Jurisprudence
May 29, 20262:46 PM
Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images and supremecourt.gov
Does the inaccuracy or unfairness of an underlying conviction count as an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for compassionate release? The U.S. Supreme Court considered this question in Thursday’s ruling in Fernandez v. United States and decided 8–1 that it does not. This case is unusual because innocent prisoners typically petition for federal habeas corpus relief, not compassionate release. Federal habeas corpus petitions attack the conviction and open up the possibility of compensation if the petitioner can demonstrate their innocence. So, why would an innocent prisoner seek compassionate release? Because Congress and the Supreme Court have severely limited prisoners’ access to federal habeas corpus relief over the past several decades.
Through our research interviewing exonerees about their appeals process and their perceptions of the courts and the law, we learned just how difficult it is for falsely convicted prisoners to get relief through habeas corpus—especially when they are petitioning pro se (representing themselves). Our 36 study participants are among the 3,820 people recognized by the National Registry of Exonerations as having their false convictions overturned based on actual innocence. Like Joe Fernandez, these exonerees learned the hard way that the appellate system is not designed for them.
