It’s been awhile since the last blog and I promise to do a better job of posting.  A law student told me yesterday how much he enjoyed the first blog entry which gave me the push to start posting on a regular basis.  In March, I went to the annual Innocence Network conference in Houston.   All the innocence projects gather in one place to talk about the latest trends and to talk about strategies for proving wrongful convictions.   It’s always good to catch up with other IP attorneys and brainstorm  strategies about cases.   The big talk this year was the National Academy of Science’s report on Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the US. The report looks at every aspect of forensics used in criminal cases (e.g., fingerprints, bite marks, etc.) and makes strong recommendations for improvement.

One of the highlights for me was hearing exoneree Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson-Cannino talk about their experience with the justice system.   Jennifer was  the victim of a rape and her eyewitness testimony led to Ronald’s conviction.  After Ronald’s DNA exoneration (he spent 11 years in prison), they began lecturing together on the flaws with eyewitness identification procedures and the exoneration process.  Ronald and Jennifer have written a book, Picking Cotton, about their experience.  Highly recommended if you are looking for some summer reading.

Is there a Constitional right to post-conviction DNA testing by inmates?  On March 2, in District Attorney v. Osborne, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this very issue.   The inmate, Robert Osborne, was convicted in 1993 of rape in Anchorage, Alaska.  DNA testing available at the time showed that the sample was consistent with Osborne’s DNA and also  14-17% of the African American male population.  Osborne wants the samples retested today using more modern and accurate testing methods. However, Alaska is one of six states without a post-conviction DNA testing statute.   The 9th Circuit issued an opinion saying that Osborne had a Constitutional right to testing.   The oral argument before the Supreme Court is set for Monday, March 2.    The Washington Post, the LA Times and the NY Times have all published  good articles on the case.

A couple of interesting sidenotes.   Under the Bush Administration, the US Attorney General filed a brief opposing Osborne.  The big question is whether the current US Attorney General, Elena Kagan, will stick to this position. Rob Warden of the Center on Wrongful Convictions hopes that Kagan will change the adminstration’s position.   Also, a group of state attorney generals jointly filed a brief arguing that ruling in favor of Osborne would lead to a floodgate of litigation.   In support of the “floodgates” arugment, the brief linked the passage of California’s DNA testing statute and the hundreds of cases that CIP reported reviewing soon thereafter. The only problem is that the statement is misleading.  Yes, we did review that number of cases.   But not all the cases involved DNA and very few reached the litigation stage.

Thanks for reading.    We’ll try and highlight the current issues related to our favorite word – FREEDOM!

The California Innocence Project, based at California Western School of Law, works to free wrongly convicted individuals, such as William Richards.

On January 26, Judge Brian McCarville will consider the request filed by California Innocence Project attorneys Justin Brooks, Alex Simpson, and Jan Stiglitz to reverse Richards’ 1997 murder conviction.  Attorneys are expected to present bite mark, fiber, and DNA evidence to prove the case for his innocence.

If Judge McCarville reverses the conviction, San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos must release or file new charges against Richards.

Founded in 1999, the California Innocence Project is a clinical program of Caliofrnia Western School of Law in which law professors and students work to free wrongly convicted prisoners in California. The California Innocence Project reviews more than 1,000 claims from inmates each year and has earned the release of five wrongfully convicted clients.

For more information on the Richards case, visit our website.