期刊名称：Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement
出版年度：2013
卷号：2013
期号：1
语种：English
出版社：Faculty of Education
摘要："One thing we've learned by studying these cases and litigating these cases is it could really happen to anybody, . . . [n]obody is immun " With the advent of DNA identification technology in the late 1980s, the American criminal justice system underwent a transformation as the legal field and the public placed more focus on innocence related issues. In fact, a law school professor cleverly termed this phenomenon "innocentrism. " Currently, all but one state has a postconviction DNA testing statute to prove innocence. DNA identification technology has provided many individuals a chance at freedom. Many other prisoners claiming innocence, however, do not have the benefit of DNA evidence, but they do have other compelling "newly discovered" evidence that may prove their innocence. For these prisoners, the majority of states have direct or collateral remedies to obtain new trials or habeas relief, but only Utah and Virginia have postconviction statutes that provide an avenue to prove factual innocence without the use of DNA. This Note first gives a brief background of the innocence movement. Then it discusses Utah's non-DNA factual innocence statute, including the legislative history, and gives examples of two cases that have been filed under the statute. Next, the Note discusses the necessity of postconviction, non-DNA innocence statutes. Finally, the Note discusses whether Utah's statute should be the model for other states and what problems exist with Utah's statute as written.
