Attorneys for a mur­der defen­dant who may be inno­cent have called for reforms in the sys­tem of fed­er­al review, and par­tic­u­lar­ly to the accu­mu­lat­ed bar­ri­ers to habeas cor­pus review of claims of fac­tu­al inno­cence.” Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project, along with attor­neys for Dr. Jeffrey R. MacDonald in North Carolina, point­ed to the mount­ing evi­dence of MacDonald’s pos­si­ble inno­cence that was dis­missed by the fed­er­al courts until DNA evi­dence final­ly became avail­able: MacDonald’s var­i­ous legal teams filed suc­ces­sive habeas peti­tions over the decades. All of these peti­tions were denied by the fed­er­al dis­trict court in North Carolina and by the 4th Circuit, in large mea­sure because each new dis­cov­ery was viewed, and ana­lyzed, in iso­la­tion.… When the DNA test results were final­ly avail­able, the 4th Circuit, in an abrupt turn­around, derid­ed the piece­meal approach pre­vi­ous­ly tak­en to one evi­den­tiary dis­cov­ery after anoth­er and instruct­ed the dis­trict court this time to review the evi­dence as a whole’ and apply a fresh analysis.’ ”

The attor­neys com­pare this approach to that tak­en in the case of Gregory F. Taylor, also in North Carolina, that was han­dled by the state author­i­ties. In Taylor’s case, the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission helped bring to light faulty blood tests and implau­si­ble tes­ti­mo­ny” that led to his exon­er­a­tion by a three-judge pan­el. MacDonald, by con­trast, spent three decades main­tain­ing he was inno­cent, and in 1997 the courts final­ly acqui­esced to MacDonald’s requests to test crime-scene evi­dence” which result­ed in DNA test­ing of the evi­dence that did not match MacDonald nor any mem­ber of the family.”

(P. Cormier, A. Good, B. Scheck and H. Silverglate, Federal habeas cor­pus & actu­al inno­cence,” National Law Journal, May 16, 2011). See Innocence.

Citation Guide