U.S. Supreme Court

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.

Issues: Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct

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

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

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."

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

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Counsel: Miller & Chevalier

Case Number: 10-8974

Issues: Eyewitness Identification

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

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

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.

Issues: Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Counsel: Innocence Network

Case Number: 09-1052

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.

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.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Counsel: Innocence Network, Innocence Project (by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP)

Case Number: 09-571

Issues: Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct

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

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

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