State court: Pardon doesn't mean clean slate

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that gubernatorial pardons based on convicts' innocence do not automatically clear their criminal record -- a decision some attorneys said would cause their clients undue anguish.

The ruling involves pardons that declared two men, Stanley Howard and Dana Holland, innocent of violent crimes and could have been the first step to officially wiping away their convictions. But when the men took steps to expunge their records, judges said no.

"It's a horrible emotional toll on him to know his conviction -- procured through torture -- is still on file," said Howard's attorney, Russell Ainsworth. "People shouldn't be dogged by a wrongful conviction the rest of their lives."

Howard was convicted of murder based on a confession that he and his attorney say was obtained through torture. Then-Gov. George Ryan pardoned Howard in 2003 but he remains in prison on an unrelated charge.

Holland spent 10 years in prison for rape before being cleared by DNA evidence. Then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich pardoned him in 2005.

Thursday's ruling applies only to pardons where a convict is declared innocent -- not to pardons issued on other grounds, like failing health. In recent decades, there have been only several dozen pardons that explicitly declared a convict's innocence.

A key issue the Illinois Supreme Court grappled with was whether lawmakers meant to give courts discretion over whether to wipe clear the record of someone wrongly convicted. In its ruling, the court found they did have that discretion.

"But our position is that the language intended that once the governor issued a pardon, then expungement would be automatically carried out by the court," said Holland's attorney, Karen Daniel. "The Supreme Court didn't see it that way."

In Howard's case, attorneys representing Illinois argued in circuit court that he shouldn't have his record regarding the wrongful conviction cleared because he had other criminal convictions that were not in doubt.

While Ainsworth said his client no longer has any legal recourse to clear his record, Holland's attorney said the Supreme Court judges ruled that her client could go back and again ask the circuit court for his record to be cleared.

Daniel said she is confident the court will clear Holland's record, but she complained the process has been stressful.

Holland has devoted years to trying to convince various courts and officials of his innocence before the 2005 pardon and, years later, he still has to make similar arguments, she said.

"When we have a declaration of innocence, we should be trying to make it easy for that person to clear their record, not harder," said Daniel, of Northwestern University School of Law's Center on Wrongful Convictions.

In addition to his wrongful conviction, Holland also spent time in prison for a 1986 armed robbery conviction. But Daniel described Holland as a good person who has kept his life on track since prison.

It is not fair that the wrongful conviction still poses an impediment, including when Holland applies for jobs and potential employers see it pop up during background checks, Daniel said.

"This all hampers him from moving forward in his life," she said.