The difference between suspicion, new narratives, and admissible proof that can move a court.

A Claim Isn’t a Case

Post-conviction work lives and dies on proof, not passion. Courts don’t grant relief because a story sounds plausible or because the verdict feels wrong. They act when presented with admissible evidence that is material, credible, and likely to change the outcome under the law. That distinction—between a claim and proof—is everything.

What Counts as “New Evidence”

In North Carolina MARs and federal § 2255 motions, “new” usually means not available at trial despite reasonable diligence, material (not cumulative), and likely to produce a different result. Examples can include previously undisclosed Brady material, newly obtained scientific testing, or a witness who was genuinely unavailable and whose testimony fits the rules of evidence. Courts ask: Why wasn’t this presented before? and Would this have mattered to a juror or judge?

What Doesn’t Move a Court

Suspicion, rumor, or post-trial “narratives” rarely help. Recantations are treated with skepticism and must be corroborated. Hearsay that won’t be admissible at a hearing has little value. Social media screenshots or text chains without authentication are weak. Assertions of innocence without record-supported facts typically fail. Even serious trial mistakes won’t justify relief unless you can show prejudice—that the error changed the result.

Building Admissible Proof

Successful petitions are built like trials: with records, affidavits, transcripts, and expert work that will stand up to evidentiary rules. That often means locating trial files, ordering transcripts, interviewing witnesses with counsel present, retaining qualified experts, and documenting chain of custody or methodology for any new testing. Ineffective-assistance claims need extra-record facts—what counsel knew, did, or failed to do—and competent evidence showing a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Timing and Diligence

Deadlines and procedural bars matter. Even strong facts can die on arrival if the motion is late, successive, or could have been raised earlier. Courts expect petitioners to act with reasonable diligence; unexplained delays undermine credibility and can foreclose review.

Turning Suspicion into Strategy

Bring everything you have—but expect us to separate signal from noise. Our job is to test whether your facts can be proven and admitted, whether they meet the legal standard, and whether the remedy sought (new trial, resentencing, vacatur) is realistically attainable. If a path exists, we will map it. If it doesn’t, we will tell you plainly—and explain why.

Take the Next Step

If you believe new evidence or serious error affected your case, start with a focused review. Submit our Post-Conviction Support Application or call (919) 256-3606. We accept a small number of matters with viable proof, urgent timing, and the potential for meaningful relief.

---

Key Takeaways

• Courts grant relief for admissible, material, outcome-changing proof, not narratives.
• “New evidence” must be truly new, diligently pursued, and likely to change the result.
• Claims need records, affidavits, experts, and authentication to survive a hearing.
• Deadlines and procedural posture can determine success before merits are reached.
• We evaluate cases for proof, timing, and remedy—and give straight answers.