
  3. High Standard of Proof: Successfully obtaining post-conviction relief often requires meeting a high standard of proof. The petitioner must demonstrate that the errors or newly discovered evidence had a significant impact on the outcome of the case. Courts are typically reluctant to overturn convictions unless the petitioner can show that their rights were clearly violated or that a substantial injustice occurred.

Limited to Constitutional Issues

Post-conviction relief generally focuses on constitutional errors, newly discovered evidence, or procedural violations. It is not an opportunity to retry the case based on factual disagreements or to challenge the jury’s interpretation of evidence presented at trial. As a result, defendants who believe they were wrongfully convicted based on witness testimony or other factual matters may face challenges when seeking PCR.

Post-Conviction Relief Does Work: Case Examples

To better comprehend that post-conviction relief really does work, let’s examine some case examples:

DNA Exoneration Cases

One of the most successful applications of post-conviction relief has been cases involving DNA evidence. For instance, The Innocence Project has helped exonerate numerous individuals through PCR petitions based on newly discovered evidence that proves their innocence. In these cases, DNA evidence not available at the time of trial was reexamined and used to overturn wrongful convictions.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Consider the case of Strickland v. Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1982), which established the two part test for ineffective assistance of counsel. In many cases following Strickland, convicted individuals have successfully argued that their attorney’s inadequate representation affected the outcome of their trial. Post-conviction relief was granted after proving that defense counsel’s errors denied the defendant a fair trial.

Brady violations

In the case of Brady v. Maryland, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence by the prosecution is a violation of due process. Many successful PCR petitions have been based on Brady violations, where it was discovered after the trial that the prosecution had concealed evidence favorable to the defense. In these cases, the courts have overturned convictions or ordered new trials.

My Final Thoughts

Post-conviction relief does work and it’s an important legal mechanism designed to address constitutional violations, newly discovered evidence, and legal errors that were not adequately resolved through the direct appeals process. While it can be an uphill battle, PCR petitions provide a path to justice for individuals who were wrongfully convicted or who did not receive a fair trial. When successful, post-conviction relief can correct past wrongs, exonerate the innocent, and protect constitutional rights, ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system.

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.