Posted: 6:38 AM- Opponents of proposed constitutional amendments designed to streamline death penalty appeals said Thursday that the measures are too broad and would upset the balance of powers among the three branches of government.
    The proposal could allow the Utah Legislature to eliminate the authority of judges to consider claims, after a certain time, that an inmate is innocent, Salt Lake City attorney Alan Sullivan told the Constitutional Revision Commission.
    "It's important for courts to correct their mistakes," he said.
    The proposal by the Utah Attorney General's Office to modify the state Constitution would allow the Legislature to set limits on post-conviction relief petitions, a type of appeal.
    A two-thirds vote by state lawmakers is required to put the measure on the 2010 ballot. The Constitutional Revision Commission serves as an advisory body to the Legislature.
    The changes would apply to post-conviction appeals in all criminal cases, but are aimed particularly at death penalty cases. Lawyers from the appeals division of the Utah Attorney General's Office, which proposed the revisions, argue that they strike a balance between providing inmates with a "generous" opportunity to correct serious constitutional errors in their convictions and giving crime victims finality and closure.
    "We
Advertisement

have the death penalty on the books, but no death penalty," Fred Voros said, adding that inmates delay executions for years with appeals.
    And Thomas Brunker, an assistant attorney general, disputed that any legitimate claims of innocence would be blocked. He pointed out that there is a state law that allows convicted criminals to request DNA testing of old evidence that might exonerate them.
    The commission scheduled a July meeting for further discussion of the proposal.
    pmanson@sltrib.com