Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Roberts Court's Failed Innocence Project, Janet C. Hoeffel
The Roberts Court's Failed Innocence Project, Janet C. Hoeffel
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In this article, Professor Hoeffel discusses the Roberts Court's obvious struggle with its actual innocence jurisprudence. It is a struggle that was only theoretical in the days before DNA exonerations. While the Court had two opportunities to clarify the role of wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system, it has declined to do so. In House v. Bell, the Court ratcheted up the standard of proof for freestanding constitutional claims of innocence to a level no petitioner could understand, much less meet. Then, in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, the Court held that …
Confronting Scientific Reports Under Crawford V. Washington, Bennett L. Gershman
Confronting Scientific Reports Under Crawford V. Washington, Bennett L. Gershman
Pace Law Review
No abstract provided.
"False But Highly Persuasive": How Wrong Were The Probability Estimates In Mcdaniel V. Brown?, David H. Kaye
"False But Highly Persuasive": How Wrong Were The Probability Estimates In Mcdaniel V. Brown?, David H. Kaye
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In McDaniel v. Brown, the Supreme Court will review the use of DNA evidence in a 1994 trial for sexual assault and attempted murder. The Court granted certiorari to consider two procedural issues—the standard of federal postconviction review of a state jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence, and the district court's decision to allow the prisoner to supplement the record of trials, appeals, and state postconviction proceedings with a geneticist's letter twelve years after the trial. The letter from Laurence Mueller, a professor at the University of California at Irvine, identified two obvious mistakes in the state's expert testimony. …
The Right Remedy For The Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanction For Destruction Of Dna Evidence, Cynthia E. Jones
The Right Remedy For The Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanction For Destruction Of Dna Evidence, Cynthia E. Jones
Fordham Law Review
Many state innocence protection statutes give courts the power to impose appropriate sanctions when biological evidence needed for postconviction DNA testing is wrongly destroyed by the government. Constitutional claims based on wrongful evidence destruction are governed by the virtually insurmountable “bad faith” standard articulated in Arizona v. Youngblood. The wrongful destruction of DNA evidence in contravention of state innocence protection laws, however, should be governed by the standards used to adjudicate other “access to evidence” violations in criminal cases, including disclosures mandated by the rules of criminal procedure, the Jencks Act, and Brady v. Maryland. Under the “access to evidence” …