Brief Bank
Abney, Quentin, New York v. (2009)
Court:
New York Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Innocence Project, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Case Number:
3314/05
Alley, Sedley v. State (2006)
Court:
Tennessee Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network (by Wisconsin Innocence Project)
Case Number:
W2006-001179-CCA-R3-PD
Position: Prisoners have a right to postconviction DNA testing, regardless of perceived "strength" of state's case, where the DNA might help establish innocence not just by an exclusion of defendant, but also by a match to a third-party or by redundant crime scene DNA profiles that all exclude defendant. -Rules barring or limiting third-party perpetrator evidence should be abolished; such evidence should be considered on an equal footing as any other type of evidence, which is evaluated by considering relevance and the risk of undue prejudice, and not some heightened relevance or presumed prejudice standard. Third-party perpetrator evidence cannot be excluded simply because the state or a court views the state's evidence as "overwhelming."
Armstrong, Ralph, State v. (2005)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number:
01-2789 and 02-2979
Position: Courts have authority to consider new evidence of actual innocence without regard to the statutory one-year limitation period for newly discovered evidence, and that the standard for granting a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence should not be a strict "outcome-determinative" test, at least where the state relied at trial upon facts that turned out to be false. Statutes of limitations, limiting the time in which a prisoner can seek a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, cannot limit courts' ability to consider new evidence of actual innocence.
Issues:
New Evidence of Innocence
Arthur, Thomas v. Alabama (2011)
Counsel:
Innocence Project, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
Case Number:
11-69
Issues:
Other Issues
Avery, Brian, State v. (2008)
Counsel:
Innocence Network
Case Number:
2008AP000500
Position: Arguing that eyewitness identification evidence and disputed confession evidence both are fallible, and therefore should not alone be the basis for denying a new trial based on other new evidence of Innocence.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Bannister, James v. Illinois (2010) (2010)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Project and Innocence Network by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Case Number:
09-1576
Position: Informant testimony is inherently unreliable and the use of such testimony can have dangerous consequences.
Issues:
Other Issues
Barros, Tracy v. State (2009)
Court:
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network, Roney & Labinger, Debevoise & Plimpton
Case Number:
SU-2008-0292
Bullcoming, Donald v. State of New Mexico (2010)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Project, Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number:
09-10876
Position: The prevalence of wrongful convictions based on faulty forensic science, and the rash of crime lab scandals around the nation, have shown that the unchecked use of forensic evidence does not come without a price and therefore the reliability of a forensic report can be assessed only through confrontation of the analyst who prepared the machine, conducted the tests, and drafted the report.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Cook Thomahl, State v. (2003)
Court:
New Jersey Supreme Court
Counsel:
Center on Wrongful Convictions and Innocence Project
Case Number:
53,778
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Davis, Troy, In Re: (2008)
Counsel:
Innocence Network & Innocence Project
Case Number:
08-16009-P
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Davis, Troy, State v. (2007)
Court:
Georgia Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network, Georgia Innocence Project, Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number:
S07A-1758
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
DiGiambattista, Commonwealth v. (2004)
Court:
Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Counsel:
Suffolk Lawyers for Justice, Inc., and New England Innocence Project
Case Number:
9155
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Dubose, Tyrone, State v. (2005)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number:
03-1690-CR
Position: Showup evidence should be inadmissible in all cases unless state can prove that a showup was truly necessary. Courts should abandon or modify the Brathwaite/Biggers five-prong test for evaluating "reliability" of suggestive eyewitness identification procedures.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Duncan, Calvin v. Burl Cain (2008)
Counsel:
Innocence Network
Case Number:
290-908-G
Position: Arguing that eyewitness ID was flawed and should not be the basis for denying postconviction relief.
Dyer, Richard, In re the Petition of (2008)
Court:
Washington Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network (by Sheryl Gordon McCloud)
Case Number:
79872- 9
Position: Arguing that eyewitness identification is fallible and urging the Court to re-examine the parole board's decision to deny Dyer parole based on his assertions of Innocence. Dyer, who was convicted of rape on the basis of victim eyewitness testimony, was denied parole because he is unable to participate in a treatment program that requires admission of guilt.
Floyd, John v. Cain (2010) (2010)
Court:
Louisiana Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Innocence Network by James E. Boren and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Case Number:
2010-KP-0085
Position: Post-conviction petitioners, who can establish their actual innocence through newly-discovered evidence of any type, are entitled to seek relief.
Ford, Glenn (2007)
Court:
Louisiana trial court
Counsel:
Innocence Network by Sidley Austin
Position: Challenges to unsound forensic sciences should be basis for granting a new trial.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Ford, Tony Egbuna v. Dretke ()
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Center on Wrongful convictions
Position: Expert testimony on eyewitness identifications should be per se admissible in any case in which disputed eyewitness evidence is presented.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Fry, John F. v. Pliler (2007)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network by Cooley Godward Kronish
Case Number:
06-5247
Position: Federal courts must apply the Chapman harmless error standard, which imposes the burden on the state to prove errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, in any case in which the state courts erroneously found no error and hence undertook no Chapman analysis. Rules barring or limiting third-party perpetrator evidence should be abolished; such evidence should be considered on an equal footing as any other type of evidence, which is evaluated by considering relevance and the risk of undue prejudice, and not some heightened relevance or presumed prejudice standard. Third-party perpetrator evidence cannot be excluded simply because the state or a court views the state's evidence as "overwhelming."
Issues:
Other Issues
Glenn, Roosevelt, State v. (2009)
Court:
Indiana Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network, Stacy Uliana, Davis Polk & Wardwell
Case Number:
49G01-0311-PC-0016
Goldstein v. Van de Kamp (2007)
Court:
Ninth Circuit
Counsel:
Innocence Network, NACDL, State NACDL affiliates, various Public Defenders
Position: Administrator of prosecutor's office should not be shielded by absolute immunity from suit for failure to implement procedures to ensure compliance with Brady v. Maryland.
Goldstein, Thomas, Van de Kamp v. (2008)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network and Innocence Project (by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP)
Case Number:
07-854
Position: Arguing that absolute immunity should not be extended to cover a District Attorney who, in a purely administrative and managerial capacity, intentionally or with deliberate indifference declines to establish any internal system or procedures to ensure that prosecutors have access to impeachment information concerning informants, in disregard of the mandate of Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, and despite knowing of prior repeated Brady and Giglio violations that resulted from not having such a system or procedure.
Holmes v. South Carolina (2005)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Project
Position: Challenging evidentiary rule that excluded evidence of third party guilt that directly undermines the strength of the prosecution's evidence against the defendant. Issues: Actual Innocence
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Holmes, Bobbie Lee v. South Carolina (2005)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Case Number:
04-1327
Position: Urging Court to grant cert. petition to permit defendant to present evidence of third party guilt, despite what the state courts believed guilt was "overwhelming."
House v. Bell (2005)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Project
Position: Relevant exculpatory DNA evidence can satisfy the Schlup v. Delo actual Innocence gateway standard for permitting habeas review of otherwise procedurally defaulted claims.
Issues:
New Evidence of Innocence
Hunt, Lee Wayne, State of North Carolina v. (2007)
Counsel:
NC Center on Actual Innocence, the Darryl Hunt
Position: The attorney-client privilege should not prevent an attorney from revealing, once his or her client has died, that the client told counsel that he alone committed a crime for which another person was wrongly convicted.
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Jasin, Thomas P. v. Michael Best & Friedrich (2007)
Court:
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Innocence Network, by Weil, Gotshal & Manges
Case Number:
2006AP002647
Position: The statute of limitations on civil claims against trial counsel for ineffective assistance of counsel should begin to run when exoneree is officially exonerated, not when he or she first discovers grounds to believe counsel was ineffective.
Jerrell J., In Re (2004)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project and numerous other Projects and individuals
Case Number:
02-3423
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Jones, Christopher D. v. State of Wisconsin (2010) (2010)
Court:
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Innocence Network by Jerome F. Buting
Case Number:
2009 AP 2835-CR
Position: Firearm and toolmark evidence are no longer sufficiently reliable to be admissible as evidence.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Keith, Kevin v. State of Ohio (2010)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network
Case Number:
09-1052
Kennedy, Patrick v. Louisiana (2008)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
NACDL, Innocence Network (by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Halse and Dorr LLP)
Case Number:
07-343
Position: Arguing that the death penalty should not be permitted for non-homicide child sexual assault cases because child witnesses are especially susceptible to suggestion and are unreliable, so that the risk of wrongful conviction and wrongful execution are unacceptably high in such cases.
Lambert, Lisa M. v. Charlotte Blackwell et al (1998)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Innocence Project, Centurion Ministries, and National Legal Aid & Defender Assn.
Position: Urging court to grant certiorari and arguing that, in a habeas petition, actual Innocence is a basis for excusing procedural default. - Relevant exculpatory DNA evidence can satisfy the Schlup v. Delo actual Innocence gateway standard for permitting habeas review of otherwise procedurally defaulted claims.
Ledbetter, Laquan, State v (2005)
Court:
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Counsel:
Innocence Project, Center on Wrongful Convictions, Wisconsin Innocence Project, North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, Northern California Innocence Project
Case Number:
S.C. 17307
Position: Courts should adopt a rule that failure to caution a witness that the culprit might not be present at an identification procedure renders that procedure unnecessarily suggestive, requiring, at the very least, a curative jury instruction.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Lewis, Emmitt, State v. (2006)
Court:
Louisiana Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Innocence Network & IP New Orleans
Position: Prosecutors should be obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence at a preliminary hearing; defendants should have discovery rights, including access to police reports, prior to the preliminary hearing.
Issues:
Other Issues
Lockhart, Julian J., State of Connecticut v. (2008)
Court:
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Counsel:
Innocence Network by Thomas P. Sullivan
Case Number:
S.C. 17773
Position: Arguing that the court should mandate electronic recording of interrogations. Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Lott, Gregory, In re (2005)
Court:
Sixth Circuit
Counsel:
Innocence Network (by Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP)
Case Number:
05-3532
Position: A claim of actual Innocence in habeas proceedings cannot be deemed a waiver of the attorney/client and work product privileges.
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Martin, Harold v. U.S.D.O.J. (2006)
Court:
D.C. Circuit
Counsel:
Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, ACLU of the National Capital Area
Case Number:
05-5207, 06-5048
Position: A right of access to Brady materials exists under FOIA.
Martinez, Luis v. Ryan (2011)
Counsel:
Innocence Network, Davis Polk and Wardell
Case Number:
10-1001
McDowell, State v. (2004)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number:
02-1203-CR
Position: Defense counsel at trial may conclude that her client will commit perjury (in which case the attorney may refrain from presenting that client's testimony) only when the attorney "knows" the client will lie because the client has expressed a clear intent to lie. (Nix v. Whiteside issue)
Issues:
Other Issues
Melendez-Diaz, Luis v. Massachusetts (2008)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network
Case Number:
07-591
Position: Arguing that crime laboratory reports are "testimonial" within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, and hence inadmissible unless presented by live testimony of the author subject to cross-examination under the confrontation clause.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Moran, James, State v. (2005)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number:
03-0561-CR
Position: State postconviction DNA statutes, which mandate DNA testing if the testing might create a "reasonable probability" of a different outcome, do not create "outcome determinative test" (in which defendant must prove that a different result is more likely than not), but rather an "undermines confidence" test, as understood in Strickland and Brady. The standard of review on appeal of a trial court's denial of a DNA motion should be de novo.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers v. Superintendent of Chicago Police Department (2009)
Court:
Appellate Court of Illinois
Counsel:
Innocence Network (by Dickstein Shapiro)
Case Number:
1-08-2073, 1-08-3414
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Otis, Kirk Edward v. State (2005)
Court:
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Counsel:
Center on Wrongful Convictions and Northwestern U. School of Law
Case Number:
CR-04-01323
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Perez, Jose Antonio v. U.S. (2006)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network (by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher)
Position: Courts should abandon or modify the Brathwaite/Biggers five-prong test for evaluating "reliability" of suggestive eyewitness identification procedures.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Perry, Barion v. New Hampshire (2011)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Miller & Chevalier
Case Number:
10-8974
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Perry, Barion v. New Hampshire (2011)
Counsel:
Innocence Network, Miller & Chevalier
Case Number:
10-8974
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Phillips, State v. (2006)
Counsel:
Innocence Project, Inc., the Texas Center for Actual Innocence, the Innocence Project of Texas, and the Texas Innocence Network
Position: Urging court to reject narrow interpretation of Texas' postconviction DNA testing statute. Urges court to recognize that the "would not have been convicted" standard is met, even if an exclusion of defendant alone would not conclusively prove Innocence, where alternate sources of the DNA (e.g., the victim's husband) can be excluded by other testing, or where a database hit might prove Innocence. Also urges court to interpret the statute's "identity at issue" requirement so as not to exclude individuals who claim to have not participated in the crime.
Prade, Douglas, State v. (2009)
Court:
Ohio Supreme Court
Counsel:
Ohio Innocence Project, Innocence Network, Jones Day, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Case Number:
2009-0605
Savory, Johnnie Lee v. Lyons (2007)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network (by Mayer Brown)
Position: The statute of limitations should not bar claims for claims for postconviction DNA testing under ?Ǭ�1983, because such rights do not accrue until access to DNA is denied, equitable tolling applies, and every refusal to allow access to DNA is a continuing violation.
Schaefer, Ronald, State v. (2006)
Court:
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project, Wisconsin State Public Defender
Case Number:
2006 AP 1826-CRAC
Position: Prosecutors should be obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence at a preliminary hearing; defendants should have discovery rights, including access to police reports, prior to the preliminary hearing.
Issues:
Other Issues
Shomberg, Forest, State v. (2005)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number:
2004AP630-CR
Position: Expert testimony on eyewitness identifications should be per se admissible in any case in which disputed eyewitness evidence is presented.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Siller, Thomas v. State of Ohio (2008)
Counsel:
Innocence Network
Case Number:
08-90865
Position: New trial should be granted where conviction rested on snitch testimony and fraudulent forensic science.
Slaughter, Jimmie Ray v. Mike Mullin (2005)
Court:
Tenth Circuit
Counsel:
Innocence Project
Case Number:
05-6049
Position: Leave to file successor habeas petition should be granted based on new DNA evidence on hairs and on scientific research undermining ballistics evidence that was used at trial.
Issues:
New Evidence of Innocence
Smith, Frederick J., In Re (2008)
Counsel:
Innocence Network, Innocence Project (by Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr)
Case Number:
07-1220
Position: Arguing that ?Ǭ�1983 actions for post-conviction DNA testing are not barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
Souliotes, George v. Evans (2009) (2009)
Counsel:
Bob Barr & Innocence Network by Cooley, Godward & Kronish LLP
Case Number:
08-15943
Position: Advances in scientific research in arson cases support Souliotes’ claim of actual innocence and he exercised due diligence in bringing claim forward.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Souliotes, George A. v. Anthony Hedgpeth (2009)
Counsel:
Innocence Network & Bob Barr (by Cooley Godward Kronish)
Case Number:
08-15943
Position: Courts have authority to consider new evidence of actual Innocence without regard to the statutory one-year limitation period for newly discovered evidence, and that the standard for granting a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence should not be a strict "outcome-determinative" test, at least where the state relied at trial upon facts that turned out to be false. - Statutes of limitations, limiting the time in which a prisoner can seek a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, cannot limit courts' ability to consider new evidence of actual Innocence.
Souliotes, George A. vs. Anthony Hedgpeth (2010)
Court:
Ninth Circuit
Counsel:
Innocence Network by Cooley LLP
Case Number:
06-CV-0667
Position: Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.
Issues:
New Evidence of Innocence
Statler, Paul, State of Washington v. (2010)
Counsel:
Innocence Network, by Innoene Project Northwest and Schulte Roth and Zabel LLP
Case Number:
28195-7-III
Tankleff v. State (2006)
Court:
New York Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Innocence Project and Innocence Network
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety. Expert testimony on false confessions can provide basis for new trial. Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Thompson, John, Connick v. (2010)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Network, Innocence Project (by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP)
Case Number:
09-571
Van Buskirk, Mark Steven v. Baldwin (2001)
Court:
Ninth Circuit
Counsel:
Northern Cal. Innocence Project (by Morrison & Foerster)
Case Number:
00-35640
Position: Imposing a "due diligence" requirement on a defendant's actual Innocence claim is impermissible when actual Innocence is raised as a gateway claim for federal habeas relief under Schlup v. Delo.
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Walker, Benjamin, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. (2011)
Counsel:
Innocence Network, Pennsylvania Innocence Project
Case Number:
28 EAP 2011
Walker, Benjamin, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. (2011)
Counsel:
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Case Number:
28 EAP 2011
Position: Brief by American Psychological Association
Wallace, Herman (2008)
Court:
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Counsel:
Innocence Network & Innocence Project (by Weil, Gotshal & Manges)
Case Number:
10-73-6820
Position: Arguing that failure to disclose information about benefits conferred on jailhouse snitch constitutes a Brady violation that necessitates a new trial.
Warney, Douglas, v. New York (2010) (2010)
Court:
New York Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Innocence Network by Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP
Case Number:
CA 08 02261
Position: An innocent person’s confession should not be a bar to wrongful conviction compensation.
Issues:
Other Issues
Williams, Archie, State of Louisiana v. (2007)
Court:
Missouri Supreme Court
Counsel:
Public Interest Litigation Clinic (Kansas City), Center on Wrongful Convictions, Innocence Project
Case Number:
85448 and 85552
Position: NOTE: Brief not filed because relief granted. Postconviction DNA testing statutes permit DNA testing in cases in which the defendant pled guilty or confessed.
Young, John K. v. Commonwealth (2005)
Counsel:
Innocence Project
Case Number:
324-EAL-2005
Position: Postconviction DNA testing statutes permit DNA testing in cases in which the defendant pled guilty or confessed.
