Wisconsin Supreme Court
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
