Abstract
Recanting witnesses face both judicial skepticism and complex procedural hurdles. This Article recognizes the validity of this skepticism. It also recognizes the valid judicial interest in preserving the finality of judgments. Nevertheless, just because most recantations lack credibility does not mean they all lack credibility. Thus courts, legislatures, and jurists alike have a common interest in ensuring that standards are in place that will precisely filter the reliable from the unreliable. This Article has identified a number of structural disadvantages facing recantations, though the larger problem remains in the dogmatic skepticism perpetuated by so many courts. Instead of relying on the judicial standards in place for properly analyzing recantations, courts have too often summarily dismissed recantations as “inherently unreliable.” Thus, in order to compensate for such skepticism, we propose a corroboration requirement modeled after the one contained within Rule 803(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Recommended Citation
Heder, Adam and Goldsmith, Michael
(2012)
"Recantations Reconsidered: A New Framework for Righting Wrongful Convictions,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2012:
No.
1, Article 3.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2012/iss1/3