medwed: i think it is an interesting issue., finality is often highlighted as a variable, or as a factor in terms of curtailing postconviction remedies. the idea is that at some point litigation should be final, or else victims will not have capacity to abso trb new cases. but on the other hand, i think finality is often a fallacy. what good is finality if there is an underlying question of legal or factual innocence? that is a problem. i think accuracy is more important than finality. and sometimes that means we should take a closer look, maybe a second look at a meritorious claim. john: people who were wrongly convicted who are innocent and can prove their innocence, i think we all have the image from movies or television that someone rushes into a court and said this man is innocent and is released. but why is it so hard to correct a wrongful conviction? prof. medwed: a wonderful and important question. a couple thoughts. first of all there is a misimpression that biological evidence, scientific evidence is available in all