Abney, Quentin, New York v. (2009)
Court:
New York Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Innocence Project, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Alley, Sedley v. State of Tennessee (2006)
Court:
Tennessee Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
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)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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...
Issues:
New Evidence of Innocence
Arthur, Thomas v. Alabama (2011)
Counsel:
Innocence Project, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
Issues:
Other Issues
Avery, Brian v. State of Wisconsin (2008)
Court:
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
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)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
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...
Issues:
Informant Testimony
Barros, Tracey v. State of Rhode Island (2009)
Court:
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Position: Courts should require that custodial interrogations be recorded in full to minimize the risk of convicting innocent defendants.
Bullcoming, Donald v. New Mexico (2010)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
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...
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Bunch, Kristine v. State of Indiana (2010)
Court:
Indiana Supreme Court
Counsel:
DLA Piper
Position: Fire science has undergone a transformative change since petitioner’s trial and new exculpatory evidence warrants new trial.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Burns, Gen Sebastian & Rafay, Atif Ahmad v. State of Washington (2011)
Position: Trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony on false confessions.
Issues:
False Confessions
Cook Thomahl, State v. (2003)
Court:
New Jersey Supreme Court
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)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
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)
Court:
Georgia Supreme Court
Counsel:
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Position: Supporting extraordinary writ for new trial, since Davis was convicted on the basis of unreliable eyewitness identification.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Davis, Troy, In Re: (2008)
Counsel:
Jenner & Block LLP
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...
DiGiambattista, Commonwealth v. (2004)
Court:
Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Counsel:
Suffolk Lawyers for Justice, Inc., and New England Innocence Project
Position: Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Dubose, Tyrone, State v. (2005)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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...
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Duncan, Calvin v. Burl Cain (2008)
Court:
Louisiana Court of Appeals
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.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Dyer, Richard, In re (2008)
Court:
Washington Supreme Court
Counsel:
Sheryl Gordon McCloud
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,...
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Floyd, John v. Cain (2010)
Court:
Louisiana Supreme Court
Position: Post-conviction petitioners, who can establish their actual innocence through newly-discovered evidence of any type, are entitled to seek relief.
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Ford, Glenn v. Cain (2007)
Court:
Louisiana trial court
Position: The admission of unreliable scientific evidence (including gunshot residue and fingerprint evidence) violated Ford’s constitutional rights.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Ford, Tony Egbuna v. Dretke ()
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
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.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Fry, John F. v. Pliler (2007)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Cooley Godward Kronish LLP
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...
Issues:
New Evidence of Innocence
Glenn, Roosevelt v. State of Indiana (2009)
Court:
Indiana Supreme Court
Counsel:
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Position: New trial should be granted when petitioner is convicted on basis of unreliable forensic evidence.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Glover, Laurese v. State of Ohio (2009)
Court:
Ohio Court of Appeals
Position: Petitioner convicted on basis of unreliable GSR evidence is entitled to new trial.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Goldstein v. Van de Kamp (2008)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
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)
Counsel:
Public Defender Services
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)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Ropes & Gray LLP
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)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Cooley LLP
Position: The actual innocence gateway applies to AEDPA’s statute of limitations.
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Grissom, James E. v. State of Michigan (2011)
Court:
Michigan Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Foley & Lardner LLP
Position: Trial courts have discretion to grant a new trial where newly discovered impeachment evidence calls the credibility of a critical witness into doubt.
Issues:
New Evidence of Innocence
Hailey, Arthur R. v. State of Michigan (2010)
Court:
Michigan Supreme Court
Counsel:
Michigan Innocence Clinic
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.
Holmes v. South Carolina (2005)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
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
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Holmes, Bobbie Lee v. South Carolina (2005)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
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)
Counsel:
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Position: The Innocence Protection Act must be interpreted in a way to allow DNA analysis of “touch” DNA.
House v. Bell (2005)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
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.
Issues:
New Evidence of Innocence
Hunt, Lee Wayne v. State of North Carolina (2007)
Counsel:
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC
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...
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Jasin, Thomas P. v. Michael Best & Friedrich (2007)
Court:
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
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)
Court:
New York Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Morgan, Lewis & Bockus LLP
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)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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)
Court:
Tennessee Court of Appeals
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)
Court:
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Jerome F. Buting
Position: Firearm and toolmark evidence are no longer sufficiently reliable to be admissible as evidence.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Keith, Kevin v. State of Ohio (2010)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
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)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
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)
Counsel:
Dykema Gossett PLLC
Position: Trial court erred by excluding expert witness testimony on false confessions.
Lambert, Lisa M. v. Charlotte Blackwell et al (1998)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
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)
Court:
Oregon Supreme Court
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.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Ledbetter, Laquan, State v (2005)
Court:
Supreme Court of Connecticut
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...
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
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.
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Lewis, Emmitt, v. State of Louisiana (2006)
Court:
Louisiana Court of Appeals
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:
Access to Evidence
Lockhart, Julian J. v. State of Connecticut (2008)
Court:
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Counsel:
Thomas P. Sullivan
Position: Arguing that the court should mandate electronic recording of interrogations. Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Lott, Gregory, In re (2005)
Counsel:
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
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
Louis, Quentin v. State of Wisconsin (2010)
Court:
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
Position: The lower court’s decision ordering a new trial should be upheld, since the science underlying Louis’ SBS conviction has evolved in significant ways and the confession is not dispositive.
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)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
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, State v. (2004)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
Melendez-Diaz, Luis v. State of Massachusetts (2008)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Miller & Chevalier, Chartered
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...
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Moran, James, State v. (2005)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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)
Court:
Appellate Court of Illinois
Counsel:
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP
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.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Otis, Kirk Edward v. State (2005)
Court:
Supreme Court of Arkansas
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)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Position: Courts should abandon or modify the Brathwaite/Biggers five-prong test for evaluating "reliability" of suggestive eyewitness identification procedures.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Perry, Barion v. New Hampshire (2011)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Miller & Chevalier Chartered
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...
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
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)
Court:
Ohio Supreme Court
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)
Court:
California Supreme Court
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.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Riofta, Alexander v. State of Washington (2009)
Court:
Washington Supreme Court
Position: DNA testing should be conducted in case where eyewitness identification was unreliable.
Rivera, Juan v. State of Illinois (2010)
Court:
Illinois Court of Appeals
Counsel:
DLA Piper
Position: The trial court erred by refusing to allow expert witness testimony on the issue of false confessions.
Issues:
False Confessions
Roane, James H., In Re (2010)
Counsel:
DLA Piper LLP
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.
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Roberts, Clarence D. v. State of Ohio (2011)
Court:
Ohio Supreme Court
Counsel:
Davis Polk & Wardell LLP
Position: Ohio’s preservation statute requires preservation of DNA evidence in the State’s possession as of the statute’s effective date.
Schaefer, Ronald, State v. (2006)
Court:
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
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, State v. (2005)
Court:
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Siller, Thomas v. State of Ohio (2008)
Position: New trial should be granted where conviction rested on snitch testimony and fraudulent forensic science.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Skatzes, George v. Warden Keith Smith (2011)
Counsel:
ACLU of Ohio
Position: A death sentence should not be imposed solely on the basis of unreliable incentivized testimony.
Issues:
Informant 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.
Issues:
New Evidence of Innocence
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)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
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)
Counsel:
Cooley, Godward & Kronish LLP
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)
Counsel:
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
Position: Informant testimony is inherently unreliable and the use of such testimony can have dangerous consequences.
Issues:
Informant Testimony
Swearingen, Larrry 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.
Issues:
Actual Innocence
Tankleff, Martin v. State of New York (2006)
Court:
New York Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Innocence Project
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...
Thompson, Bobby v. State of Washington (2011)
Court:
Washington Supreme Court
Counsel:
Graham and Dunn, PC
Position: Confessions should not bar post-conviction DNA testing, which can often demonstrate innocence of the accused.
Thompson, John v. Connick (2010)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
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...
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.
Issues:
Actual Innocence
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...
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
Wallace, Herman v. Cain (2008)
Court:
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Position: Arguing that failure to disclose information about benefits conferred on jailhouse snitch constitutes a Brady violation that necessitates a new trial.
Issues:
Informant Testimony
Warney, Douglas, v. State of New York (2010)
Court:
New York Court of Appeals
Counsel:
Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP
Position: An innocent person’s confession should not be a bar to wrongful conviction compensation.
Issues:
False Confessions
Compensation
Wheat, Derrick v. State of Ohio (2009)
Court:
Ohio Court of Appeals
Position: Petitioner convicted on basis of unreliable GSR evidence is entitled to new trial.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
White, Melvin L. v. State of North Carolina (2010)
Counsel:
Innocence & Justice Clinic
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, Archie, State of Louisiana v. (2007)
Court:
Missouri Supreme Court
Counsel:
Public Interest Litigation Clinic (Kansas City), Center on Wrongful Convictions, Innocence Project
Position: NOTE: Brief not filed because relief granted. Postconviction DNA testing statutes permit DNA testing in cases in which the defendant pled guilty or confessed.
Williams, Sandy v. Illinois (2011)
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel:
Wisconsin Innocence Project
Position: Confrontation of the analyst who performed DNA analysis is essential to permit proper adversarial testing of that evidence.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
Wyatt, Thomas Anthony v. State of Florida (2009)
Court:
Florida Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Project of Florida, Inc.
Position: Case-specific FBI letter informing individual that CBLA testimony offered at previous trial was inappropriate and constitutes newly discovered evidence.
Issues:
Unreliable Forensic Science
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)
Court:
Louisiana Supreme Court
Counsel:
Innocence Project New Orleans
Position: Court should overturn per se ban on the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness expert identification.
Issues:
Eyewitness Identification
