|
Actual innocence is a state of affairs in which a defendant in a criminal case is innocent of the charges against them because he or she did not in fact commit the crime of which they have been accused. ==Overview of claims of "Actual Innocence"== In its most literal sense, "actual innocence" - more properly understood as a claim that the prosecution has failed to prove factual guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - is a very commonly raised defense to a crime.〔Paul Bergman, Sara J. Berman-Barrett, ''The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System'' (2007), p. 285 (stating "Undoubtedly, the most common defense argument is that the prosecution has failed to prove the defendant guilty").〕〔Thomas J. Gardner, Victor Manian, ''Criminal Law: Principles, Cases, and Readings'' (1975), p. 123 (stating "The most common defense to a criminal charge is that of denying that the defendant committed the offense").〕 Claims of actual innocence may involve disputing that any crime occurred at all, or that the accused was the perpetrator of the criminal act. Arguably, even affirmative defenses such as "self-defense," insanity, or "mistake of fact" qualify as "actual innocence" claims because while in those cases the accused admits to both his or her identity as the actor and to the existence of the act ("actus reus"), he or she is claiming that the State cannot prove that he or she had the requisite mental state ("mens rea") to constitute a crime. However, the specific term "actual innocence" is most often used in the context of someone convicted for a crime he or she did not commit. Claims of "actual innocence" are, in that sense, usually raised in post-conviction challenges to a conviction. The Tarlton Law Library at the University of Texas at Austin maintains an "Actual Innocence awareness database" containing "resources pertaining to wrongful convictions, selected from the popular media (such as newspaper articles and segments which aired on television news magazines), journal articles, books, reports, legislation and websites". In the United States, establishing "actual innocence" after a conviction may be considerably more difficult than winning an acquittal at trial, however. 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. See, e.g., ''Cochran v. United States'', 157 U.S. 286, 299 (1895). However, "innocence" is a factual question, and once a fact-finder—judge or jury—makes a factual determination, appellate and post-conviction courts generally are bound by those factual determinations. Appeals and post-conviction cases, by their very nature, focus on legal errors, not factual disputes. Indeed, it is unclear whether proof of actual innocence is, in and of itself, grounds for appellate reversal. ''Herrera v. Collins'', 506 U.S. 390 (1993) A convicted person has two avenues for attacking the validity of his or her conviction and/or sentence. The first is direct appeal. Direct appeals are limited in number and scope, and address only those issues raised in the lower court. The second method of attacking the validity of a conviction is known as "collateral" review, and can take many forms, including state and federal petitions for writs of habeas corpus, petitions for writs of error coram nobis, and—increasingly—a newly developed form of collateral relief which allows petitioners to raise claims of actual innocence, whether through DNA testing or through some other method. Thus, it is in collateral, post-conviction filings that claims of actual innocence are most likely to be considered. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Actual innocence」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|