POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ATTORNEYS
Post-Conviction Relief Lawyers
Post-Conviction Relief Attorneys Serving Clients Nationwide
Post-conviction relief is a crucial aspect of the criminal justice system, offering individuals a pathway to challenge their convictions and sentences after their direct appeals have been exhausted. In Illinois, the legal framework for post-conviction relief is established under the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act.
Understanding Post-Conviction Relief
Post-conviction relief allows defendants to raise constitutional issues that were not, or could not have been, addressed on direct appeal. These issues typically involve claims of violations of constitutional rights that occurred during the trial, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or newly discovered evidence that could exonerate the defendant.
Eligibility and Filing
To be eligible for post-conviction relief in Illinois, a petition must be filed within a specific timeframe: generally, within six months after the denial of the petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, or three years from the date of conviction if no appeal is taken. However, exceptions exist for claims based on new evidence.
The Petition Process
The post-conviction relief process begins with the filing of a petition in the circuit court where the original conviction occurred. The petition must include affidavits, records, or other evidence supporting the claims, demonstrating that the petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated. At this first stage, the court will review the petition to determine if it presents a legitimate claim. If the petition is deemed frivolous or patently without merit, it will be dismissed.
If the petition survives this initial review, the process advances to a second stage where the court appoints public defense counsel for the petitioner (if they cannot afford one) and allows for further investigation and the amendment of the petition. The State may file a motion to dismiss at this stage, which the court must rule on.
In cases where the petition advances to the third stage, an evidentiary hearing is held. During this hearing, both the petitioner and the State can present evidence and call witnesses. The burden is on the petitioner to prove their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Strategic Considerations
Effective post-conviction relief advocacy requires meticulous preparation and strategic thinking. At Lyon & Kerr, the team concept is paramount to developing a successful post-conviction petition. Our in-house attorneys will work swiftly and efficiently to assemble a dynamic team that may include attorneys, private investigators, paralegals, mitigation specialists, expert witnesses, and other consultants.
Thorough Investigation: A detailed investigation into the trial record and new evidence is essential. This includes obtaining affidavits from witnesses, forensic evidence, and any new information that could support the petitioner’s claims. The legal team that we assemble for your case almost always includes at least one private investigator; the private investigators that we employ are leaders in their fields.
Effective Legal Writing: Crafting a compelling petition that clearly articulates constitutional violations and supports these claims with strong legal argument and new, reliable evidence is crucial. At Lyon & Kerr, your legal team will include attorneys that are skilled legal researchers and writers, and attorneys that are regarded as veteran courtroom litigators.
Expert Testimony: In many cases, expert testimony can play a pivotal role in the success of a post-conviction petition. Successful petitions often involve the employment of experts in the fields of computer forensics, DNA analysis, forensic pathology, eyewitness identification, pharmacology, psychiatry, psychology, or chemistry, among others. At Lyon & Kerr, we are prepared to utilize decades worth of expert witness contacts and legal experience to reveal facts, insight, and legal arguments that were not available, or presented, at the original trial.
Awareness of Procedural Rules: Understanding the procedural nuances of the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act and ensuring compliance with all filing deadlines and requirements is vital to avoid procedural dismissals.
Post-conviction relief is a vital mechanism for ensuring justice and upholding constitutional rights in the criminal justice system. For lawyers in Illinois, navigating this complex process requires a deep understanding of the legal standards, procedural rules, and strategic considerations involved. By effectively advocating for their clients, attorneys can help correct wrongful convictions and secure the fair administration of justice.
Contact Our Experienced Post Conviction Relief Attorneys
If you have been convicted of a crime and believe that your constitutional rights have been violated, contact Lyon & Kerr to learn more about post-conviction relief. At Lyon & Kerr, our legal team will review your case, determine the best strategy for your petition, and explain your legal rights.
New Trial Won in People of Illinois v. John Fulton and Anthony Mitchell After Third-Stage Evidentiary Hearing
Attorneys Andrea Lyon, Melissa Matuzak, and Robert Kerr were successful in winning a new trial after a third stage evidentiary hearing for defendant-petitioners John Fulton and Anthony Mitchell, both of whom were convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 31 years for first-degree murder, 25 years for aggravated kidnapping and 3 years for concealment of a homicidal death. Mr. Fulton and Mr. Mitchell each served more than 16 years before our team secured for them the post-conviction relief they deserve and is required by law.
The successful bases of the memorandum for post conviction relief were three fold:
(1) Under Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, which was the presence of a security camera and key fob entry system proved that the defendants were not guilty of the crime;
(2) If the Court did not find that there was a Brady violation, then they were denied effective assistance of counsel under Strickland and pursuant to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and
(3) The evidence adduced at the Third-Stage Hearing showed actual innocence.