Criminal Law
If a person in prison has new evidence to prove he or she is innocent, is it fair for the federal court to put a time limit on how much time he or she has to prove that they are innocent? That is what happened in the case of Floyd Perkins. Floyd Perkins has been sitting in prison in Flint since 1993 for a murder that he has been trying to prove to the court that he is innocent.
The U.S. Supreme Court has finally decided to hear the case of Flint’s murder from 1993. Floyd Perkins is just 39 years old and was convicted in 1993 in Genesee Circuit Court of the stabbing and murder of Rodney Henderson. Henderson was found stabbed to death on a trail in a remote wooded area in Flint, Michigan. The witnesses in this case claim that there was a possible motive to why Perkins killed Henderson, Perkins believed that Henderson was a “snitch” (Ridley, G. 2012).
Perkins has evidence of three affidavits that were signed from 1997, 1999, and 2002 from witnesses who said that Perkins did not in fact kill Henderson. On these affidavits signed by witnesses are the witnesses claiming that another man known to Perkins and who also served an eye witness to the prosecutor was in fact the Henderson’s killer.
In 2008 Perkins argued for a trial to prove his innocence but the federal district court denied Perkins request saying that it was well over the one-year deadline. However, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March 2012 that Perkins should in fact be given his day in court because the law is not clear on if the one-year deadline applies to those whose new evidence proves actual innocence (Ridley, G. 2013). Michigan’s Attorney General Bill Schuette challenged the appeals courts ruling and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take the case.
The nation’s highest court ruled recently that a statutory one-year deadline for inmates to file a petition to challenge their conviction can be over looked if they are attempting to present new evidence that could prove their innocence (Ridley, G. 2013). Alan Gershel, a professor at Lansing-based Cooley Law School, said that it was very important and will help open the doors to some inmates who are trying to challenge their convictions.
What interested me in this case is the fact that there are so many innocent individuals that sit behind bars because they don’t have enough evidence to prove that they are innocent. The one-year deadline for inmates to file a petition to challenge their conviction is not long enough. Science is changing daily, if two years ago a person was guilty because of the lack of evidence to prove he or she was innocent, today with technology and science may prove that in fact they were innocent.
There are several sources that play a role in today’s society with laws.