Don't miss reading the Washington Post's editorial today Just Repeal It . Virginia has the strictest limitation in the nation on inmates' rights to bring innocence claims before the Courts--claims must be brought within 21 days of conviction.

The Virginia Supreme Court proposed a change in the rule to correct this inequity. But the matter got tossed to the legislature, where the Crime Commission, headed by Rep. Kenneth Stolle of Virginia Beach, has proposed a bill to increase the time limit to a measly 90 days while further study is conducted. The Post correctly states:

The 21-day rule is one of the truly irrational aspects of the commonwealth's criminal justice system. Under its terms, even indisputable evidence of innocence is off limits. After a conviction becomes final, Virginia law simply doesn't care whether it was accurate or not. The General Assembly recently created a narrow exception for biological evidence, but that only raises the broader question of why other compelling evidence of innocence should remain beyond review. To its credit, the Virginia Supreme Court has been troubled by the 21-day rule, and it recently proposed an amendment that would allow courts to consider non-biological evidence after conviction in certain cases as well.

Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach), who heads the [Crime] commission, has introduced "place-holder" legislation that would relax the rule slightly while the legislature studies the issue. But his place-holder legislation is hardly better than no change at all. And there is no guarantee either that the legislature's final product will be as constructive as the court's proposed rule, or even that inertia will not render the temporary measure permanent.

Mr. Stolle's bill would, if enacted, turn the 21-day rule into a 90-day rule. But in major cases in which Virginia convicts have turned out to be innocent, the critical evidence has never surfaced during the 69 extra days this proposal would allow. Rather, evidence of innocence generally comes to light years later. The fundamental problem is in any rule that, after any arbitrary period of time, keeps imprisoned an innocent person who can prove his innocence. Mr. Stolle says he is willing to be flexible about the interim measure. And if the General Assembly wants to tackle this problem, its involvement is certainly welcome. But it would be a great shame if legislators blocked the Supreme Court's proposal and then dithered or produced no meaningful change.

We have written about this before, here. Thanks to PG for bringing it to our attention today in our comments section.