What happens if a trial witness remembers something important later?
December 28, 2016 1:00 PM Subscribe
What would happen if a trial witness (or other important participant) suddenly remembered something crucial after a trial had already finished?
For example, if I were a witness insisting I had seen the accused on Tuesday but months later I realize that it 100% couldn't have been Tuesday, it must have been Wednesday.
Would the witness in this case be responsible for contacting someone? Who would they call? Could this affect the prior outcome of the trial, whether the accused were found innocent or guilty?
Has this happened in real life? All examples and information welcome!
For example, if I were a witness insisting I had seen the accused on Tuesday but months later I realize that it 100% couldn't have been Tuesday, it must have been Wednesday.
Would the witness in this case be responsible for contacting someone? Who would they call? Could this affect the prior outcome of the trial, whether the accused were found innocent or guilty?
Has this happened in real life? All examples and information welcome!
Response by poster: Note: I am not (nor ever have been) a witness in a trial - this is purely a "what would happen if" question. I'd love info about all jurisdictions, not just PA!
posted by amicamentis at 1:53 PM on December 28, 2016
posted by amicamentis at 1:53 PM on December 28, 2016
The easy part of this question is this - the federal rules of procedure and many state law rules have a mechanism by which a party can present evidence after the trial and ask for relief from the judgment and/or a new trial based on the new evidence. There are time limits and other limitations on this mechanism - these motions are not frequently granted. But, yes, when there is new evidence that clearly shows that a party found guilty was innocent, a court can grant a new trial and/or vacate the prior verdict. For example, all of the DNA exoneration cases that you hear about follow this path. Often this is done through a post-conviction proceeding in criminal cases.
The harder part of the question is whether a non-party witness has an obligation to come forward if he or she remembers something after they have testified. I don't know the answer, but my hunch is that there is no such obligation. A non-party witness is obligated to testify truthfully and to his/her best ability at the time of the testimony. Remembering something different later does not strike me as implicating that obligation. And a non-party witness has no other role in a case - they aren't a party, they don't have some continuing obligation to the court, they don't even have to appear in court unless they are compelled by trial subpoena. This all makes me think there are no post-trial obligations for witnesses. But I haven't researched this at all.
posted by Mid at 1:53 PM on December 28, 2016
The harder part of the question is whether a non-party witness has an obligation to come forward if he or she remembers something after they have testified. I don't know the answer, but my hunch is that there is no such obligation. A non-party witness is obligated to testify truthfully and to his/her best ability at the time of the testimony. Remembering something different later does not strike me as implicating that obligation. And a non-party witness has no other role in a case - they aren't a party, they don't have some continuing obligation to the court, they don't even have to appear in court unless they are compelled by trial subpoena. This all makes me think there are no post-trial obligations for witnesses. But I haven't researched this at all.
posted by Mid at 1:53 PM on December 28, 2016
This does indeed happen. I'm not aware of a legal mechanism that requires the witness to do anything, but if the prosecution becomes aware of exculpatory evidence, even after the fact, they are responsible for notifying the defendant. The witness could contact the state and the defense after discovering the error. Yes, this can have the affect of altering the result of the trial after the fact if the defendant files a motion for new trial right after the trial, or even years later, a writ for a new trial.
posted by *s at 3:27 PM on December 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by *s at 3:27 PM on December 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
> But, yes, when there is new evidence that clearly shows that a party found guilty was innocent, a court can grant a new trial and/or vacate the prior verdict.
I thought factual innocence was irrelevant once a jury has found you guilty; this is something I've been indignant about for years ("the law is a ass"), but I can't remember where I picked up the idea. Is it not true that appeals courts have refused to reopen cases based on new evidence that shows that a party found guilty was innocent?
posted by languagehat at 8:18 AM on December 29, 2016
I thought factual innocence was irrelevant once a jury has found you guilty; this is something I've been indignant about for years ("the law is a ass"), but I can't remember where I picked up the idea. Is it not true that appeals courts have refused to reopen cases based on new evidence that shows that a party found guilty was innocent?
posted by languagehat at 8:18 AM on December 29, 2016
I think what languagehat is referring to is the Supreme Court's decision in Herrera v. Collins that a petitioner's claim that he is factually innocent does not entitle him to seek release on cruel and unusual punishment grounds in federal court. There are, however, other ways to argue for release if one is factually innocent, such as ineffective assistance of counsel.
There are lots of witness recantation examples and claims of actual innocence in the sexual abuse arena, but it also occurs where there is more than one witness's word.
posted by *s at 9:25 AM on December 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are lots of witness recantation examples and claims of actual innocence in the sexual abuse arena, but it also occurs where there is more than one witness's word.
posted by *s at 9:25 AM on December 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
languagehat - no, there are definitely ways to attack and reverse a jury verdict of guilty, including (typically) a state appeals process (state appellate court plus maybe state supreme court) and then a state post-conviction process (state trial court, then appellate court, then maybe state supreme court). Then there is a separate federal habeas process available for federal constitutional violations that occurred during the state process (but this is pretty narrowly constrained because it isn't intended to be a "federal appeal").
What can happen, though, is that a defendant can eventually exhaust these processes and only later discover evidence that establishes his innocence. In most states you only get one appeal, one post-conviction petition as of right, etc. So you can wind up with someone who can prove innocence but has no process left to present the evidence. I'm not an expert in what can be done in that circumstance, but I know that sometimes a state court can allow a second post-conviction proceeding but is not required to do so. Also a governor can pardon or commute - but again, that's discretionary.
posted by Mid at 11:13 AM on December 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
What can happen, though, is that a defendant can eventually exhaust these processes and only later discover evidence that establishes his innocence. In most states you only get one appeal, one post-conviction petition as of right, etc. So you can wind up with someone who can prove innocence but has no process left to present the evidence. I'm not an expert in what can be done in that circumstance, but I know that sometimes a state court can allow a second post-conviction proceeding but is not required to do so. Also a governor can pardon or commute - but again, that's discretionary.
posted by Mid at 11:13 AM on December 30, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Adding insulation to top-floor apartment? | I have questions about an 'agreement' I've been... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Also, please consult with an attorney who does criminal defense before you call the accused's attorney, or better yet, have your attorney call the accused's attorney, just to make sure you disclose this information in a way that doesn't get you in some kind of legal trouble. Who knows, Pennsylvania might have weird laws about that.
posted by radicalawyer at 1:41 PM on December 28, 2016 [3 favorites]