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: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations

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

Cook Thomahl, State v. (2003)

Counsel: Center on Wrongful Convictions and 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

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

Lockhart, Julian J., State of Connecticut v. (2008)

Counsel: Innocence Network by Thomas P. Sullivan
Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Case Number: S.C. 17773
Position: - Arguing that the court should mandate electronic recording of interrogations. Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations

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

Tankleff v. State (2006) (2006)

Counsel: 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 can provide basis for new trial. Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations