•  
  •  
 

Authors

Lindsay Mast

Keywords

Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, Rule 37, incarceration, exonerations, collateral post-conviction remedies, post-conviction remedies, post-conviction relief remedies

Abstract

Charlie Vaughn has been incarcerated since 1991 in Arkansas’s Tucker Unit maximum security prison, serving a life sentence for a first-degree murder he did not commit. His actual innocence is simply irrelevant in the State of Arkansas due to strict adherence to procedural court filing rules. He has only been denied without opinion or procedurally barred. Despite both state and federal constitutional protections safeguarding liberty and freedom through various rights, including to counsel, to remain silent, a speedy trial, a jury of peers, and due process, wrongful convictions persist. Arkansas stands out among other top incarceration rate states as one where notably few exonerations have occurred. A closer look at the stringent limitations and practical implications of the state’s primary post1conviction remedy, Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 (“Rule 37”), reveals that very few inmates with innocence claims ever receive a review of their case on the merits because their claims are often procedurally barred just ninety days into incarceration. This Comment begins with Charlie Vaughn’s story, followed by an overview of how a defendant progresses through Arkansas courts after being found guilty of a felony, providing a past to present overview of collateral post-conviction remedies available. Part II focuses on analyzing the practical implications of Rule 37, the primary state remedy available to wrongfully convicted defendants seeking to overturn their original conviction. Part III concludes with specific recommendations for achieving stated goals of the state in post-conviction relief remedies while defending life and liberty as guaranteed by the Arkansas Constitution.

Share

COinS