Other Issues
Arthur, Thomas v. Alabama (2011)
Counsel:
Innocence Project, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
Case Number:
11-69
Issues:
Other Issues
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
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
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
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
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
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
