Actual Innocence: A Constitutional Claim?

The concept of actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes they were accused of. In the United States, claims of actual innocence are usually raised in post-conviction challenges to a conviction. While the Supreme Court has ruled that convicted persons do not have a constitutional due process right to bring DNA-based post-conviction actual innocence claims, the way such claims are handled may vary from one jurisdiction to another. Establishing actual innocence after a conviction may be considerably more difficult than winning an acquittal at trial, where the defendant enjoys a due process right to the presumption of innocence. In federal habeas corpus cases, actual innocence serves as a gateway for petitioners to have their otherwise-barred constitutional claims heard. However, the Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether a freestanding actual innocence claim could form the basis for habeas relief.

Explore related products

Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution, and Other Dispatches From the Wrongly Convicted

$29.99

Claim of Innocence (The Izzy McNeil Novels Book 4)

$8.99 $29.95

Miscarriages of Justice: Actual Innocence, Forensic Evidence, and the Law

$47.49 $89.95

Comparative Executive Clemency: The Constitutional Pardon Power and the Prerogative of Mercy in Global Perspective (Routledge Research in Human Rights Law)

$51.19 $63.99

Controversies in Innocence Cases in America (Controversies in American Constitutional Law)

$51.22 $68.99

About Guilt and Innocence: The Origins, Development, and Future of Constitutional Criminal Procedure

$95

Actual innocence is not a constitutional violation

The concept of actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes they were accused of. It is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Claims of actual innocence may involve disputing that any crime occurred or that the accused was the perpetrator of the criminal act.

However, proving actual innocence is not enough to win federal habeas corpus relief. This is because actual innocence is not a constitutional violation that allows for federal habeas relief. Instead, it is only the first step towards relief, and there must also be an underlying constitutional claim. For example, in Schlup v. Delo, the Supreme Court made clear that actual innocence means "factual innocence", as opposed to mere legal innocence. The burden for proving innocence must be informed by the understanding that innocence can rarely be proven and thus must be presumed absent proof of guilt.

In the United States, establishing "actual innocence" after a conviction may be considerably more difficult than winning an acquittal at trial. At trial, the defendant enjoys a due process right to the presumption of innocence, and the state is obligated to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. However, "innocence" is a factual question, and once a fact-finder—a judge or jury—makes a factual determination, appellate and post-conviction courts are generally bound by that determination.

Claims of "actual innocence" are generally recognized only in those states that have adopted specific "actual innocence" statutes. 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".

Actual innocence as a gateway to constitutional claims

In the United States, the concept of "actual innocence" has undergone significant evolution, particularly with the advent of DNA testing. Each state has adopted statutes or rules that allow newly discovered DNA results to serve as the basis for challenging a conviction on grounds of "actual innocence". However, it is important to note that the scope and breadth of an inmate's ability to bring a DNA-based claim of actual innocence vary significantly across states. Despite this variation, a consensus has emerged among states recognizing the right to judicial review of compelling claims of innocence.

The Supreme Court has clarified that actual innocence refers to “factual innocence", as opposed to mere legal innocence. Establishing "actual innocence" after a conviction can be challenging. At trial, the defendant enjoys a due process right to the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, once a fact-finder—a judge or jury—makes a factual determination, appellate and post-conviction courts generally uphold this decision.

Claims of "actual innocence" are typically raised in post-conviction challenges to a conviction. To support these claims, defendants may present new evidence, such as DNA evidence, that was not available at the time of the original trial. It is worth noting that constitutional errors or procedural flaws during the trial can also serve as grounds for actual innocence claims.

While "actual innocence" in itself is not a valid habeas claim, it serves as a gateway for petitioners to have their otherwise-barred constitutional claims heard. This means that in addition to asserting actual innocence, there must be an underlying constitutional violation to allow for federal habeas relief. The bar for actual innocence habeas claims is high, and proper emphasis on each claim is crucial for success in federal court.

In conclusion, while the concept of "actual innocence" has gained recognition, particularly in the context of DNA-based claims, it is not sufficient on its own to warrant relief. Instead, it serves as an entry point for petitioners to present their constitutional claims.

DNA-based actual innocence claims

The Supreme Court has never resolved whether innocence is a freestanding constitutional claim. However, the Court has ruled that convicted persons do not have a constitutional due process right to bring DNA-based post-conviction "actual innocence" claims. This means that DNA-based actual innocence claims are not valid habeas claims by themselves. There must be an underlying constitutional violation related to the actual innocence claim to allow for federal habeas relief.

In the United States, as DNA testing has become more sophisticated, every state has adopted statutes or rules allowing newly discovered DNA results to form the basis of a challenge to a conviction on grounds of "actual innocence". The scope and breadth of an inmate's ability to bring a DNA-based claim of actual innocence vary greatly from state to state. For example, in Alabama, a convicted person can only get DNA testing in their case if they have been charged with a capital offense, while in Kentucky, people who plead guilty are barred from accessing DNA testing, even if they falsely confessed or were coerced.

The Innocence Project has used DNA technology and litigation to help free and exonerate hundreds of innocent people. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 614 wrongly convicted people have been exonerated based on DNA tests since 1989, including 203 Innocence Project clients. In addition, nearly 40 people sentenced to death have been exonerated based on DNA evidence.

Explore related products

The Presumption of Innocence in International Human Rights and Criminal Law (Human Rights and International Law)

$170 $190

Innocence Unveiled: The Systemic, Social, and Structural Factors Behind Wrongful Convictions in Australia

$42.03 $44.99

The Rights of Spring: A Memoir of Innocence Abroad

$14.98 $24.95

Constitutional Exclusion: The Rules, Rights, and Remedies that Strike the Balance Between Freedom and Order

$70.69 $140

The Law of Disclosure (Routledge Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice and Procedure)

$135 $190

International Criminal Evidence Law: Legal Traditions in Conflict: Common and Continental Law at the Icc (Studies in International Criminal Law, 8)

$157

Actual innocence as a freestanding constitutional claim

The Supreme Court has never resolved whether actual innocence is a freestanding constitutional claim. However, in the past two decades, a consensus has emerged among states recognizing the right to judicial review of compelling claims of innocence. This consensus, along with modern shared practices and the doctrine of fundamental fairness, demonstrates that innocence claims fall within the protections of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

In the context of federal habeas corpus, actual innocence serves as a gateway for petitioners to have their otherwise-barred constitutional claims heard. While proving actual innocence is an important first step, it is not enough to grant federal habeas relief. There must also be an underlying constitutional violation related to the actual innocence claim. This is because federal habeas courts aim to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution, rather than correcting errors of fact.

The bar for actual innocence habeas claims is high. To obtain federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted constitutional claim, petitioners must establish either cause for the default and actual prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional error or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will occur if the claim is not reviewed. In House v. Bell, the United States Supreme Court held that a petitioner satisfied the actual innocence standard for the first time, demonstrating the court's willingness to consider these claims.

Despite this progress, the federal courts have not yet changed their approach to innocence claims. This has led to discrepancies in burdens of proof and procedural restrictions imposed by states. Establishing a constitutional floor at the federal level would ensure that no innocent individuals fall through the gaps left open by state laws. The burden for proving innocence must be informed by the understanding that innocence is rarely proven and must be presumed absent proof of guilt.

Criminal procedure and the presumption of innocence

Criminal procedure is the legal process used to adjudicate a claim when an individual is accused of violating criminal laws. One of the main concepts in criminal procedure is the presumption of innocence, which means that the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution is required to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime with the required mental state.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal law, and it is important to distinguish it from a claim of actual innocence. A claim of actual innocence is typically raised in post-conviction challenges to a conviction. It is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes they were accused of. Claims of actual innocence may involve disputing that any crime occurred or that the accused were the perpetrators.

In the United States, the development of DNA testing has heavily revised this tradition. Every state has adopted statutes or rules allowing newly discovered DNA results to form the basis of a challenge to a conviction on grounds of "actual innocence". However, the scope and breadth of an inmate's ability to bring a DNA-based claim of actual innocence vary greatly from state to state. The Supreme Court has ruled that convicted persons do not have a constitutional due process right to bring DNA-based post-conviction "actual innocence" claims.

The bar for actual innocence habeas claims is high. An actual innocence claim is often the trailblazer for the underlying constitutional claim. In other words, actual innocence by itself is not a constitutional violation to allow for federal habeas relief. Instead, it is only the first step toward relief, and there must also be an underlying constitutional claim. For example, actual innocence may be established by presenting new DNA evidence that was not available at the time of the original trial.

The Supreme Court has never resolved whether innocence is a freestanding constitutional claim. However, a consensus has emerged among states recognizing the right to judicial review of compelling claims of innocence.

Frequently asked questions