A criminal conviction is not always the final word. Even after a trial and a direct appeal, the legal system offers those convicted of a crime a way to address serious errors that might have violated their rights.
This process is called post-conviction relief (PCR). PCR allows people to challenge their conviction or sentence based on specific legal reasons. Here’s a closer look at how these hearings work.
A judge, not a jury, makes the decision
The person seeking relief (called the petitioner) must typically file for PCR within two years of completing their direct appeal or receiving their sentencing judgment. In these hearings, a judge alone reviews the case. Unlike the original trial, which may have involved a jury, PCR hearings are decided by a judge.
How the process works
The petitioner initiates the process by filing a PCR petition. This document explains why they believe their conviction or sentence was unlawful or unjust. The state then files a response to these claims. During the hearing, which typically lasts about 30 minutes, a judge reviews various forms of evidence, including:
- Affidavits
- Sworn statements
- Transcripts
- Legal memoranda
The petitioner often joins by telephone or videoconference. Many PCR petitions can claim ineffective assistance of counsel—that their previous lawyer did not provide good enough representation. This is a common and unfortunate ground for pursuing post-conviction relief.
The potential outcomes after the hearing
Post-conviction hearings can result in two primary outcomes:
- The judge can deny the petition: This means the original conviction and sentence stay the same.
- The judge grants the petition: This could lead to various forms of relief such as release from custody, a new trial or changes to the sentence.
What PCR offers is a chance for justice, an opportunity to correct legal errors and sometimes even freedom. For those in Oregon with a loved one facing post-conviction issues, consider seeking legal counsel to handle this very complex process.