Brief Bank

Abney, Quentin v. New York (2009)

Counsel: Innocence Project, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Position: In a case where the primary evidence against the defendant is the identification of an eyewitness, a defendant should be permitted to present expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness...

Alley, Sedley v. State of Tennessee (2006)

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...

Armstrong, Ralph, State v. (2005)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
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...

Arthur, Thomas v. Alabama (2011)

Counsel: Innocence Project, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
Issues: Other Issues

Avery, Brian v. State of Wisconsin (2008)

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...

Bannister, James v. Illinois (2010)

Position: Informant testimony is inherently unreliable and the use of consistency provisions (clauses in plea agreements in which cooperators or informants agree to testify to a specific version of events...

Barros, Tracey v. State of Rhode Island (2009)

Position: Courts should require that custodial interrogations be recorded in full to minimize the risk of convicting innocent defendants.

Biggs, Jay, State v. (2013)

Counsel: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Position: Position: Where the findings of the State’s expert(s) is/are the central issue in the case, the prisoner must be able to have a post-conviction procedure by which to review those materials used or...
Issues: Other Issues

Bullcoming, Donald v. New Mexico (2010)

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...

Bunch, Kristine v. State of Indiana (2010)

Counsel: DLA Piper
Position: Fire science has undergone a transformative change since petitioner’s trial and new exculpatory evidence warrants new trial.

Case, Carl v. Timothy Hatch, Warden (2013)

Position: The Tenth Circuit's Decision to exclude important newly discovered exculpatory evidence from federal habeas courts' consideration misinterprets the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty of 1996...

Cook Thomahl, State v. (2003)

Counsel: Center on Wrongful Convictions and Innocence Project
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.

Cooper, Kevin v. Wong (2009)

Position: When a successor habeas petition raises claims of prosecutorial misconduct not discovered until after the first round of habeas litigation, the “reasonable probability of a different outcome”...

Davis, Troy v. State of Georgia (2007)

Position: Supporting extraordinary writ for new trial, since Davis was convicted on the basis of unreliable eyewitness identification.

Davis, Troy, In Re: (2008)

Position: Recent exonerations of defendants convicted on the basis of unreliable eyewitness identification evidence compel conducted a hearing and the Georgia Supreme Court unconstitutionally denied a hearing...

Dennis, James A. v. John E. Wetzel Et Al. (2013)

Position: Mistaken eyewitness identification thwarts justice by imprisoning innocents and allowing the guilty to escape punishment. In Mr. Dennis' case, many factors known to contribute to demonstrably false...

Desai, Jasubhai v. Booker, Raymond (2014)

Counsel: MILLER & CHEVALIER CHARTERED
Position: Position: a conviction based solely on the unreliable hearsay testimony from an incentivized informant (who was himself a suspect in the case) as to an violates due process

DiGiambattista, Commonwealth v. (2004)

Counsel: Suffolk Lawyers for Justice, Inc., and New England Innocence Project
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.

Donald, Stanley v. Commonwealth of Massachusettss (2013)

Position: Position: The weight of inculpatory evidence used to convict an individual should not be relevant to a determination of his right to access potentially exculpatory evidence under Chapter 278A (revised...

Dubose, Tyrone, State v. (2005)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
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...

Duncan, Calvin v. Burl Cain (2008)

Position: A new trial based on newly discovered evidence should not be denied solely because other evidence in the case includes a confession and/or eyewitness identification.

Dyer, Richard, In re (2008)

Position: The Innocence Network argues that eyewitness identification is fallible and urges the Court to re-examine the parole board's decision to deny Dyer parole based on his assertions of innocence. Dyer,...

Floyd, John v. Cain (2010)

Position: Post-conviction petitioners, who can establish their actual innocence through newly-discovered evidence of any type, are entitled to seek relief.

Ford, Glenn v. Cain (2007)

Position: The admission of unreliable scientific evidence (including gunshot residue and fingerprint evidence) violated Ford’s constitutional rights.

Ford, Tony Egbuna v. Dretke (2005)

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.

Fry, John F. v. Pliler (2007)

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...

Garrett, William, People v. (2013)

Position: Position: Under both the Michigan constitution and the U.S. constitution, there should be a freestanding claim of actual innocence and that proof of innocence should sufficient to overcome procedural...

Glenn, Roosevelt v. State of Indiana (2009)

Position: New trial should be granted when petitioner is convicted on basis of unreliable forensic evidence.

Glover, Laurese v. State of Ohio (2009)

Position: Petitioner convicted on basis of unreliable GSR evidence is entitled to new trial.

Goldstein v. Van de Kamp (2008)

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...

Goldstein, Thomas Lee v. Van de Kamp (2007)

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.

Gonzalez, Rafael H. v. Thaler (2011)

Position: The requirement of a certificate of appealability (COA) in AEDPA cases should not be applied in a technical manner, nor should the Court treat as jurisdictional, aspects of the COA that Congress did...
Issues: Other Issues

Griffith, Evan v. Rednour (2011)

Counsel: Cooley LLP
Position: The actual innocence gateway applies to AEDPA’s statute of limitations.

Grissom, James E. v. State of Michigan (2011)

Position: Trial courts have discretion to grant a new trial where newly discovered impeachment evidence calls the credibility of a critical witness into doubt.

Hailey, Arthur R. v. State of Michigan (2010)

Position: Counsel’s decision to not contact an essential witness constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, as many innocent defendants have been exonerated by compelling evidence of third-party guilt.

Hickman, Jerrin Lavazie v. State of Oregon (2014)

Counsel: Innocence Project, McDermott Will & Emery, Oregon Innocence Projec
Position: The test for the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence in State v. Lawson/James should apply to in court stranger identifications, if no attempt at pre-trial identification was made.

Holmes v. South Carolina (2005)

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

Holmes, Bobbie Lee v. South Carolina (2005)

Counsel:
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."

Hood, Charles A. v. United States (2011)

Position: The Innocence Protection Act must be interpreted in a way to allow DNA analysis of “touch” DNA.

House v. Bell (2005)

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.

Hunt, Lee Wayne v. State of North Carolina (2007)

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...

Jasin, Thomas P. v. Michael Best & Friedrich (2007)

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...

Jenkins, Eric v. State of New York (2011)

Position: Incentivized testimony is inherently unreliable and petitioner deserves a new trial because of the existence of newly discovered recantation evidence and because of Brady material.

Jerrell J., In Re (2004)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project and numerous other Projects and individuals
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.

Johnson, Erskine v. State of Tennessee (2011)

Position: Suppression of Brady evidence pointing to evidence in the form of third-party guilt warrants a new trial.

Jones, Christopher D. v. State of Wisconsin (2010)

Position: Firearm and toolmark evidence are no longer sufficiently reliable to be admissible as evidence.

Keith, Kevin v. State of Ohio (2010)

Position: Ohio Court of Appeals incorrectly applied a “sufficiency of the evidence” standard to evaluate Keith’s Brady claim.

Kennedy, Patrick v. State of Louisiana (2008)

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...
Issues: Other Issues

Kowalski, Jerome v. State of Michigan (2011)

Position: Trial court erred by excluding expert witness testimony on false confessions.

Krause, Jason Derek v. State of Arizona (2014)

Position: Courts should grant a new trial in cases where the conviction rests on discredited Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA) and where presentation of this flawed forensic evidence so corrupted the...

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

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...

Lawson, Samuel A. v. State of Oregon (2011)

Position: Defendant’s conviction resulted from flawed eyewitness identification and the Court should reconsider the test for the admissibility of eyewitness evidence based on the Henderson case.

Ledbetter, Laquan v. State (2005)

Counsel: Innocence Project, Center on Wrongful Convictions, Wisconsin Innocence Project, North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, Northern California Innocence Project
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...

Lee, Richard v. Lampert (2010)

Counsel: Cooley LLP
Position: The Schlup actual innocence exception recognized for successive petitions applies to the one-year statute of limitation for filing an original petition for habeas corpus relief.

Lewis, Emmitt, v. State of Louisiana (2006)

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...

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

Position: Arguing that the court should mandate electronic recording of interrogations. Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations

Lott, Gregory, In re (2005)

Position: A claim of actual Innocence in habeas proceedings cannot be deemed a waiver of the attorney/client and work product privileges.

Louis, Quentin v. State of Wisconsin (2010)

Position: The lower court’s decision ordering a new trial should be upheld, since the science underlying Louis’ Shaken Baby Syndrome conviction has evolved in significant ways. Louis' confession should not...

Manning, Willie v. State of Mississippi (2013)

Counsel: Robert Mink (Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP) and David Voisin
Position: Position: Where a capital murder conviction is based on a single witness’s testimony and post-conviction proceedings have revealed the case to contain many of the now-known hallmarks of a wrongful...

Martin, Harold v. U.S.D.O.J. (2006)

Court: D.C. Circuit
Counsel: Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, ACLU of the National Capital Area
Position: A right of access to Brady materials exists under FOIA.

Martinez, Luis v. Ryan (2011)

Position: Ineffective assistance of counsel is a leading contributor to wrongful convictions and first-tier review of counsel is critical to the identification and development of claims based on ineffective...

McDowell v. State (2004)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
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...
Issues: Other Issues

Medina, Efran, Arizona v. (2014)

Counsel: Stephen A. Miller, Cozen O'Connor
Position: Position: Authors of autopsy reports should be subject to the constitutionally prescribed method of testing accuracy: confrontation. Recognizing that autopsy reports are testimonial and that criminal...

Melendez-Diaz, Luis v. State of Massachusetts (2008)

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...

Moran, James v. State (2005)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
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...

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers v. Superintendent of Chicago Police Department (2009)

Position: Reviewers should have full access to study protocols and underlying raw data related to field studies purporting to measure the effectiveness of eyewitness identification reforms.

Otis, Kirk Edward v. State (2005)

Counsel: Center on Wrongful Convictions and Northwestern U. School of Law
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.

Perez, Jose Antonio v. United States (2006)

Position: Courts should abandon or modify the Brathwaite/Biggers five-prong test for evaluating "reliability" of suggestive eyewitness identification procedures.

Perry, Barion v. New Hampshire (2011)

Position: The due process touchstone regarding the admissibility of eyewitness identification should remain reliability and not whether police wrongdoing has occurred before trial. Moreover, the Manson factors...

Phillips v. State (2006)

Counsel: Innocence Project, Inc., the Texas Center for Actual Innocence, the Innocence Project of Texas, and the Texas Innocence Network
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...

Prade, Douglas v. State of Ohio (2009)

Position: DNA analysis should be allowed in case where petitioner’s conviction was based on now-discredited bite mark evidence.

Richards, William v. State of California (2011)

Counsel: Cooley LLP
Position: Bite mark evidence should be used only to exclude suspects from consideration, not to identify them as the source of a bite mark.

Riofta, Alexander v. State of Washington (2009)

Position: DNA testing should be conducted in case where eyewitness identification was unreliable.

Rivera, Juan v. State of Illinois (2010)

Counsel: DLA Piper
Position: The trial court erred by refusing to allow expert witness testimony on the issue of false confessions.

Roane, James H., In Re (2010)

Position: Long-standing Eighth Amendment jurisprudence mitigates against the execution of an actually innocence person and an evidentiary hearing is required to assess petitioner’s claim of innocence.

Roberts, Clarence D. v. State of Ohio (2011)

Position: Ohio’s preservation statute requires preservation of DNA evidence in the State’s possession as of the statute’s effective date.

Schaefer, Ronald v. State (2006)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project, Wisconsin State Public Defender
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...
Issues: Other Issues

Shomberg, Forest v. State (2005)

Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
Position: Expert testimony on eyewitness identifications should be per se admissible in any case in which disputed eyewitness evidence is presented.

Siller, Thomas v. State of Ohio (2008)

Position: New trial should be granted where conviction rested on snitch testimony and fraudulent forensic science.

Skatzes, George v. Warden Keith Smith (2011)

Position: A death sentence should not be imposed solely on the basis of unreliable incentivized testimony.

Slaughter, Jimmie Ray v. Mike Mullin (2005)

Court: Tenth Circuit
Counsel: Innocence Project
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.

Smith, Frederick J., In Re (2008)

Position: §1983 actions for post-conviction DNA testing are not barred by Heck v. Humphrey.

Smith, Juan v. Cain (2011)

Position: The prosecution’s withholding of Brady evidence that undermined the credibility of its single eyewitness deprived the defendant of his due process rights and undermined the integrity of the trial.

Souliotes, George A. v. Anthony Hedgpeth (2009)

Position: Advances in scientific research in arson cases support Souliotes’ claim of actual innocence and he exercised due diligence in bringing claim forward.

Statler, Paul v. State of Washington (2010)

Position: Informant testimony is inherently unreliable and the use of such testimony can have dangerous consequences.

Swearingen, Larry R. v. Thaler (2010)

Position: The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the execution of actually innocent people and the petitioner exercised due diligence in bringing forward new evidence of innocence.

Tankleff, Martin v. State of New York (2006)

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...

Thomas, Adrian, State of New York v. (2013)

Counsel: Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Position: Position: (1) The interrogation tactics used produced a coerced and unreliable confession (2) when a disputed confession is admitted into evidence, expert testimony on false confessions must be...

Thompson, Bobby v. State of Washington (2011)

Position: Confessions should not bar post-conviction DNA testing, which can often demonstrate innocence of the accused.

Thompson, John v. Connick (2010)

Position: Placing too high a barrier on holding prosecutor’s offices liable for Brady violations will remove a rarely implicated but nevertheless vital incentive for those offices to meet their Brady...

United States of America v. Kentucky Bar Association (2013)

Position: The Opinion issued by the Kentucky Bar Association, which states that "a criminal defense lawyer may not advise a client with regard to a plea agreement that waives the client's right to pursue a...

Van Buskirk, Mark Steven v. Baldwin (2001)

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

Wade, Robert v. Commonwealth (2013)

Position: Position: Access to DNA testing should be granted in cases where DNA could potentially identify the real perpetrator, despite the existence of trial evidence that appeared overwhelming at the time....

Walker, Benjamin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2011)

Position: Mistaken eyewitness identification thwarts justice by imprisoning innocents and allowing the guilty to escape punishment; the Manson test does not achieve its goal of using ‘reliability’ as a...

Wallace, Herman v. Cain (2008)

Position: Arguing that failure to disclose information about benefits conferred on jailhouse snitch constitutes a Brady violation that necessitates a new trial.

Warney, Douglas, v. State of New York (2010)

Position: An innocent person’s confession should not be a bar to wrongful conviction compensation.

Wheat, Derrick v. State of Ohio (2009)

Position: Petitioner convicted on basis of unreliable GSR evidence is entitled to new trial.

White, Melvin L. v. State of North Carolina (2010)

Position: Non-white defendants, especially those accused of crimes against white victims face a uniquely high risk of wrongful capital convictions due to the conscious and subconscious biases which pervade the...
Issues: Other Issues

Williams, Sandy v. Illinois (2011)

Position: Confrontation of the analyst who performed DNA analysis is essential to permit proper adversarial testing of that evidence.

Wyatt, Thomas Anthony v. State of Florida (2009)

Position: Case-specific FBI letter informing individual that CBLA testimony offered at previous trial was inappropriate and constitutes newly discovered evidence.

Young, John K. v. Commonwealth (2005)

Counsel: Innocence Project
Position: Postconviction DNA testing statutes permit DNA testing in cases in which the defendant pled guilty or confessed.

Young, Tracey v. State of Louisiana (2010)

Position: Court should overturn per se ban on the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness expert identification.