Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Unrepresented And Untimely: The Pcra's Disservice To Indigent Prisoners, Nathan Margioni
Unrepresented And Untimely: The Pcra's Disservice To Indigent Prisoners, Nathan Margioni
Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement
The Post-Conviction Remedies Act’s fundamental flaw is its effect on the availability of relief to indigent prisoners. A post-conviction review is often a prisoner’s only opportunity to challenge the failure of appellate counsel to provide effective assistance. Because the legislature has eliminated the common law writ of habeas corpus as a method to challenge a conviction or sentence, the PCRA is the only available avenue for a post-conviction review. The indigent defendant, however, is particularly vulnerable to the PCRA’s restrictions, due to his or her reliance on appointed rather than private counsel during the appeals phase, and lack of resources …
Factually Innocent Without Dna? An Analysis Of Utah's Factual Innocence Statute, Nic Caine
Factually Innocent Without Dna? An Analysis Of Utah's Factual Innocence Statute, Nic Caine
Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement
Since 1989, DNA evidence has fueled the innocence movement, helping hundreds prove their innocence and obtain freedom. DNA technology has been an invaluable development for the innocence movement, and DNA technology will continue to advance and improve in the future. DNA evidence is not available in the majority of cases, however, and many believe that DNA exonerations will eventually diminish as DNA analysis becomes more widely available. Furthermore, “for every DNA exoneree there are hundreds if not over a thousand wrongfully convicted defendants whose cases do not contain biological evidence that could prove innocence.”150 It is time for other states …
Protecting Tax Payers And Crime Victims: The Case For Restricting Utah's Preliminary Hearings To Felony Offenses, Paul G. Cassell, Thomas E. Goodwin
Protecting Tax Payers And Crime Victims: The Case For Restricting Utah's Preliminary Hearings To Felony Offenses, Paul G. Cassell, Thomas E. Goodwin
Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement
Requiring preliminary hearings for Class A misdemeanors is undesirable for two simple reasons. First, the court’s decision will result in hundreds of additional preliminary hearings a year, thus imposing substantial costs on taxpayers and burdens on an already overwhelmed criminal justice system. Second, the decision will create substantial hardships for crime victims, who will now be twice subjected to cross-examination by defense attorneys—once at the preliminary hearing and again later at trial. And these costs will generate no significant benefit in return.