Alley, Sedley v. State (2006)

Counsel: Innocence Network (by Wisconsin Innocence Project)
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court & U.S. Supreme Court
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)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
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

Avery, Brian, State v. (2008)

Counsel: Innocence Network
Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District I
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: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations Eyewitness Identification

Cook Thomahl, State v. (2003)

Counsel: Center on Wrongful Convictions and NY Innocence Project
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Case Number: 53,778
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations

DiGiambattista, Commonwealth v. (2004)

Counsel: Suffolk Lawyers for Justice, Inc., and New England Innocence Project
Court: Mass. Supreme Judicial Court,
Case Number: 9155
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations

Dubose, Tyrone, State v. (2005)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
Court: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, Louisiana
Case Number: 290-908-G
Position: Arguing that eyewitness ID was flawed and should not be the basis for denying postconviction relief.
Issues: Eyewitness Identification

Ford, Glenn (2007)

Counsel: Innocence Network by Sidley Austin
Court: Louisiana trial court
Case Number:
Position: Challenges to unsound forensic sciences should be basis for granting a new trial .
Issues: Unreliable Forensic Science

Ford, Tony Egbuna v. Dretke (2005)

Counsel: Center on Wrongful convictions
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number:
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)

Counsel: Innocence Network by Cooley Godward Kronish
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
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

Goldstein v. Van de Kamp (2007)

Counsel: Innocence Network, NACDL, State NACDL affiliates, various Public Defenders
Court: Ninth Circuit
Case Number:
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.
Issues: Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct

Holmes v. South Carolina (2005)

Counsel: NY Innocence Project
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number:
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

Holmes, Bobbie Lee v. South Carolina (2005)

Counsel: NY Innocence Project
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
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.”
Issues: Actual Innocence

House v. Bell (2005)

Counsel: NY Innocence Project
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number:
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
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Case Number:
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)

Counsel: Innocence Network, by Weil, Gotshal & Manges
Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals
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.
Issues: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Jerrell J., In Re (2004)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project and numerous other Projects and individuals
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Case Number: 02-3423
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations

Lambert, Lisa M. v. Charlotte Blackwell et al (1998)

Counsel: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, NY Innocence Project, Centurion Ministries, and National Legal Aid & Defender Assn.
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number:
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)

Counsel: NY Innocence Project, Center on Wrongful Convictions, Wisconsin Innocence Project, North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, Northern California Innocence Project
Court: Supreme Court of Connecti-cut
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)

Counsel: Innocence Network & IP New Orleans
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeals
Case Number:
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

Lott, Gregory, In re (2005)

Counsel: Innocence Network (by Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP)
Court: Sixth Circuit
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)

Counsel: Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, ACLU of the National Capital Area
Court: D.C. Circuit
Case Number: 05-5207, 06-5048
Position: A right of access to Brady materials exists under FOIA.
Issues: Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct

McDowell, State v. (2004)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
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)

Counsel: Innocence Network
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
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)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
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.
Issues: Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

Otis, Kirk Edward v. State (2005)

Counsel: Center on Wrongful Convictions and Northwestern U. School of Law
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
Case Number: CR-04-01323
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations

Perez, Jose Antonio v. U.S. (2006)

Counsel: Innocence Network (by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher)
Court: U.S. Supreme court
Case Number:
Position: Courts should abandon or modify the Brathwaite/Biggers five-prong test for evaluating "reliability" of suggestive eyewitness identification procedures.
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
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Case Number:
Position: Urging court to reject narrow interpretation of Texas’s 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.
Issues: Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

Savory, Johnnie Lee v. Lyons (2007)

Counsel: Innocence Network, Mayer Brown?
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number:
Position: The statute of limitations should not bar claims for claims for postconviction DNA testing under § 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

Schaefer, Ronald, State v. (2006)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project, Wisconsin State Public Defender
Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals
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)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
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

Slaughter, Jimmie Ray v. Mike Mullin (2005)

Counsel: NY Innocence Project
Court: Tenth Circuit
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

Tankleff v. State (2006)

Counsel: NY Innocence Project and Innocence Network
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Case Number:
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety. Expert testimony on false confessions (should be admissible? and) can provide basis for new trial.
Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations

Van Buskirk, Mark Steven v. Baldwin (2001)

Counsel: Northern Cal. Innocence Project (by Morrison & Foerster)
Court: 9th Circuit
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

Wallace, et al. v. Calogero, et al. (2006)

Counsel:
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number:
Position: Petition for cert. to challenge rule preventing non-U.S. citizens from being admitted to the bar.
Issues: Other Issues

Weeks, Rubin v. State (2003)

Counsel: Public Interest Litigation Clinic (Kansas City), Center on Wrongful Convictions, NY Innocence Project
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Case Number: 85448 and 85552
Position: Postconviction DNA testing statutes permit DNA testing in cases in which the defendant pled guilty or confessed.
Issues: Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

Williams, Archie, State of Louisiana v. NOTE: Brief not filed because relief granted (2007)

Counsel: Innocence Network, by Wilkie Farr Gallagher
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeals
Case Number: 2007-KW-1348
Position: State postconviction DNA testing statutes—and in particular provisions such as those requiring "articulable doubt" and a "reasonable likelihood" that testing will show innocence—should be interpreted liberally.
Issues: Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

Young, John K. v. Commonwealth (2005)

Counsel: NY Innocence Project
Court: Supreme Ct. of PA, Eastern Dist.
Case Number: 324-EAL-2005
Position: Postconviction DNA testing statutes permit DNA testing in cases in which the defendant pled guilty or confessed.
Issues: Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing