I want to make clear that it's not previously presented at trial, so it could have been available, but it can't have been presented at trial. That is one factor.
When they apply to the commission, they can tell us what is new, but it is not necessary for them to always know what is new. We don't put that burden on the convicted person—the claimant—to necessarily know, for instance, that there is definitively evidence that hasn't been DNA tested in their case. We will do the work to figure that out.
We ask them to fill out a 22-page questionnaire and to give us as much information as they can about their case. What is the innocence claim?
We then begin the process of figuring out if there is something here that can be done and if is there something new. We may go back and look at the trial transcript to figure out what was presented at trial. We'll assess whether there is forensic testing that hasn't been done or that could be done, or they may come to us and say, “Hey, there's a new witness who has come forward who is saying something that was never presented at trial,” or “There's a witness who has come forward and changed their story".
It's then a question for us to assess the credibility of that witness. Are there other factors that make that person credible? Is there other evidence out there that would make that person credible?