Brief Bank

Below are amicus briefs either filed by the Innocence Network, or by individual Network project members, on issues that have been endorsed by the Innocence Network Board of Directors.

Issue: Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

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."
Issues: Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations

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

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' 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 (by 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 ?Ǭß1983, 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

Smith, Frederick J., In Re (2008)

Counsel: Innocence Network, Innocence Project (by Wilmer Culter Pickering Hale and Dorr)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Case Number: 07-1220
Position: - Arguing that ?Ǭß1983 actions for post-conviction DNA testing are not barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
Issues: Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

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

Counsel: Public Interest Litigation Clinic (Kansas City), Center on Wrongful Convictions, 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

Young, John K. v. Commonwealth (2005)

Counsel: 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