Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
