Man Wrongly Jailed for Murder Helps Make Case for Actual Innocence Test
A little-noticed opinion by a New York judge earlier this month didn’t simply free Fernando Bermudez after 18 years in prison in a murder case. It found that he didn’t commit the crime.
By doing so, Manhattan Supreme Court John Cataldo lent further weight to growing concern that not simply new evidence or constitutional claims but actual innocence also should be a potential basis for reversing a conviction, reports the New York Times.
“It elevates substance over form,” says defense lawyer Glenn A. Garber, who founded the Exoneration Initiative. “If they know they’re required to engage in actual innocence analysis, it sends a message to courts that they have to do more when they’re confronted with compelling evidence of innocence,” he says of the judges who must review such claims.
State lawmakers are now mulling potential legislation to guarantee such an actual innocence review. But opponents say it could lead to a great deal of wasted time due to the number of desperate inmates who might make meritless claims in a last-ditch effort to get out of prison.
Bermudez had been arguing his innocence since 1994, the newspaper notes.
“This is a day,” he said on Friday as he left Sing Sing prison in New York, “for other people to have hope that justice is possible in this country.”
Earlier related coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “Supreme Court Orders Hearing on Death Row Inmate’s Innocence Claim”
ABAJournal.com: “Dershowitz Challenges Scalia to Debate on Death Penalty & Catholic Doctrine”
ABAJournal.com: “Free at Last After 25 Years, Former Inmate Marvels at Life”
