Justice: Denied -- The Magazine for the Wrongly Convicted




Table of Contents

This Month's

Cover Art


JD Features:

From the Editor

Innocents Death Row Watch



Free at Last


Heroes at the Bar

Contact Us

  little logo.jpg (4471 bytes)





Written in blood, stamped in unfairness... Virginia's Infamous 21-Day Rule

By Barbara Jean McAtlin

Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1.1: Finality of Judgments, Orders and Decrees -- The "21-Day Rule" (Update available)

All final judgments, orders and decrees, irrespective of court, shall remain under the control of the trial court and subject to be modified, vacated, or suspended, for twenty-one days after the date of entry, and no longer. Notwithstanding the finality of the judgment, in a criminal case the trial court may postpone execution of the sentence in order to give the accused an opportunity to apply for a writ of error and supersedes such postponement, however, shall not extend the time limits hereinafter prescribed for applying for a writ of error. The date of entry of any final judgment, order or decree shall be the date the judgment, order or decree is signed by the judge.

When it comes to crime, the Commonwealth of Virginia can be said to be tough on criminals -- especially and unfairly tough. The Commonwealth is so certain that its criminal justice system works correctly the first time that the Virginia Supreme Court has all but closed the door on the right of those convicted to prove their innocence after their conviction. Although other states have also imposed limits on how much time may pass before a convicted person is allowed to introduce new evidence, none of those states stands behind their rules as steadfastly as Virginia, especially in death penalty cases.

In the writing of the 21-day rule, Virginia, in staid support of its judicial system, effectively blocked any and all avenues for the state's courts to consider any evidence of innocence that surfaces more than 21-days after a defendant's final sentencing in Circuit Court.

Even a defendant who can show strong enough evidence of innocence for a governor to commute his death sentence to a life sentence is NOT entitled to a new trial. Presently, four men -- Joseph "Joe" Giarratano (Joe's story is in this issue), Earl Washington (who has since been pardoned by Virginia Governor Gilmore), Herbert Bassette and Joseph Payne -- have had their death sentences commuted to life sentences because a Virginia governor had serious reservations about their guilt. Even with enough evidence of their innocence to convince a governor to free them from death row (and recommend a new trial in Joe's case), all four men remain in prison serving life sentences because the 21-day rule has effectively blocked any hope for a new trial.

Serious questions should be asked about the fairness of the 21-day rule at this point. How many defendants sentenced to death have gone to the executioner's gurney because the recently discovered evidence of their innocence failed to convince a governor? How many times has a Virginia governor found non-persuasive evidence persuasive enough? How many times has inconsistent DNA evidence, witness recantation or evidence pointing to another person as the true criminal been overlooked or swept under the 21-day rule rug? How many times has a Virginia governor chosen to ignore this evidence? How many innocents have been murdered by the Commonwealth of Virginia because the Commonwealth put so much faith in its system?

Legal killings as a result of Virginia's 21-day Rule:

Carl Chichester: legally murdered by Virginia in 1999 despite conflicting eyewitness accounts. An eyewitness who said he had seen Chichester's codefendant commit the murder that Chichester was executed for was never called to testify. The witness who said he saw Chichester commit the murder testified.

Tommy Strickler: legally murdered by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1999 despite evidence that a key prosecution witness lied on the stand at his trial.

Joseph O'Dell: legally murdered by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1997 despite a U.S. District judge's opinion that DNA test results from a bloodstain on O'Dell's jacket, said to have matched the DNA of his victim, were "inconclusive."

Michael Satcher: legally murdered by Virginia in 1997 despite the fact that a later, more refined method of DNA testing directly conflicted with an earlier DNA test performed by the Commonwealth. The later test found that Satcher's DNA could not have matched any of the DNA evidence from the crime scene.

Ronald Bennett: legally murdered by Virginia in 1996 after Bennett's ex-wife recanted her testimony against him and implicated herself and his cousin.

Dennis Stockton: legally murdered by Virginia in 1995 despite the fact that the prosecution's key witness admitted to a reporter that he had lied on the stand.

Roger Coleman: legally murdered by Virginia in 1992 despite substantial evidence that developed after 21-days from his date with the Circuit Court that someone besides Coleman was responsible for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law.

With the recent questioning of the fairness of the death penalty in the United States, the Virginia State Supreme Court's unwillingness to thoroughly scrutinize all the claims of innocence in death penalty cases should seem vastly unfair to even the most noncommittal citizen. When combined with the federal doctrines of procedural default, retroactivity and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Virginia's 21-day Rule effectively blocks any and all federal recourse that normally would be available to any defendant condemned to die. It is obvious that this system will result in scores of unfair trials in the future as it has in the past -- trials not allowed to be corrected legally, even at the risk of executing an innocent person. As long as the law permits these unfair trials to persevere, the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot possibly accurately or justly choose between those who deserve to die and those who do not.

Even though the Constitution of the United States specifies the use of only the most minimal standards of fairness at the state level, the moral duty of the Commonwealth of Virginia to its citizens is to see that justice is fairly administered. All too often the Commonwealth refuses to thoroughly review those cases where even that minimal standard of fairness is in question -- even in matters of life and death.

Unequal, Unfair and Irreversible: The Death Penalty in Virginia

Endorsed by:
American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia
Virginia State Conference, NAACP
Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
Office of Justice and Peace, Catholic Diocese of Richmond
Virginia College of Criminal Defense Attorneys

Update on Virginia's 21-Day Rule

Death row retrials may become exempt from unfair 21-day rule

By Barbara Jean McAtlin

On October 13, 2000, the Virginia Supreme Court made a surprise move toward eliminating the Commonwealth's 21-day rule in capital punishment cases. Virginia's infamous 21-Day Rule -- the shortest in the nation -- has brought national criticism of the Commonwealth's capital punishment system after the U.S. Supreme Court found serious errors in three of its five death row cases over a 14-month period. Many staunch conservatives as well as capital punishment opponents say that Virginia rushes condemned prisoners to the execution chamber without ensuring that all their evidence and appeals have been properly heard.

As the current law stands, Virginia's prisoners have a scant 21 days after sentencing to request a new trial based on new, previously undiscovered information, even if that new information will exonerate them. With the decision to look into the effects of the 21-Day Rule, the normally conservative Virginia Supreme Court agreed that there should be no time limit in capital punishment cases. The Court also gave the public a month to comment before it changes the rule.

The Virginia Supreme Court has also begun taking a good look at the Commonwealth's existing capital cases. It has sent two cases back to the lower courts for new sentencing hearings and has ordered a new trial for a third case.

For quite some time, the 21-Day Rule has been under fire from lawyers who handle high-profile cases such as that of Derek Barnabei, who was recently executed, and Earl Washington Jr., who was recently pardoned by Governor Gilmore. A bill that would have changed the 21-day deadline to a three-year deadline passed in the Virginia House of Delegates earlier this year, but died in the Senate.

The Virginia Supreme Court Justices can enact the new rule on their own since the 21-Day Rule is a rule of that Court. Even so, the court can still modify its proposal after hearing comments from the public, or the Virginia Legislature could modify it further or overrule it altogether when its session begins in 2001.

Those wanting to change the 21-Day Ruler have pointed out that DNA testing has exonerated nine people on death row in the United States.

"I'm very pleased by this development," Republican State Senator William C. Mims said, "The legitimacy of the death penalty is determined by our confidence that we are not making mistakes. With this [proposed] rule, the public will know that if a mistake has been made at the trial level, it will be corrected by the Virginia Supreme Court."

Although Virginia Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico declined to comment, prosecutors have said that the 21-Day Rule has been a necessary guard against frivolous claims and prevents death row inmates from dragging out the appeals process. They also said they do not have a problem with the general proposition that after-discovered evidence should be considered, but do have a problem with retrying an entire case.

Defense attorneys, who were pleasantly surprised by the ruling, are enthusiastic about the rule change. Richmond defense attorney Gerald Zerkin said he thinks the Court is to be applauded for taking this step and that if the revised rule had been enacted in 1994, it would have resulted in a new trial for Earl Washington, Jr. then. Instead, Washington had to wait six more years for additional DNA testing and a gubernatorial pardon.

John Youngs, an attorney in Arlington, told The Washington Post that he is cautiously optimistic about the changing of the rule and that there is a wave going through the country with the moratorium in Illinois and actual innocence cases abound.

Under the new rule, the Virginia Supreme Court would hear petitions from defendants who can show a "substantial likelihood of actual innocence." The legislative proposal by Democratic Delegate James F. Almand requires "clear and convincing evidence" before a Court will hear a case.

George Rutherglen, a University of Virginia law professor, said that the proposed standard is still pretty strict as it is still a substantial likelihood of innocence, not a substantial probability of reasonable doubt. Even under the new rule, the burden of proof of innocence would still on the inmate.

Spokesmen for Governor James S. Gilmore III and Attorney General Mark L. Earley told The Post that their offices are studying the proposed rule and would not comment. Representatives of the Commonwealth's Attorneys Association and the State Crime Commission said each is working on its own proposals.

Virginia governors have pardoned five men -- only one of those was convicted of capital murder -- after DNA testing suggested they had been wrongfully convicted. None of those men discovered the key evidence in the case until well after the 21-day deadline had passed.

Delegate Almand, while noting that the Supreme Court's proposal deals only with death penalty cases, said, "this particular problem is broader than that. What about rape cases and robbery cases?"

The Washington Post

Justice Denied

bottomissue11.jpg (6558 bytes)