Individuals who believe they have been wrongfully convicted may wonder if they can still challenge it. In Oregon, there are two main pathways: filing an appeal and seeking post-conviction relief. While both aim to rectify an unfair trial or sentence, they vary in purpose and follow different procedures. Understanding their differences is important for anyone looking to overturn a wrongful conviction.
Appeal: A second look at the trial
An appeal is essentially a request for a higher court to review a lower court’s decision. It focuses on mistakes that occurred during the trial which may have compromised a person’s ability to receive a fair trial or a lawful sentence. These mistakes may include errors by the trial judge such as providing incorrect instructions to the jury or excluding important evidence. Moreover, appeals only look at the trial record and do not allow for new evidence.
Those interested in filing an appeal must act quickly because strict time limits apply.
Post-conviction relief: A broader approach
Post-conviction relief is a process that allows a defendant to present new evidence that was not presented in trial or raise issues after discovering errors during the original trial. In Oregon, this process was called “coram nobis” and it typically applies only to cases where a person receives a non-unanimous jury verdict.
Key differences
The main difference between an appeal and post-conviction relief is the focus and purpose. Appeals aim to correct the legal mistakes made during the trial, while post-conviction proceedings raise issues that could not be addressed during an appeal and may allow the introduction of new evidence.
Both options are important in seeking justice. It is key to seek legal help to better understand which option is most appropriate given the situation.