laurence.hammack@roanoke.com 981-3239

A new state law intended to free the innocent, which some critics fear will unleash a torrent of claims from jailhouse lawyers, has so far produced just a trickle.

The law, which took effect July 1, allows convicted felons to file petitions, or "writs of actual innocence," with the Virginia Court of Appeals detailing their claims of newly discovered evidence.

Previously, the state's 21-day rule prohibited such claims from being heard unless the new evidence came to light within three weeks of a defendant's sentencing. That time limit - the most restrictive in the nation - was removed this year by the General Assembly.

The first petition citing the law was filed July 16 by an inmate incarcerated for a crime that happened in Petersburg, according to a clerk with the Court of Appeals.

Additional petitions have since been filed, but chief deputy clerk John Vollino would not say how many had come in by Thursday. Vollino said the court will submit an annual total of innocence petitions to the Supreme Court as required by law, but that it will not provide daily counts. A reporter would not be allowed to view the documents at the court's Richmond office unless they were requested individually by the petitioner's name, Vollino said.

In recent years, Virginia legislators have taken a cautious approach to reforming the state's 21-day rule, often citing concerns that inmates will inundate the courts with frivolous claims of innocence if given the chance.

"There is concern that this is an invitation to open the floodgates," said Tim Murtaugh, spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Kilgore. Murtaugh said the attorney general's office, which represents the state when convictions are challenged, has been notified of "several" petitions filed under the new law.

Legal observers said it's too soon to tell if the floodgate prediction will hold true.

But with the first petition being filed by an inmate acting as his own attorney - and with inmates making nearly all of the inquiries to the Court of Appeals about the process - some defense attorneys are raising a different concern.

n n n

The fear is that the new law will be shaped by unskilled litigants who have the most to lose.

"Because this is a brand-new statute, it's not clear" how the courts will interpret the law, said Donald Salzman, president of the board of directors for the Innocence Project of the National Capital Region, which includes Virginia. "The first cases that appear before the court may set the ground rules for future cases."

The concern with "pro se" petitioners, the legal term for people who represent themselves, is justified considering how difficult it will be to reverse a conviction under the new law, said Steven Benjamin, a Richmond lawyer who served on a legislative committee that recommended changes to the 21-day rule.

"We do not want pro se litigants determining the course of these writs," Benjamin said. "That is a real concern in my mind, because I'm afraid they will be unfairly taken advantage of."

Under the law, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals will review each petition. It is at that stage, many lawyers predict, that most petitions will be summarily dismissed by the court for failing to meet various criteria.

Among the requirements: The new evidence must have been unknown or unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial, and could not have been discovered through diligence.

For example, if a witness who lived across from a crime scene was found years later to say he saw someone other than the defendant commit the crime, his testimony would not be allowed as new evidence because it could have been discovered earlier.

"If the proof of innocence was available at the time of the trial, it doesn't matter how innocent you are. This legislation provides no relief," said Benjamin, who is president of the Virginia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Petitioners must also prove to the Court of Appeals that their claim is so compelling that no rational judge or jury would have convicted them, based on both the new evidence and all of the other facts of the case. A single new witness for the defense, in other words, could fail to trump an earlier prosecution.

If the three-judge panel decides that an innocence claim merits a closer look, it could order an evidentiary hearing in the circuit court where the petitioner was convicted. The appellate court would then make a final decision on whether to reverse a conviction. But some lawyers don't expect the process to get that far very often.

"It would be naive to think that any inmate at all would be able to pick their way through this minefield," Benjamin said. "There are so many opportunities for default that my prediction is most petitions will be summarily dismissed."

If a case is not summarily dismissed, the petitioner is entitled to a court-appointed attorney. However, the law gives the Court of Appeals discretion to appoint counsel earlier in the process.

Even if the initial petitioners are not given court-appointed attorneys and go on to lose their cases, that may not set a legal precedent on future cases, said Jon Gould, a professor at George Mason University who heads the Innocence Commission for Virginia. But it could affect how the court views such cases, he said.

"The more the courts get used to seeing pro se litigants," he said, "the more they will get used to giving cursory looks at these cases."

n n n

Aleck J. Carpitcher, a Roanoke County man who is serving a 38-year prison sentence for molesting a young girl who has since recanted her testimony, would appear to be a good test case for the new law. The girl's testimony was the only evidence used to convict Carpitcher.

Lawyers for the Innocence Project took up Carpitcher's case more than two years ago and have been fighting for his release in habeas proceedings in state and federal court.

But rather than being the first to file a petition under the new law, the Innocence Project has recently been looking for new lawyers to represent Carpitcher. Julia Sullivan, a Maryland attorney who serves on the group's board, said recently that the Innocence Project hopes to file a petition with the Court of Appeals on Carpitcher's behalf in the coming months.

Sullivan has worked on the case, but is not licensed to practice in Virginia.

Christopher Amolsch, an Alexandria attorney who has previously represented Carpitcher, said he has not been told why the Innocence Project is looking for new counsel. Amolsch, who represents Carpitcher in a pending habeas claim in federal court in Roanoke, said he plans to let Carpitcher decide who his attorney will be.

"I'm committed to spending as much time as possible to make sure that Aleck Carpitcher does not spend his life in jail for something he didn't do," Amolsch said. "But I work at the pleasure of Mr. Carpitcher."

Sonja Shepherd, a friend of Carpitcher's, said the 47-year-old is getting tired of waiting for something to happen in his case.

"Seems someone should have already gotten him out," Shepherd wrote in an e-mail. "Our founding forefathers of Virginia would turn over in their graves to know how our courts of today are keeping the innocent in prisons for years."