An amicus brief is a written legal argument filed by someone not directly involved in a case on appeal to help educate the court about particular issues. The Network decides when to file amicus briefs based upon many factors including which jurisdiction the case is in, what the particular issues being advocated are, and what kind of an impact the brief might have.

Amicus briefs can be requested by lawyers or organizations.

Caster, Donald v. City of Columbus (2015)

Counsel	Covington & Burling LLP
Courts	Ohio Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Evidence
Case Number	2014-1621
Position	Meaningful access to public records is essential to identifying meritorious claims of actual innocence, analyzing the criminal justice system and advocating for reform.
Decision	Caster had a clear legal right to the requested records and the respondents had a clear legal duty to provide the records.
	Caster, Donald v. City of Columbus

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

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project; Innocence Project New Orleans; The Capital Appeals Project
Courts	Louisiana Court of Appeals
Issues	Access to Evidence
Case Number	2006–KK–2457
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 hearing.
Decision	Petition for supervisory writ denied.
	Lewis, Emmitt, v. State of Louisiana.pdf

Alvarez, George v. The City of Brownsville (2017)

Counsel	Fishman Haygood
Courts	United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	16-40772
Position	Nothing in Brady restricts the right to exculpatory evidence solely to defendants who go to trial. Indeed, Brady has played an important role in rectifying wrongful convictions by guilty pleas. Given that there is no evidence that applying Brady in guilty plea cases “imposes serious costs,” and there is considerable risk that refusing to apply Brady in guilty plea cases will have perverse consequences, Amici urge the en banc Court to reverse the panel decision in this case and to abrogate Matthew v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000), and United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2009), to the extent necessary to affirm that Brady requires the government to disclose exculpatory evidence known to it at the time a defendant pleads guilty.
Decision	Pending
	Alvarez, George v. The City of Brownsville (2017)

Briggs, Ron & Van De Kamp, John v. Brown, Jerry (2017)

Counsel	O’Melveny & Myers
Courts	California Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Actual Innocence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	S238309
Position	Proposition 66 violates the Equal Protection Clauses of our Constitutions by singling out capital defendants. It imposes an onerous one-year time limitation on the filing of an initial habeas petition and limits the grounds under which capital defendants may file a successive petition— limitations not imposed on non-capital defendants. Experience also shows that men and women who were ultimately exonerated—who were factually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted—were unable to meet the actual innocence standard that Proposition 66 now seeks to impose on those capital defendants bringing successive petitions. Had these individuals faced Proposition 66’s actual innocence standard, they might never have been able to present the evidence that ultimately exonerated them. This disparate treatment is indefensible.  Because it increases the risk that an innocent person will be executed to an unacceptably high level, Prop 66 must be struck down.
Decision	Petition seeking writ of mandate and injunctive relief, challenging constitutionality of certain aspects of Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act was denied.
	Briggs, Ron & Van De Kamp, John v. Brown, Jerry

Black, Justin v. Plumley, Marvin (2016)

Counsel	West Virginia Innocence Project
Courts	Circuit Court of Cabell County (West Virginia)
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	13-C-486
Position	DNA testing statute requires testing when all statutory conditions are met and does not prohibit testing under any circumstances.
Decision	Pending.
	Black, Justin v. Plumley, Marvin

Denny, Jeffrey C. v. State of Wisconsin (2016)

Counsel	Axley Brynelson, LLP
Courts	Wisconsin Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	2015AP0202-CR
Position	DNA testing statute requires testing when all statutory conditions are met and does not prohibit testing under any circumstances.
Decision	The WI Supreme Court held: (1) statute requiring DA to turn over test results, physical evidence, and biological samples does not give a defendant the right to conduct DNA testing of that evidence; overruling State v. Moran, and (2) defendant was not entitled to postconviction DNA testing, as it was not reasonably probable he would have been acquitted if exculpatory DNA testing results had been available.
	Denny, Jeffrey C. v. State of Wisconsin

Horton, John v. People of the State of Illinois (2016)

Counsel	Jenner & Block LLP
Courts	Illinois Court of Appeals
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; New Evidence of Innocence; Other Issues
Case Number	93 CF 1991
Position	Third-party confessions should be considered, rather than dismissed out of hand, especially when they contain hallmarks of reliability as compared to the confession evidence presented by the State at trial.
Decision	The trial court erred in denying Horton leave to file a successive post-conviction petition alleging that the State violated its discovery obligations pursuant to Brady v. Maryland. Because the pleadings and record establish a Brady violation, Horton’s convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.
	Horton, John v. People of the State of Illinois

Clark, Tyrone v. Commonwealth (2015)

Counsel	Lisa M. Kavanaugh and Ira L. Gant, Committee for Public Counsel Services Innocence Program
Courts	Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	SJC-11815
Position	Defendant seeking postconviction DNA testing are required to prove the evidence sought to be tested exists and the requested analysis has the potential to yield evidence material to the identity of the perpetrator. They are not required to show a reasonable possibility the evidence contains biological material.
Decision	Trial court erred in determining Clark was required to establish the existence of biological material on the evidence he sought to have tested and its order denying testing is reversed.
	Clark, Tyrone v. Commonwealth

Payne, John v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2015)

Counsel	Pennsylvania Innocence Project; Innocence Project
Courts	Pennsylvania Superior Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Actual Innocence
Case Number	1113 MDA 2013
Position	In interpreting requests under Pennsylvania’s DNA statute, Court should apply a liberal standard for requests where DNA testing has the ability to show an applicant’s “actual innocence.”
Decision	Favorable. In interpreting Pennsylvania’s post-conviction statute which requires testing unless there is “no reasonable probability” it would produce exculpatory results: “We must emphatically state that, with respect to the burden on a Section 9543.1 petitioner, “no reasonable probability” does not mean, “no likely probability.” It should go without saying that the most likely result of Section 9543.1 DNA testing will corroborate a petitioner’s guilt, confirm it outright, or simply fail to cast significant doubt on the verdict. However, the very purpose of Section 9543.1 must be to afford a petitioner the opportunity to demonstrate the unlikely. The threshold question is, therefore, not the likelihood of proof of innocence, but whether it is within the realm of reason that some result(s) could prove innocence.”
	Payne, John v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Perrot, George v. Commonwealth (2015)

Counsel	Proskauer Rose LLP
Courts	Hampden County Superior Court, Massachusetts
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	85-5415, 16, 18, 20, 25
Position	Flawed forensics, and microscopic hair comparisons in particular, erode confidence in past convictions. Without other, more reliable, evidence as a foundation for a conviction, courts should not deny a defendant a hearing to explore whether the forensics used to convict him retain their believed reliability.
Decision	This decision holds that the 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report, Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States: A Path Forward, and the FBI Hair Microscopy Audit are newly discovered evidence that demonstrates the limits of hair microscopy.
	Perrot, George v. Commonwealth.pdf

Sireci, Henry v. State of Florida (2015)

Counsel	Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.; Proskauer Rose LLP
Courts	Florida Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Actual Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	SC 15-307
Position	In short, this newly discovered evidence raises substantial doubt as to the accuracy and fairness of Mr. Sireci’s conviction. The hair comparison evidence that formed the basis of Mr. Sireci’s conviction is scientifically invalid and his conviction must be reversed, or at minimum entitles him to an evidentiary hearing.
Decision	Pending.
	Sireci, Henry v. State of Florida

Wade, Robert v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)

Counsel	Committee for Public Council Services; New England Innocence Project; Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Courts	Supreme Judicial Court (Massachusetts)
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Case Number	SJC-11913
Position	To obtain post-conviction DNA testing, defendants should not have to prove the exact reason that DNA testing was not previously performed in their case. It should be enough to show that the evidence still exists, and that a testing method now exists that is materially improved from what existed at trial. Similarly, where defendants have proven that an improved testing method exists, they should not have to also show that a reasonably effective trial attorney would have requested this method at trial – if it had existed back then. Additionally, arguing that a reasonably effective attorney would have requested the DNA test does not, by itself, waive the attorney-client privilege. Prosecutors should not be able to call trial counsel as a witness and inquire about privileged communications on this basis.
Decision	Undecided.
	Wade, Robert v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Crumpton, Lindsey L. v.  State of Washington (2014)

Counsel	Graham & Dunn LLP; ACLU WA Foundation
Courts	Washington Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	88336-0
Position	When considering a post-conviction motion for DNA testing, the trial court must presume that the test results would be favorable to the convicted felon.
Decision	A trial court should presume that DNA results would be favorable to the defendant when determining whether a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction DNA testing.
	Crumpton-Lindsey-L.-State-of-Washington-v.pdf

Donald, Stanley v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2013)

Counsel	Pepper Hamilton LLP
Courts	Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Other Issues
Case Number	SJC-11348
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 Massachusetts DNA-Access Law).
Decision	Decision Pending
	Donald-Stanley-v.-Commonwealth-of-Massachusetts.pdf

Wade, Robert v. Commonwealth (2013)

Counsel	Pepper Hamilton LLP
Courts	Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Other Issues
Case Number	SJC-11506
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. Furthermore, under Massachusetts’ revised DNA-Access law (Chapter 278A), the movant must only show that the forensic analysis “has the potential to result in information that is material to the movant’s identification as the perpetrator of the crime,” a much more lenient standard than the previous law (Mass. R. Crim. P. Rule 30).
Decision	Decision Pending.
	Wade-Robert-v.-Commonwealth.pdf

Watson, Bill Tyrone James Descharm, United States v. (2013)

Counsel	Smith and Stephens, P.C.
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issues	Access to Postconviction DNA Testing
Case Number	06-45-GF-SEH
Position	Prisoners have a right to post-conviction DNA testing in every case where favorable test results might create a reasonable probability of a different outcome.  They are exempted from the timeliness requirement of the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) because previously unavailable methods constitute “newly discovered evidence” under the Act.
Decision	District court’s denial of testing under the IPA is reversed.  Watson established theory of defense that could establish his actual innocence and the identity of the perpetrator was at issue at trial.  Furthermore, new DNA tests that make previously-useless DNA capable of identification amount to “newly discovered evidence” under the IPA, thereby rebutting the presumption of untimeliness.
	United-States-of-America-vs.-Bill-Tyrone-James-Descharm-Watson.pdf

 

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

Counsel	Morrison & Foerster LLP
Courts	District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	08-CO-1581
Position	The Innocence Protection Act must be interpreted in a way to allow DNA analysis of “touch” DNA.
Decision	Trace skin cells that defendant alleged might be present on items taken from crime scene were not “biological material” that was eligible for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to the IPA, and the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that additional DNA testing would produce non-cumulative evidence that would help establish that he was actually innocent.
	Hood, Charles A. v. United States.pdf

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

Counsel	Davis Polk & Wardell LLP
Courts	Ohio Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	11-1882
Position	Ohio’s preservation statute requires preservation of DNA evidence in the State’s possession as of the statute’s effective date.
Decision	While the court ruled that R.C. 2933.82 (Ohio legislation) is not retroactive, it does apply to biological evidence in the possession of governmental evidence-retention entities at the time of its effective date. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the cause to the trial court to order the preservation and cataloging of the physical evidence in Roberts’ case.
	Roberts-Clarence-D.-v.-State-of-Ohio.pdf

Thompson, Bobby v. State of Washington (2011)

Counsel	Graham and Dunn, PC
Courts	Washington Supreme Court
Issues	False Confessions; Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	84739–8
Position	Confessions should not bar post-conviction DNA testing, which can often demonstrate innocence of the accused.
Decision	Affirming Court of Appeals decision to allow post-conviction DNA testing and citing to Innocence Network brief.
	Thompson-Bobby-v.-State-of-Washington.pdf

Prade, Douglas v. State of Ohio (2009)

Counsel	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Courts	Ohio Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	2009-0605
Position	DNA analysis should be allowed in case where petitioner’s conviction was based on now-discredited bite mark evidence.
Decision	Prior DNA tests were not “definitive” within Ohio statute. Court of Appeals judgment reversed and case remanded to consider whether new DNA testing would be “outcome determinative” under statute.
	Prade-Douglas-v.-State-of-Ohio-2009.pdf

Riofta, Alexander v. State of Washington (2009)

Counsel	Anna M. Tolin; Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	Washington Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification; Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	79407-3
Position	DNA testing should be conducted in case where eyewitness identification was unreliable.
Decision	The Court upholds the decision and declines to order a DNA hat test per RCW 10.73.170. The majority holds that Riofta failed to show that the results of a DNA test on the hat (which had been stolen the day before Ratthana was shot at) “would demonstrated innocence on a more probable than not basis.”
	Riofta-Alexander-v.-State-of-Washington.pdf

Smith, Frederick J., In Re (2008)

Counsel	Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	07-1220
Position	§1983 actions for post-conviction DNA testing are not barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
Decision	Rooker- Feldman doctrine applied; freestanding substantive due process right did not exist for DNA testing; and Michigan law governing procedures for DNA testing in criminal case did not violate due process.
	Smith-Frederick-J.-In-Re.pdf

Williams, Archie, State of Louisiana v. (2007)

Counsel	Public Interest Litigation Clinic (now the Death Penalty Litigation Clinic); Center on Wrongful Convictions; The Innocence Project
Courts	Missouri Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	85448 and 85552
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-Archie-State-of-Louisiana-v.pdf

Alley, Sedley v. State of Tennessee (2006)

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project
Courts	Tennessee Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
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.”
Decision	Abrogated by Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). Post-Conviction DNA Act permits access to a DNA database if a positive match between the crime scene DNA and a profile contained within the database would create a reasonable probability that a petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained or would have rendered a more favorable verdict or sentence if the results had been previously available.
	Alley-Sedley-v.-State-of-Tennessee.pdf

Phillips v. State (2006)

Counsel	The Innocence Project; The Innocence Project of Texas The Texas Center for Actual Innocence; The Texas Innocence Network
Courts	Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
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 defendant alone would not conclusively prove Innocence, where alternate sources of the DNA (e.g., the victim’s husband) can be excluded by other testing, or where a database hit might prove Innocence. Also urges court to interpret the statute’s “identity at issue” requirement so as not to exclude individuals who claim to have not participated in the crime.
	Phillips-v.-State.pdf

Moran, James v. State (2005)

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project
Courts	Wisconsin Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	03-0561-CR
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 defendant must prove that a different result is more likely than not), but rather an “undermines confidence” test, as understood in Strickland and Brady. The standard of review on appeal of a trial court’s denial of a DNA motion should be de novo.
Decision	The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a Wisconsin Statute gave the defendant the right to perform DNA tests on certain materials, assuming the defendant could prove three statutory prerequisites: 1) the evidence is relevant; 2) the evidence is in the possession of a government agency; and 3) the evidence has not been previously subject to DNA testing.
	Moran-James-v.-State.pdf

Young, John K. v. Commonwealth (2005)

Counsel	The Innocence Project
Courts	Supreme Ct. of PA, Eastern Dist.
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	324-EAL-2005
Position	Postconviction DNA testing statutes permit DNA testing in cases in which the defendant pled guilty or confessed.
Decision	The petition for allowance of defendant’s appeal was denied.
	Young-John-K.-v.-Commonwealth.pdf

Reeves, Jerry v. Coleman, Brian (2018)

Counsel	Cohen & Gresser LLP
Courts	Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence
Case Number	17-1043
Position	When considering the “actual innocence gateway” gateway, courts should evaluate evidence whether it is newly discovered since the trial, or it was available at the time of trial but never presented to the jury.
Decision	Pending
	Reeves, Jerry v. Coleman, Brian (2018)

Bradford, Glenn Patrick v. Brown, Richard (2016)

Counsel	Jenner & Block LLP
Courts	Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	Case No. 15-3706
Position	Freestanding innocence claims are cognizable under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments and should be reviewed under a standard granting federal habeas corpus relief upon a showing that the petitioner was “probably” innocent.
Decision	Seventh Circuit granted en banc review.
	Bradford, Glenn Patrick v. Brown, Richard

Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Eyewitness Identification; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Informant Testimony; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	15-99002
Position	Exculpatory evidence withheld by the state undermines confidence in a verdict based on evidence of known unreliability (incentivized witnesses, flawed forensics and eyewitness identification) and on false corroboration.
Decision	Granted habeas petition in Nevada death penalty case on Brady and IAC grounds, finding that state court decision was objectively unreasonable, see 875 F.3d 444 (2017).
	Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin (2016)

Counsel	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; False Confessions; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	2015AP000592
Position	Confessions can be coerced and unreliable and therefore should not always be dispositive, particularly in the SB S context , when contemporary research reveals that SBS theory is, and always has been, merely an unsupported hypothesis.
Decision	Pending.
	Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin

Yell, Robert v. State of Wisconsin (2016)

Counsel	Duane Morris, LLP; The Simon Law Office
Courts	Logan Circuit Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	04-CR-232
Position	The undeniable advances in fire investigation science since Mr. Yell’s trial and the guidelines and principles adopted by the National Fire Protection Association, the International Association of Arson Investigators, and the Canine Accelerant Detection Association, all show that the outmoded investigative techniques that led to Mr. Yell’s conviction were unreliable and based more on myth than science. The ADC’s six uncorroborated alerts and his handler’s testimony regarding his subjective belief (without any proof) that the canine’s alerts were more accurate than laboratory analysis—evidence which the Commonwealth exploited in closing argument—would not be admissible in a new trial.
Decision	The court found that the arson science presented at trial was so unreliable that would today be inadmissible, and that the conclusions were likely the product of “confirmation bias” on the part of the investigators, who believed Mr. Yell had set the fire in which one of his children perished. The court overturned Mr. Yell’s conviction.
	Yell, Robert v. State of Wisconsin

Ceasor, Terry v. Warden, John (2015)

Counsel	Foley & Lardner LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Issues	Actual Innocence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	15=1145
Position	Public policy compels a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel in cases where there is a significant scientific dispute over the evidence and the defense fails to produce an expert. The failure to adequately investigate an expert witness and present expert testimony in an SBS/AHT case constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
Decision	Undecided
	Ceasor, Terry v. Warden, John.pdf

Clark, Darius v. Ohio (2015)

Counsel	Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	13-1352
Position	There is no basis, objective or subjective, to categorically exempt statements made by young children to a mandated reporter from the protections of the Confrontation Clause.
Decision	The Supreme Court of the United States held that admission of the teacher’s testimony did not violate the confrontation clause in that the three-year-old’s statements to his teachers were non-testimonial because the totality of the circumstances indicated that the primary purpose of the conversation was not to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.
	Clark, Darius v. Ohio.pdf

Colon, Fernando v. State of Ohio (2015)

Counsel	Tucker Ellis LLP
Courts	Court of Appeals Of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District
Issues	Actual Innocence; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	103150
Position	Trial courts must be allowed to exercise discretion to grant additional discovery in post-conviction matters where there is a colorable claim of “actual innocence.”
Decision	Pending.
	Colon, Fernando v. State of Ohio

Crawford, Rodricus v. State of Louisiana (2015)

Counsel	Jones Walker LLP; Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Courts	Louisiana Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	2014-KA-2153
Position	The prosecution’s medical expert testimony has no basis in science and is belied by the decedent child’s medical history. Prosecution expert witnesses showed actual bias against the defendant, resulting in an improper and unsupportable medical conclusion.
Decision	Undecided
	Crawford, Rodricus v. State of Louisiana.pdf

Larson, Robert, Gassman, Tyler and Statler, Paul v. State of Washington (2015)

Counsel	Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
Courts	Washington Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Compensation; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	No. 33179-2
Position	Wrongful conviction compensation statutes should be broadly construed in favor of exonerated individuals, with reasonable burdens of proof required.
Decision	The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s interpretation of “significant new exculpatory information” and its imposition of an improperly high burden of proof on the “actually innocent” element. The case was remanded to the trial court to decide whether the claimants proved by clear and convincing evidence they are actually innocent.
	Larson, Robert, Gassman, Tyler and Statler, Paul v. State of Washington

McKoy, Lamont v. State of North Carolina (2015)

Counsel	Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP
Courts	North Carolina Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; New Evidence of Innocence; Other Issues
Case Number	O9 CRS 11412
Position	Evidence of actual innocence is sufficient in this case to overcome procedural bars and warrants an evidentiary hearing.
Decision	Petition was denied.
	McKoy, Lamont v. State of North Carolina

Patel, Purvi v. State of Indiana (2015)

Counsel	Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP
Courts	Indiana Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	71A04-1504-CR-00166
Position	Challenges to unsound forensic sciences should be basis for granting a new trial.
Decision	The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned Patel’s the conviction and reduced a second charge of neglecting a dependent.
	Patel, Purvi v. State of Indiana

Payne, John v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2015)

Counsel	Pennsylvania Innocence Project; Innocence Project
Courts	Pennsylvania Superior Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Actual Innocence
Case Number	1113 MDA 2013
Position	In interpreting requests under Pennsylvania’s DNA statute, Court should apply a liberal standard for requests where DNA testing has the ability to show an applicant’s “actual innocence.”
Decision	Favorable. In interpreting Pennsylvania’s post-conviction statute which requires testing unless there is “no reasonable probability” it would produce exculpatory results: “We must emphatically state that, with respect to the burden on a Section 9543.1 petitioner, “no reasonable probability” does not mean, “no likely probability.” It should go without saying that the most likely result of Section 9543.1 DNA testing will corroborate a petitioner’s guilt, confirm it outright, or simply fail to cast significant doubt on the verdict. However, the very purpose of Section 9543.1 must be to afford a petitioner the opportunity to demonstrate the unlikely.18 The threshold question is, therefore, not the likelihood of proof of innocence, but whether it is within the realm of reason that some result(s) could prove innocence.”
	Payne, John v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Simmons, Kenneth v. State of South Carolina (2015)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	Supreme Court of South Carolina
Issues	Actual Innocence; False Confessions; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	Appellate Case No. 2014-000387
Position	The State’s fatally flawed testing, analysis, and presentation of DNA evidence deprived Mr. Simmons of a fair trial. To sustain Mr. Simmons’s conviction based on this improper DNA evidence would be unjust, and would also cast a needless shadow of doubt over the wider use of DNA evidence. Rather than compromise one of the justice system’s powerful tools for convicting the guilty and preserving liberty for the innocent, the Court should overturn Mr. Simmons’s conviction.
Decision	Pending.
	Simmons, Kenneth v. State of South Carolina

Sireci, Henry v. State of Florida (2015)

Counsel	Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.; Proskauer Rose LLP
Courts	Florida Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Actual Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	SC 15-307
Position	In short, this newly discovered evidence raises substantial doubt as to the accuracy and fairness of Mr. Sireci’s conviction. The hair comparison evidence that formed the basis of Mr. Sireci’s conviction is scientifically invalid and his conviction must be reversed, or at minimum entitles him to an evidentiary hearing.
Decision	Pending.
	Sireci, Henry v. State of Florida

Cope, Billy Wayne, State of South Carolina v. (2014)

Counsel	Jenner & Block LLP
Courts	South Carolina Supreme Court
Issues	False Confessions; Actual Innocence
Case Number	Appellate Case No. 2009-143966
Position	False confession evidence is not inherently reliable and yet it has a strong biasing effect; thus there is a critical need for the defense to be able to mount a powerful third party guilt defense that relies not only on scientific evidence but also on traditional third party guilt evidence.
Decision	Decision Pending
	CopeBillyWayneStateofSouthCarolinav..pdf

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

Counsel	Davis Polk & Wardell LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	13-5307
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 and creates a circuit split that should be resolved.
Decision	Decision to grant certiorari pending.
	Case-Carl-v.-Timothy-Hatch-Warden.pdf

Garrett, William v. People (2013)

Counsel	Foley & Lardner
Courts	Michigan Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	145594
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 barriers to habeas relief
Decision	Decision pending
	Garrett-William-People-v.pdf

Griffith, Evan v. Rednour (2011)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence
Case Number	10-980
Position	The actual innocence gateway applies to AEDPA’s statute of limitations.
Decision	Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
	Griffith-Evan-v.-Rednour.pdf

Floyd, John v. Cain (2010)

Counsel	Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; James E. Boren
Courts	Louisiana Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence
Case Number	2010-KP-0085
Position	Post-conviction petitioners, who can establish their actual innocence through newly-discovered evidence of any type, are entitled to seek relief.
Decision	Writ denied.
	Floyd-John-v.-Cain.pdf

Lee, Richard v. Lampert (2010)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issues	Actual Innocence
Case Number	09-35276
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.
Decision	A petitioner is not barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations from filing an otherwise untimely habeas petition if the petitioner makes a credible showing of “actual innocence” under Schlup v. Delo, but found that the evidence presented in this case was not sufficient.
	Lee-Richard-v.-Lampert.pdf

Roane, James H., In Re (2010)

Counsel	DLA Piper LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence
Case Number	10-7304
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.
Decision	Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
	Roane-James-H.-In-Re.pdf

Swearingen, Larry R. v. Thaler (2010)

Counsel	Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Issues	Actual Innocence
Case Number	09-70036
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.
Decision	Petitioner’s claims remanded to the trial court and execution stayed.
	Swearingen-Larry-R.-v.-Thaler.pdf

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

Counsel	Cooley, Godward & Kronish LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence Actual Innocence
Case Number	08-15943
Position	Advances in scientific research in arson cases support Souliotes’ claim of actual innocence and he exercised due diligence in bringing claim forward.
Decision	Remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether new fire testing methods could have been discovered earlier through due diligence (citing Innocence Network brief), but holding that there is no actual innocence gateway to the AEDPA statute of limitations.
	Souliotes-George-A.-v.-Anthony-Hedgpeth.pdf

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

Counsel	Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC
Courts	North Carolina Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence
Case Number	85CRS 16651-16654
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 wrongly convicted.
Decision	The North Carolina Court of Appeals refused to review the decision of the district court. The defendant’s attorney appealed directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which denied certiorari.
	Hunt-Lee-Wayne-v.-State-of-North-Carolina.pdf

Holmes v. South Carolina (2005)

Counsel	The Innocence Project
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence
Position	Challenging evidentiary rule that excluded evidence of third party guilt that directly undermines the strength of the prosecution’s evidence against the defendant.
Decision	The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the state supreme court, holding that exclusion of the evidence of third party guilt violate the defendant’s right to present a complete defense. The fact that the prosecution had a strong case against the defendant involving forensic evidence did not mean that contrary evidence casting doubt on the defendant’s guilt did not need to be considered.
	Holmes-v.-South-Carolina.pdf

Lott, Gregory, In re (2005)

Counsel	Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Issues	Actual Innocence
Case Number	05-3532
Position	A claim of actual Innocence in habeas proceedings cannot be deemed a waiver of the attorney/client and work product privileges.
Decision	Petitioner’s assertion of actual innocence did not effect waiver of attorney-client or work product privilege.
	Lott-Gregory-In-re.pdf

Van Buskirk, Mark Steven v. Baldwin (2001)

Counsel	Northern California Innocence Project (by Morrison & Foerster)
Courts	Ninth Circuit
Issues	Actual Innocence
Case Number	00-35640
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.
Decision	The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. The court states that the defendant’s evidence of actual innocence was insufficient to satisfy Schlup v. Delo’s threshold requirement for asserting an actual innocence claim. The court therefore found it unnecessary to address whether it was impermissible to impose a “due diligence” requirement on an actual innocence claim.
	Van-Buskirk-Mark-Steven-v.-Baldwin.pdf

Back, Danna Rochelle v. State of Minnesota (2017)

Counsel	Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Courts	Minnesota Supreme Court
Issues	Compensation
Case Number	A15-1637
Position	The statutory phrase “on grounds consistent with innocence” is unambiguous and means on grounds compatible or in agreement with innocence. New evidence is not required to establish “on grounds consistent with innocence.” Prosecutors should not function as gatekeepers to determine a person’s initial eligibility for compensation under the statute.
Decision	A claimant has not been “exonerated” under Minnesota’s Imprisonment and Exoneration Remedies Act unless the prosecutor dismisses the charges, even if an appellate court has already reversed or vacated the claimant’s conviction on grounds consistent with innocence.
	Back, Danna Rochelle v. State of Minnesota

Manuel, Elijah v. City of Joliet (2016)

Counsel	Innocence Project of Florida; Pennsylvania Innocence Project; Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	United States Supreme Court
Issues	Compensation; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	14-9496
Position	Malicious prosecution action based on the Fourth Amendment is cognizable under § 1983.
Decision	The Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial detention even beyond the start of legal process, abrogating Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, and Llovet v. Chicago, 761 F.3d 759, see 137 S. Ct. 911, (2017).
	Manuel, Elijah v. City of Joliet

Washington Counties Risk Pool; American International Group, INC.; Lexington Insurance Company, INC.; Vyrle Hill; J. William Ashbaugh; Ace American Insurance Company v. Clark County; Slagle, Donald; David, Larry; Northrop, Alan (2016)

Counsel	Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
Courts	Washington Supreme Court
Issues	Compensation; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	91154-1
Position	In cases involving an intentional Brady violation, the government’s failure to correct the violation and disclose the exculpatory evidence can constitute ongoing misconduct.
Decision	After oral argument, the parties negotiated a settlement and the appeal was withdrawn.
	Washington Counties Risk Pool; American International Group, INC.; Lexington Insurance Company, INC.; Vyrle Hill; J. William Ashbaugh; Ace American Insurance Company v. Clark County; Slagle, Donald; David, Larry; Northrop, Alan

Larson, Robert, Gassman, Tyler and Statler, Paul v. State of Washington (2015)

Counsel	Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
Courts	Washington Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Compensation; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	No. 33179-2
Position	Wrongful conviction compensation statutes should be broadly construed in favor of exonerated individuals, with reasonable burdens of proof required.
Decision	The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s interpretation of “significant new exculpatory information” and its imposition of an improperly high burden of proof on the “actually innocent” element. The case was remanded to the trial court to decide whether the claimants proved by clear and convincing evidence they are actually innocent.
	Larson, Robert, Gassman, Tyler and Statler, Paul v. State of Washington

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

Counsel	Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP
Courts	New York Court of Appeals
Issues	False Confessions; Compensation
Case Number	CA 08 02261
Position	An innocent person’s confession should not be a bar to wrongful conviction compensation.
Decision	Warney’s confession and other statements did not warrant dismissal of his claim for compensation on the ground that he caused or brought about his conviction.
	Warney-Douglas-v.-State-of-New-York.pdf

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

Counsel	Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Courts	New York Court of Appeals
Issues	Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations; False Confessions
Case Number	2-12-00306
Position	The interrogation tactics used produced a coerced and unreliable confession; When a disputed confession is admitted into evidence, expert testimony on false confessions must be allowed as a necessary safeguard to prevent wrongful convictions; and The court should require videotaping of complete interrogations.
Decision	People v. Thomas, — N.E.3d —- (2014), reversed conviction and granted motion to suppress, holding that (1) incriminating statements by defendant were not voluntary but were products of coercion, in violation of Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) defendant’s inculpating statements were inadmissible as involuntarily made.
	Thomas-Adrian-State-of-New-York-v.pdf

Kowalski, Jerome v. State of Michigan (2011)

Counsel	Dykema Gossett PLLC
Courts	Michigan Supreme Court; Michigan Court of Appeals
Issues	Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Case Number	141932
Position	Trial court erred by excluding expert witness testimony on false confessions.
Decision	Pending.
	Kowalski-Jerome-v.-State-of-Michigan.pdf

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

Counsel	Roney & Labinger LLP; DeBevoise & Plimpton LLP; Thomas G. Briody
Courts	Rhode Island Supreme Court
Issues	Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations; False Confessions
Case Number	SU-2008-0292
Position	Courts should require that custodial interrogations be recorded in full to minimize the risk of convicting innocent defendants.
Decision	State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158 (Rhode Island 2011). Failure to electronically record interrogation did not provide grounds for exclusion of confession and Court will not exercise supervisory jurisdiction to require electronic recording.
	Barros-Tracey-v.-State-of-Rhode-Island.pdf

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

Counsel	Thomas P. Sullivan
Courts	Supreme Court of Connecticut
Issues	Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Case Number	S.C. 17773
Position	Arguing that the court should mandate electronic recording of interrogations. Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Decision	Defendant did not have right to electronic recordation of confession; Supreme Court would not invoke its inherent supervisory authority to impose electronic recordation requirement; and officer’s testimony was not impermissible comment on defendant’s right to remain silent.
	Lockhart, Julian v. State of Connecticut

Alley, Sedley v. State of Tennessee (2006)

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project
Courts	Tennessee Supreme Court
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
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.”
Decision	Abrogated by Powers v. State, 343 S.W.3d 36 (Tenn. 2011). Post-Conviction DNA Act permits access to a DNA database if a positive match between the crime scene DNA and a profile contained within the database would create a reasonable probability that a petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained or would have rendered a more favorable verdict or sentence if the results had been previously available.
	Alley-Sedley-v.-State-of-Tennessee.pdf

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

Counsel	The Innocence Project
Courts	New York Court of Appeals
Issues	False Confessions; Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Case Number	1209-88 & 1535/88
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
Decision	Petitioner should not have been charged with a lack of due diligence and newly discovered evidence submitted by petitioner warranted a new trial. The Court notes that new evidence has developed that points to a third party murderer.
	Tankleff-Martin-v.-State-of-New-York.pdf

Otis, Kirk Edward v. State (2005)

Counsel	Center on Wrongful Convictions
Courts	Supreme Court of Arkansas
Issues	Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Case Number	CR-04-01323
Position	Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Decision	The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. The defendant signed the waiver form in front of his mother, the police explained in detail the defendant’s rights and consequences of their waiver, and the defendant confirmed that he understood his rights. Although the Court did not address whether failure to record the interrogations weighed against the voluntariness determination, it appears that several interrogation sessions were in fact recorded.
	Otis-Kirk-Edward-v.-State.pdf

DiGiambattista, Commonwealth v. (2004)

Counsel	Suffolk Lawyers for Justice, Inc.; New England Innocence Project
Courts	Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Issues	Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Case Number	9155
Position	Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Decision	The defendant’s conviction was reversed and the case was remanded to the superior court. The Supreme Judicial Court stated that the admission into evidence of a defendant’s confession or statement that was the result of an unrecorded custodial interrogation would entitle the defendant to request a jury instruction concerning the need to evaluate the statement with particular caution. The Supreme Judicial Court did not, however, make recording of an interrogation a prerequisite to the admissibility of a defendant’s statements.
	DiGiambattista-Commonwealth-v.pdf

Jerrell J., In Re (2004)

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project and numerous other Projects and individuals.
Courts	Wisconsin Supreme Court
Issues	Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Case Number	02-3423
Position	Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Decision	The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals (that had affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress his confession), finding that the confession was involuntary for various reasons (young defendant; low intelligence; intimidation used). Additionally, as an exercise of the Supreme Court’s supervisory powers, it required that all juvenile custodial interrogations be electronically recorded when possible. Electronic recording was to be required when interrogation occurred in place of detention.
	Jerrell-J.-In-Re.pdf

Cook Thomahl, State v. (2003)

Counsel	Center on Wrongful Convictions; The Innocence Project
Courts	New Jersey Supreme Court
Issues	Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Case Number	53,778
Position	Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.
Decision	The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, holding that the Due Process Clause of the New Jersey Constitution does not require electronic recording of custodial interrogations. The Court notes, however, that such a requirement does exist as a matter of due process in Alaska and under Minnesota’s supervisory powers over the criminal justice process.
	Cook-Thomahl-State-v.pdf

Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Eyewitness Identification; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Informant Testimony; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	15-99002
Position	Exculpatory evidence withheld by the state undermines confidence in a verdict based on evidence of known unreliability (incentivized witnesses, flawed forensics and eyewitness identification) and on false corroboration.
Decision	Granted habeas petition in Nevada death penalty case on Brady and IAC grounds, finding that state court decision was objectively unreasonable, see 875 F.3d 444 (2017).
	Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Harris, Ernest v. State of Connecticut (2016)

Counsel	Bansley | Anthony | Burdo, LLC
Courts	State of Connecticut Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	SC 19649
Position	(1)  THE MANSON/LEDBETTER TEST DOES NOT ACHIEVE ITS GOAL OF USING RELIABILITY AS A “LINCHPIN” TO PROTECT DUE PROCESS AND FAIR TRIAL INTERESTS   (2) THIS COURT SHOULD ADOPT A LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT ACCOMMODATES CURRENT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS AND GUIDES THE LOWER COURTS ON THE USE OF THE EVOLVING BODY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Decision	Pending
	Harris, Ernest v. State of Connecticut (2016)

Bailey, Walter v. State of Florida (2015)

Counsel	Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Courts	Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	3D13-1533
Position	The trial court erred in excluding the expert on eyewitness identification, in a case that turned on eyewitness identification evidence and involved factors that are not commonly understood by jurors.
Decision	Trial court did not err.  The case is being appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
	Bailey, Walter v. State of Florida

Clark, Darius v. Ohio (2015)

Counsel	Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	13-1352
Position	There is no basis, objective or subjective, to categorically exempt statements made by young children to a mandated reporter from the protections of the Confrontation Clause.
Decision	The Supreme Court of the United States held that admission of the teacher’s testimony did not violate the confrontation clause in that the three-year-old’s statements to his teachers were non-testimonial because the totality of the circumstances indicated that the primary purpose of the conversation was not to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.
	Clark, Darius v. Ohio.pdf

Gomes, Jeremy, Johnson, Kenneth, Crayton, Walter v. Commonwealth (2015)

Counsel	McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Courts	Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	SJC-11537
Position	The court should adopt reforms to its legal framework for handling eyewitness identification– including enhanced, science-based jury instructions; strict limits on in-court identifications; and more robust judicial gatekeeping of challenged identification evidence.
Decision	The court adopted provisional, science-based jury instructions (Gomes).  The court strictly limited the admissibility of in-court identifications (Crayton/Collins).
	Gomes, Jeremy, Johnson, Kenneth, Crayton, Walter v. Commonwealth

Johnson, Kyle v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)

Counsel	Innocence Project; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP
Courts	Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	SJC-11876
Position	The court should revisit, reaffirm, and expand upon Commonwealth v. Jones in light of the 2013 Supreme Judicial Court study group’s report and recommendations about the reliability of eyewitness identifications. The court should also revisit and eliminate the independent source doctrine in light of recent decisions on in-court identifications, as well as the study group’s findings.
Decision	The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that (1) where a defendant claims non-state actor suggestion, he need not make as high a showing as when he claims police suggestion — he must show “substantial risk that they influenced the witness’s identification of the defendant, inflated his or her level of certainty in the identification, or altered his or her memory of the circumstances of the operative event” and (2) where a court suppresses an out-of-court identification that was the product of private suggestion, no in-court identification can follow. The court clarified that the amount of suggestion that is required to make an identification unreliability is inextricably linked with the strength of the witness’s original memory. The court signaled that it will consider, in the appropriate case, two issues: (1) the continued applicability of independent source doctrine when out-of-court ID is suppressed due to unnecessary suggestion by police; and (2) whether ID can be suppressed due to unreliability alone, stemming from estimator variables, even if there was no suggestion in ID procedure.
	Johnson, Kyle v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Lerma, Eduardo v. People of the State of Illinois (2015)

Counsel	Quarles & Brady LLP
Courts	Illinois Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	118496
Position	Illinois should revisit the decision in People v. Ennis, 139 Ill.2d 264 (1990),  that has led courts to per se exclude eyewitness expert testimony and rule that there is no presumption against eyewitness expert testimony and that eyewitness expert testimony should be favored or at least placed on the same footing as that of other experts.
Decision	The court ruled in favor of eyewitness expert testimony, and Mr. Lerma was granted a new trial.
	Lerma, Eduardo v. People of the State of Illinois

Navarro, Santiago v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)

Counsel	Innocence Project; Greater Boston Legal Services; Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Courts	Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	SJC-11878
Position	SJC “should require that the jury be instructed on all relevant potions of the eyewitness identification instruction in every case in which eyewitness identification is at issue, irrespective of whether such instruction is requested by the defense.”
Decision	Pending.
	Navarro, Santiago v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

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

Counsel	The Innocence Project; McDermott Will & Emery; Oregon Innocence Project
Courts	Oregon Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	S061409
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.
Decision	Decision pending.
	Hickman-Jerrin-Lavazie-v.-State-of-Oregon.pdf

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

Counsel
Courts	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	11-1660
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 identifications were present (including the presence of a weapon, the length of time the witnesses viewed the perpetrator, simultaneous presentation of photo array, non-blind administrator and more). Two witnesses also were unable to make identifications, and research shows that non-identifications can be quite probative of innocence – sometimes more probative than positive identifications can be of guilt. Thus, Mr. Dennis’ habeas petition should be granted.
Decision	The Court granted Dennis’ habeas petition and vacated his conviction and death sentence, calling this conviction a “miscarriage of justice.” In this case, there was a lack of any physical, or circumstantial, evidence connecting Dennis to the murder; unreliable eyewitness identification testimony; multiple Brady violations; bad police work and poor lawyering by the defense counsel.
	Dennis-James-A.-v.-John-E.-Wetzel-Et-Al.pdf

Manning, Willie v. State of Mississippi (2013)

Counsel	Robert Mink (Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP) David Voisin
Courts	Mississippi Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	2000-039-CVH
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 homicide conviction (perjured witness testimony, incentivized witness testimony, inaccurate forensics, a recanting witness State suppression of exculpatory evidence), the conviction must be reversed.
Decision	The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, reversed Willie Manning’s conviction and two sentences of death and remanded for a new trial based on the State’s withholding of favorable evidence.
	Manning-Willie-v.-State-of-Mississippi.pdf

Prade, Douglas v. State of Ohio (2012)

Counsel	Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Courts	Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Ohio
Issues	Unreliable Forensic Science; Eyewitness Identification; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	CR 1998-02-0463
Decision	Conviction of aggravated murder with firearms specification was overturned (if Court’s order granting post-conviction relief is overturned pursuant to appeal, Motion for New Trial is granted)
	Prade-Douglas-v.-State-of-Ohio-2012.pdf

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

Counsel	Levine & McHenry LLC; Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP
Courts	Oregon Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	SO59234
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.
Decision	Explicitly citing the Innocence Network Brief, the Court held that Oregon’s previous standard for the admissibility of eyewitness identifications (i.e. the Classen test) was “insufficient to ensure that unreliable evidence will be excluded” (24). The Court formulated a new standard for the admissibility of eye witness testimony which, inter alia, mandated that such testimony be excluded if the defendant can prove—based on system and/or estimator variables—that the “probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence” (44-5). The Court reversed the rulings of the trial and appellate courts and remanded Lawson’s case for a new trial based on the above standard.
	Lawson-Samuel-A.-v.-State-of-Oregon.pdf

Perry, Barion v. New Hampshire (2011)

Counsel	Miller & Chevalier Chartered
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	10-8974
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 must be interpreted in a manner to prevent the admission of an identification emanating from circumstances so suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
Decision	The due process check on the admission of eyewitness identification is applicable only when the police have arranged suggestive circumstances leading the witness to identify a particular person as the perpetrator of a crime.
	Perry-Barion-v.-New-Hampshire.pdf

Smith, Juan v. Cain (2011)

Counsel	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct; Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	10-8145
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.
Decision	Reversing and remanding because the State’s witness’s statements to police, made on night of murder and five days after murder, stating that he could not ID the perpetrators, were material for the purposes of Brady.
	Smith-Juan-v.-Cain.pdf

Walker, Benjamin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2011)

Counsel	Pepper Hamilton LLP; Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney
Courts	Supreme Ct. of PA, Eastern Dist.
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	28 EAP 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 linchpin to protect dues process and fair trial interests; expert testimony on memory should be admissible when it meets the criteria for admissibility.
Decision	Per Curiam Decision, petition for allowance of appeal was granted
	Walker-Benjamin-v.-Commonwealth-of-Pennsylvania.pdf

Young, Tracey v. State of Louisiana (2010)

Counsel	Innocence Project New Orleans
Courts	Louisiana Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	09-KK-1177
Position	Court should overturn per se ban on the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness expert identification.
Decision	State v. Young, 35 So.3d 1042, (La. 2010), rehearing denied (May 07, 2010).
	Young-Tracey-v.-State-of-Louisiana.pdf

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

Counsel	Dickstein Shapiro, LLP
Courts	Appellate Court of Illinois
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	1-08-2073, 1-08-3414
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.
Decision	Denial of association’s summary judgment motion operated as a judgment in favor of agency; redaction of open investigation files was not unduly burdensome to agencies; degree of invasion of personal privacy in making disclosure of faces in photographic police lineups did not outweigh interest of association and public favoring disclosure; and burden on agencies of redacting any identifying information in requested closed files was not so excessive that it outweighed vital public interest, citing to Innocence Network amicus brief at 577.
	National-Association-of-Criminal-Defense-Lawyers-v.-Superintendent-of-Chicago-Police-Department.pdf

Riofta, Alexander v. State of Washington (2009)

Counsel	Anna M. Tolin; Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	Washington Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification; Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	79407-3
Position	DNA testing should be conducted in case where eyewitness identification was unreliable.
Decision	The Court upholds the decision and declines to order a DNA hat test per RCW 10.73.170. The majority holds that Riofta failed to show that the results of a DNA test on the hat (which had been stolen the day before Ratthana was shot at) “would demonstrated innocence on a more probable than not basis.”
	Riofta-Alexander-v.-State-of-Washington.pdf

Avery, Brian v. State of Wisconsin (2008)

Counsel	Colleen D. Ball; Cooley Godward Kronish LLP
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	False Confessions; Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	2008AP000500
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 Innocence.
Decision	State v. Avery, 807 N.W.2d 638 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). Trial court applied the wrong standard when it weighed competing credible evidence; it was reasonably probable that a different result would be reached at a new trial including newly discovered evidence, and thus defendant was entitled to a new trial; and the real controversy of whether defendant was actually involved in the armed robberies was not fully tried, and thus defendant was entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice.
	Avery, Brian v. State of Wisconsin.pdf

Davis, Troy, In Re: (2008)

Counsel	Jenner & Block LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Issues	Eyewitness Identification; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	08-16009-P
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 to test evidence of actual innocence in a capital case.
Decision	Newly-discovered evidence requirement was not met for evidence submitted in support of initial petition; affidavit of one trial witness satisfied newly-discovered evidence requirement; affidavit did not establish actual innocence; Court of Appeals had no authority to grant petitioner leave to file a second or successive habeas petition on equitable grounds; and even if Court of Appeals had authority to grant petitioner leave to file successive petition on equitable grounds, petitioner failed to establish a compelling claim of actual innocence that would permit the filing of the successive petition.
	Davis-Troy-In-Re.pdf

Duncan, Calvin v. Burl Cain (2008)

Counsel	William Southern; Latham & Watkins LLP
Courts	Louisiana Court of Appeals
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	290-908-G
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.
Decision	District court’s judgment denying relator’s post-conviction application as time barred is vacated and the district court is directed to hold an evidentiary hearing as it relates to relator’s recent discovery potential Brady evidence.
	Duncan-Calvin-v.-Burl-Cain.pdf

Dyer, Richard, In re (2008)

Counsel	Sheryl Gordon McCloud
Courts	Washington Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	79872- 9
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, who was convicted of rape on the basis of victim eyewitness testimony, was denied parole because he was unable to participate in a treatment program that requires admission of guilt.
Decision	Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
	Dyer-Richard-In-re.pdf

Davis, Troy v. State of Georgia (2007)

Counsel	Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Courts	Georgia Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	S07A-1758
Position	Supporting extraordinary writ for new trial, since Davis was convicted on the basis of unreliable eyewitness identification.
Decision	Evidence was sufficient to support convictions and summary denial of motion without hearing was warranted.
	Davis-Troy-v.-State-of-Georgia.pdf

Perez, Jose Antonio v. United States (2006)

Counsel	Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	05-596
Position	Courts should abandon or modify the Brathwaite/Biggers five-prong test for evaluating “reliability” of suggestive eyewitness identification procedures.
Decision	Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
	Perez-Jose-Antonio-v.-United-States.pdf

Shomberg, Forest v. State (2005)

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project
Courts	Wisconsin Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	2004AP630-CR
Position	Expert testimony on eyewitness identifications should be per se admissible in any case in which disputed eyewitness evidence is presented.
Decision	The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, choosing not to adopt a presumption of admissibility for expert testimony on eyewitness identification evidence.
	Shomberg-Forest-v.-State.pdf

Dubose, Tyrone, State v. (2005)

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project
Courts	Wisconsin Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	03-1690-CR
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 “reliability” of suggestive eyewitness identification procedures.
Decision	The case was reversed an remanded. The Court held that evidence obtained from a showup is not admissible unless it was necessary, where a showup is necessary only if: 1) the police lacked probable cause to make the arrest in the first place; or 2)if it was not possible to conduct a lineup or photo identification.
	Dubose-Tyrone-State-v.pdf

Ford, Tony Egbuna v. Dretke (2005)

Counsel	Center on Wrongful Convictions
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Position	Expert testimony on eyewitness identifications should be per se admissible in any case in which disputed eyewitness evidence is presented.
Decision	Petition for certiorari was denied.
	Ford-Tony-Egbuna-v.-Dretke.pdf

Abney, Quentin v. New York (2009)

Counsel	The Innocence Project; Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	New York Court of Appeals
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	3314/05
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 identification, whether or not there is additional corroborative evidence that could weigh in favor of guilt.
Decision	The trial judge erred in disallowing expert testimony on eyewitness identification and a new trial should be granted.
	Abney-Quentin-v.-New-York.pdf

Ledbetter, Laquan v. State (2005)

Counsel	The Innocence Project; Center on Wrongful Convictions; Wisconsin Innocence Project; North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence; Northern California Innocence Project
Courts	Supreme Court of Connecticut
Issues	Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	S.C. 17307
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 very least, a curative jury instruction.
Decision	The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the defendant’s conviction. They found that, under the totality of the circumstances in the present case, the identification was not necessarily suggestive. However, in future cases where the administrator of an identification procedure failed to instruct a witness that the culprit might or might not be present in a lineup, a jury instruction on eyewitness reliability would be required.
	Ledbetter-Laquan-v.-State.pdf

Cotto, Erick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2017)

Counsel	THE INNOCENCE PROJECT, INC., THE NEW ENGLAND INNOCENCE PROJECT, THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MASSACHUSETTS, AND PROFESSORS DANIEL MEDWED AND ELLEN YAROSHEFSKY
Courts	Superior Court
Issues	False Confessions
Case Number	2007-770
Position	We respectfully ask the Supreme Court of Japan to grant Masaru Okunishi to reconsider the voluntariness and reliability of his confession and the strength of all other evidence against him to ensure beyond a reasonable doubt that Japan will not execute or continue the wrongful imprisonment of a potentially innocent man.
Decision	Pending.
	Cotto, Erick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2017)

Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin (2016)

Counsel	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; False Confessions; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	2015AP000592
Position	Confessions can be coerced and unreliable and therefore should not always be dispositive, particularly in the SB S context , when contemporary research reveals that SBS theory is, and always has been, merely an unsupported hypothesis.
Decision	Pending.
	Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin

Duvall, Robert Lee v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2016)

Counsel	Duane Morris LLP; Pennsylvania Innocence Project
Courts	Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Issues	False Confessions; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	80 MAP 2015
Position	Intentional misrepresentations of law or fact by police during an interrogation can lead to false confessions so they should be viewed with skepticism
Decision	Pending.
	Duvall, Robert Lee v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.pdf

Simmons, Kenneth v. State of South Carolina (2015)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	Supreme Court of South Carolina
Issues	Actual Innocence; False Confessions; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	Appellate Case No. 2014-000387
Position	The State’s fatally flawed testing, analysis, and presentation of DNA evidence deprived Mr. Simmons of a fair trial. To sustain Mr. Simmons’s conviction based on this improper DNA evidence would be unjust, and would also cast a needless shadow of doubt over the wider use of DNA evidence. Rather than compromise one of the justice system’s powerful tools for convicting the guilty and preserving liberty for the innocent, the Court should overturn Mr. Simmons’s conviction.
Decision	Pending.
	Simmons, Kenneth v. State of South Carolina

Cope, Billy Wayne, State of South Carolina v. (2014)

Counsel	Jenner & Block LLP
Courts	South Carolina Supreme Court
Issues	False Confessions; Actual Innocence
Case Number	Appellate Case No. 2009-143966
Position	False confession evidence is not inherently reliable and yet it has a strong biasing effect; thus there is a critical need for the defense to be able to mount a powerful third party guilt defense that relies not only on scientific evidence but also on traditional third party guilt evidence.
Decision	Decision Pending
	CopeBillyWayneStateofSouthCarolinav..pdf

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

Counsel	Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Courts	New York Court of Appeals
Issues	Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations; False Confessions
Case Number	2-12-00306
Position	The interrogation tactics used produced a coerced and unreliable confession; When a disputed confession is admitted into evidence, expert testimony on false confessions must be allowed as a necessary safeguard to prevent wrongful convictions; and The court should require videotaping of complete interrogations.
Decision	People v. Thomas, — N.E.3d —- (2014), reversed conviction and granted motion to suppress, holding that (1) incriminating statements by defendant were not voluntary but were products of coercion, in violation of Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) defendant’s inculpating statements were inadmissible as involuntarily made.
	Thomas-Adrian-State-of-New-York-v.pdf

Burns, Gen Sebastian & Rafay, Atif Ahmad v. State of Washington (2011)

Counsel	Carney Badley Spellman, P.S.; Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP
Courts	Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III
Issues	False Confessions
Case Number	55217-1
Position	Trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony on false confessions.
Decision	Pending.
	Burns-Gen-Sebastian-Rafay-Atif-Ahmad-v.-State-of-Washington.pdf

Thompson, Bobby v. State of Washington (2011)

Counsel	Graham and Dunn, PC
Courts	Washington Supreme Court
Issues	False Confessions;  Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Case Number	84739–8
Position	Confessions should not bar post-conviction DNA testing, which can often demonstrate innocence of the accused.
Decision	Affirming Court of Appeals decision to allow post-conviction DNA testing and citing to Innocence Network brief.
	Thompson-Bobby-v.-State-of-Washington.pdf

Louis, Quentin v. State of Wisconsin (2010)

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	Unreliable Forensic Science; False Confessions; Shaken Baby Syndrome; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	2009AP2502-CR
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 be admissible at the new trial.
Decision	The Court of Appeals denied review and stated that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to order a new trial based on new medical testimony regarding shaken baby syndrome. However, it determined that because Louis’ confession was voluntary, it is admissible at trial.
	Louis-Quentin-v.-State-of-Wisconsin.pdf

Rivera, Juan v. State of Illinois (2010)

Counsel	DLA Piper
Courts	Illinois Court of Appeals
Issues	False Confessions
Case Number	2-09-1060
Position	The trial court erred by refusing to allow expert witness testimony on the issue of false confessions.
Decision	Court reversed conviction and Juan Rivera was released from prison on January 6, 2012.
	Rivera-Juan-v.-State-of-Illinois.pdf

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

Counsel	Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP
Courts	New York Court of Appeals
Issues	False Confessions; Compensation
Case Number	CA 08 02261
Position	An innocent person’s confession should not be a bar to wrongful conviction compensation.
Decision	Warney’s confession and other statements did not warrant dismissal of his claim for compensation on the ground that he caused or brought about his conviction.
	Warney-Douglas-v.-State-of-New-York.pdf

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

Counsel	Roney & Labinger LLP; DeBevoise & Plimpton LLP; Thomas G. Briody
Courts	Rhode Island Supreme Court
Issues	Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations; False Confessions
Case Number	SU-2008-0292
Position	Courts should require that custodial interrogations be recorded in full to minimize the risk of convicting innocent defendants.
Decision	State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158 (Rhode Island 2011). Failure to electronically record interrogation did not provide grounds for exclusion of confession and Court will not exercise supervisory jurisdiction to require electronic recording.
	Barros-Tracey-v.-State-of-Rhode-Island.pdf

Avery, Brian v. State of Wisconsin (2008)

Counsel	Colleen D. Ball; Cooley Godward Kronish LLP
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	False Confessions; Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	2008AP000500
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 Innocence.
Decision	State v. Avery, 807 N.W.2d 638 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). Trial court applied the wrong standard when it weighed competing credible evidence; it was reasonably probable that a different result would be reached at a new trial including newly discovered evidence, and thus defendant was entitled to a new trial; and the real controversy of whether defendant was actually involved in the armed robberies was not fully tried, and thus defendant was entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice.
	Avery, Brian v. State of Wisconsin.pdf

Okunishi, Masaru v. Supreme Court of Japan (2008)

Counsel	Northwestern University School of Law, Bluhm Legal Clinic, Center on Wrongful Convictions
Courts	Supreme Court of Japan
Issues	False Confessions
Case Number
Position	We respectfully ask the Supreme Court of Japan to grant Masaru Okunishi to reconsider the voluntariness and reliability of his confession and the strength of all other evidence against him to ensure beyond a reasonable doubt that Japan will not execute or continue the wrongful imprisonment of a potentially innocent man.
Decision	Pending.
	Okunishi, Masaru v. Supreme Court of Japan (English); Okunishi, Masaru v. Supreme Court of Japan (Japan)

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

Counsel	The Innocence Project
Courts	New York Court of Appeals
Issues	False Confessions; Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
Case Number	1209-88 & 1535/88
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
Decision	Petitioner should not have been charged with a lack of due diligence and newly discovered evidence submitted by petitioner warranted a new trial. The Court notes that new evidence has developed that points to a third party murderer.
	Tankleff-Martin-v.-State-of-New-York.pdf

Bragg, Robert Taylor v. State of Oklahoma (2018)

Counsel	Oklahoma Innocence Project
Courts	District Court of Tulsa County
Issues	False Confessions
Case Number	F-2017-1028
Position	The District Court refused to allow the testimony of Richard Leo on the issue of false confessions. The State of Oklahoma has not addressed false confessions. In the present case, the defendant is developmentally disabled and on the autism spectrum. Police used intimidating, coercive and suggestive tactics to get the defendant to confess to injuries to his child that were not supported by medical evidence.
Decision	Pending
	Bragg, Robert Taylor v. State of Oklahoma.pdf

Gardner, Christopher v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (2018)

Counsel	O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Courts	California Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Case Number	S246214
Position	Indigent misdemeanor defendants have a right to counsel on appeal by the prosecution.
Decision	Pending decision.
	Gardner, Christopher v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (2018)

Jones, Adam v. State of Ohio (2018)

Counsel	Office of the Ohio Public Defender; Ohio Innocence Project
Courts	Supreme Court of Ohio
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	2018-Ohio-673
Position	The recent and escalating judicial recognition of developments in the scientific understanding of the SBS/ AHT hypothesis undermine the validity of convictions secured wholly or in large part on the basis of this theory. Convictions like Mr. Jones’s, based exclusively on the SBS/ AHT hypothesis, lack the scientific foundation necessary to sustain a diagnosis of SBS/ AHT and, it surely follows, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the dearth of direct evidence introduced against Mr. Jones and the deeply flawed medical testimony relied upon by the prosecution, the dangers of ineffective assistance of defense counsel make this Court’s intervention critical.
Decision	Pending.
	Jones, Adam v. State of Ohio

Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Eyewitness Identification; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Informant Testimony; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	15-99002
Position	Exculpatory evidence withheld by the state undermines confidence in a verdict based on evidence of known unreliability (incentivized witnesses, flawed forensics and eyewitness identification) and on false corroboration.
Decision	Granted habeas petition in Nevada death penalty case on Brady and IAC grounds, finding that state court decision was objectively unreasonable, see 875 F.3d 444 (2017).
	Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin (2016)

Counsel	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; False Confessions; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	2015AP000592
Position	Confessions can be coerced and unreliable and therefore should not always be dispositive, particularly in the SB S context , when contemporary research reveals that SBS theory is, and always has been, merely an unsupported hypothesis.
Decision	Pending.
	Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin

Ceasor, Terry v. Warden, John (2015)

Counsel	Foley & Lardner LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Issues	Actual Innocence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	15=1145
Position	Public policy compels a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel in cases where there is a significant scientific dispute over the evidence and the defense fails to produce an expert. The failure to adequately investigate an expert witness and present expert testimony in an SBS/AHT case constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
Decision	Undecided
	Ceasor, Terry v. Warden, John.pdf

Epps, Derick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)

Counsel	Fierst, Kane & Bloomberg LLP
Courts	Massachusetts Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	SJC-11928
Position	The prosecution’s expert witness testimony on SBS/AHT exceeded the limits of science and presented and the defense counsel failed to adequately challenge the state’s evidence or investigate potential defenses.
Decision	The Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that the deprivation of the defense that the child’s injuries were not the result of shaken baby syndrome, but rather were the result of a series of short falls, constituted a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
	Epps, Derick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Kuren, Adam & Allabaugh, Steven v. Luzerne County (2015)

Counsel	Ballard Spahr LLP
Courts	Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Case Number	57 MAP 2015; 58 MAP 2015
Position	Failure of the government to adequately fund public defender offices amounts to a systemic denial of effective representation by counsel. Because post-conviction statutes by definition only address the performance of counsel after a conviction, the Court should hear a class action cause of action to alleviate the pronounced denial of counsel at issue in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
Decision	Undecided.
	Kuren, Adam & Allabaugh, Steven v. Luzerne County.pdf

Millien, Oswelt v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)

Counsel	Proskauer Rose LLP
Courts	Massachusetts Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	SJC-11928
Position	The prosecution’s expert witness testimony on SBS/AHT exceeded the limits of science and presented and the defense counsel failed to adequately challenge the state’s evidence or investigate potential defenses.
Decision	The Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that trial counsel’s performance was manifestly unreasonable in failing to seek public funds to retain an expert witness to offer opinion testimony on cause of injuries to defendant’s six-month-old daughter or to assist with cross-examination of Commonwealth’s witnesses; and trial counsel’s performance was prejudicial to defendant.
	Millien, Oswelt v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Perrot, George v. Commonwealth (2015)

Counsel	Proskauer Rose LLP
Courts	Hampden County Superior Court, Massachusetts
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	85-5415, 16, 18, 20, 25
Position	Flawed forensics, and microscopic hair comparisons in particular, erode confidence in past convictions. Without other, more reliable, evidence as a foundation for a conviction, courts should not deny a defendant a hearing to explore whether the forensics used to convict him retain their believed reliability.
Decision	This decision holds that the 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report, Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States: A Path Forward, and the FBI Hair Microscopy Audit are newly discovered evidence that demonstrates the limits of hair microscopy.
	Perrot, George v. Commonwealth.pdf

Wade, Robert v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)

Counsel	Committee for Public Council Services; New England Innocence Project; Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Courts	Supreme Judicial Court (Massachusetts)
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Case Number	SJC-11913
Position	To obtain post-conviction DNA testing, defendants should not have to prove the exact reason that DNA testing was not previously performed in their case. It should be enough to show that the evidence still exists, and that a testing method now exists that is materially improved from what existed at trial. Similarly, where defendants have proven that an improved testing method exists, they should not have to also show that a reasonably effective trial attorney would have requested this method at trial – if it had existed back then. Additionally, arguing that a reasonably effective attorney would have requested the DNA test does not, by itself, waive the attorney-client privilege. Prosecutors should not be able to call trial counsel as a witness and inquire about privileged communications on this basis.
Decision	Undecided.
	Wade, Robert v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Smith, Ashly Drake, People of the State of Michigan v. (2014)

Counsel	Foley & Lardner, LLP
Courts	Michigan Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Case Number	149357
Position	Failure to investigate and present alibi witnesses is objectively unreasonable and results in substantial prejudice, and thus constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel
	Smith-Ashly-Drake-People-of-the-State-of-Michigan-v.pdf

Garrett, William, People v. (2013)

Counsel	Foley & Lardner
Courts	Michigan Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	145594
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 barriers to habeas relief
Decision	Decision pending
	Garrett-William-People-v.pdf

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

Counsel	Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Courts	Supreme Court of Kentucky
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Other Issues
Case Number	2013-SC-270
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 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel…” should be upheld. Innocence people do plead guilty and this is therefore a critical right that defendants must maintain.
Decision	Decision pending.
	United States of America v. Kentucky Bar Association.pdf

Martinez, Luis v. Ryan (2011)

Counsel	Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Case Number	10-1001
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 assistance of counsel.
Decision	Pending.
	Martinez-Luis-v.-Ryan.pdf

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

Counsel	Michigan Innocence Clinic
Courts	Michigan Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	10504-5
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.
Decision	Application for leave to appeal is denied.
	Hailey-Arthur-R.-v.-State-of-Michigan.pdf

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

Counsel	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Case Number	2006AP002647
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 grounds to believe counsel was ineffective.
Decision	Without addressing whether Wisconsin would adopt an exoneration or two-track rule in determining when a criminal malpractice action accrues, the Court affirmed the order of the circuit court ruling that the cause of action was time-barred based on the application of Pennsylvania law.
	Jasin-Thomas-P.-v.-Michael-Best-Friedrich.pdf

Caldavado, Alma v. State of New York (2017)

Counsel	Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
Courts	New York Supreme Court – Appellate Division, Second Department
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Case Number	2017-05897
Position	Defense counsel’s failure to prevent available and potentially exonerative expert testimony, where the People’s theory at trial was supported solely by the testimony of the People’s expert witnesses, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
Decision	Pending
	Caldavado, Alma v. State of New York.pdf

Baker, Kevin & Washington, Sean v. State of New Jersey (2017)

Counsel	Frank R. Krack & Linda Mehling
Courts	Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Actual Innocence, New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	A-716-17T3
Position	A PCR court’s opinions concerning the credibility of new exculpatory witnesses form only one part of its obligation to assess the potential impact of new evidence on a jury. To discharge its obligation under the law, a postconviction court must add all the new evidence to the body of evidence heard at trial, and then fairly assess whether there is a reasonable probability that, in the face of the entire body of evidence, a jury, acting reasonably and conscientiously according to the standards imposed by the law, would have reasonable doubt about guilt.
Decision	Pending
	Baker, Kevin v. State of New Jersey & Washington, Sean v. State of New Jersey.pdf

Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Eyewitness Identification; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Informant Testimony; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	15-99002
Position	Exculpatory evidence withheld by the state undermines confidence in a verdict based on evidence of known unreliability (incentivized witnesses, flawed forensics and eyewitness identification) and on false corroboration.
Decision	Granted habeas petition in Nevada death penalty case on Brady and IAC grounds, finding that state court decision was objectively unreasonable, see 875 F.3d 444 (2017).
	Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Desai, Jasubhai v. Booker, Raymond (2014)

Counsel	Miller & Chevalier Chartered
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Informant Testimony
Case Number	12-2050
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.
Decision	The Supreme Court denied certiorari.
	Desai-Jasubhai-v.-Booker-Raymond.pdf

Skatzes, George v. Warden Keith Smith (2011)

Counsel	ACLU of Ohio
Courts	U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division
Issues	Informant Testimony
Case Number	3:09-cv-00289
Position	A death sentence should not be imposed solely on the basis of unreliable incentivized testimony.
Decision	Pending.
	Skatzes-George-v.-Warden-Keith-Smith.pdf

Bannister, James v. Illinois (2010)

Counsel	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Informant Testimony
Case Number	09-1576
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 satisfactory to the prosecutor, in exchange for certain preferential treatment) exacerbate the risks of cooperator testimony.
Decision	Bannister v. Illinois, 131 S. Ct. 638 (2010). Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
	Bannister-James-v.-Illinois.pdf

Statler, Paul v. State of Washington (2010)

Counsel	Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
Courts	Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III
Issues	Informant Testimony
Case Number	28195-7-III
Position	Informant testimony is inherently unreliable and the use of such testimony can have dangerous consequences.
Decision	Defendant was not entitled to new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
	Statler-Paul-v.-State-of-Washington.pdf

Wallace, Herman v. Cain (2008)

Counsel	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP ; >The Innocence Project
Courts	Supreme Court of Louisiana
Issues	Informant Testimony
Case Number	10-73-6820
Position	Arguing that failure to disclose information about benefits conferred on jailhouse snitch constitutes a Brady violation that necessitates a new trial.
Decision	Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs denied.
	Wallace-Herman-v.-Cain.pdf

Jones, Adam v. State of Ohio (2018)

Counsel	Office of the Ohio Public Defender; Ohio Innocence Project
Courts	Supreme Court of Ohio
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	2018-Ohio-673
Position	The recent and escalating judicial recognition of developments in the scientific understanding of the SBS/ AHT hypothesis undermine the validity of convictions secured wholly or in large part on the basis of this theory. Convictions like Mr. Jones’s, based exclusively on the SBS/ AHT hypothesis, lack the scientific foundation necessary to sustain a diagnosis of SBS/ AHT and, it surely follows, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the dearth of direct evidence introduced against Mr. Jones and the deeply flawed medical testimony relied upon by the prosecution, the dangers of ineffective assistance of defense counsel make this Court’s intervention critical.
Decision	Pending.
	Jones, Adam v. State of Ohio

State of Washington v. Heidi Charlene Fero (2017)

Counsel	Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Courts	Washington Supreme Court
Issues	Unreliable Forensic Science; Shaken Baby Syndrome; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	92975-1
Position	The “substance and the quality” of the evidence challenging the SBS hypothesis continues to change as more research demonstrates that the theory is not scientifically valid. There is limited scientific evidence that the diagnostic triad and therefore its components can be associated with traumatic shaking and there is insufficient scientific evidence on which to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the triad in identifying traumatic shaking.  Allowing defendants to rely on this new scientific evidence as it develops to set aside possibly flawed convictions—and not precluding them from doing so merely because earlier, incomplete, or less nuanced research may have existed at the time of their trial—is essential to ensuring a fair and just determination of the facts in science dependent cases.
Decision	Pending
	State of Washington v. Heidi Charlene Fero

Bailey, Rene v. The People of the State of New York (2016)

Counsel	Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Courts	New York Supreme Court
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	2001-0490
Position	New medical and scientific research, relative to the existence and characteristics of Shaken Baby Syndrome, has undermined the reliability of the verdict. The trial court’s order of a new trial should be upheld.
Decision	The Court of Appeals upheld the order for a new trial, finding that advances in medicine and science that short-distance falls could have caused the child’s injuries constituted newly discovered evidence which would likely change the result upon new trial.
	Bailey, Rene v. The People of the State of New York

Bradford, Glenn Patrick v. Brown, Richard (2016)

Counsel	Jenner & Block LLP
Courts	Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	Case No. 15-3706
Position	Freestanding innocence claims are cognizable under the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments and should be reviewed under a standard granting federal habeas corpus relief upon a showing that the petitioner was “probably” innocent.
Decision	Seventh Circuit granted en banc review.
	Bradford, Glenn Patrick v. Brown, Richard

Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Eyewitness Identification; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Informant Testimony; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	15-99002
Position	Exculpatory evidence withheld by the state undermines confidence in a verdict based on evidence of known unreliability (incentivized witnesses, flawed forensics and eyewitness identification) and on false corroboration.
Decision	Granted habeas petition in Nevada death penalty case on Brady and IAC grounds, finding that state court decision was objectively unreasonable, see 875 F.3d 444 (2017).
	Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin (2016)

Counsel	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; False Confessions; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	2015AP000592
Position	Confessions can be coerced and unreliable and therefore should not always be dispositive, particularly in the SB S context , when contemporary research reveals that SBS theory is, and always has been, merely an unsupported hypothesis.
Decision	Pending.
	Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin

Horton, John v. People of the State of Illinois (2016)

Counsel	Jenner & Block LLP
Courts	Illinois Court of Appeals
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; New Evidence of Innocence; Other Issues
Case Number	93 CF 1991
Position	Third-party confessions should be considered, rather than dismissed out of hand, especially when they contain hallmarks of reliability as compared to the confession evidence presented by the State at trial.
Decision	The trial court erred in denying Horton leave to file a successive post-conviction petition alleging that the State violated its discovery obligations pursuant to Brady v. Maryland. Because the pleadings and record establish a Brady violation, Horton’s convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.
	Horton, John v. People of the State of Illinois

Nash, Donald v. Russell, Terry (2016)

Counsel	Quarles & Brady LLP
Courts	Supreme Court of the United States
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	15-8129
Position	Whether a habeas petitioner may have his claim of actual innocence heard must not be left to where he happens to be imprisoned. Now is the time for the Court to intervene and resolve this division of authority so that claims of actual innocence are treated the same throughout our nation. Nash’s petition for certiorari should be granted.
Decision	Pending.
	Nash, Donald v. Russell, Terry

Ceasor, Terry v. Warden, John (2015)

Counsel	Foley & Lardner LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Issues	Actual Innocence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	15=1145
Position	Public policy compels a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel in cases where there is a significant scientific dispute over the evidence and the defense fails to produce an expert. The failure to adequately investigate an expert witness and present expert testimony in an SBS/AHT case constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
Decision	Undecided
	Ceasor, Terry v. Warden, John.pdf

Epps, Derick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)

Counsel	Fierst, Kane & Bloomberg LLP
Courts	Massachusetts Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	SJC-11928
Position	The prosecution’s expert witness testimony on SBS/AHT exceeded the limits of science and presented and the defense counsel failed to adequately challenge the state’s evidence or investigate potential defenses.
Decision	The Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that the deprivation of the defense that the child’s injuries were not the result of shaken baby syndrome, but rather were the result of a series of short falls, constituted a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
	Epps, Derick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Colon, Fernando v. State of Ohio (2015)

Counsel	Tucker Ellis LLP
Courts	Court of Appeals Of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District
Issues	Actual Innocence; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	103150
Position	Trial courts must be allowed to exercise discretion to grant additional discovery in post-conviction matters where there is a colorable claim of “actual innocence.”
Decision	Pending.
	Colon, Fernando v. State of Ohio

Larson, Robert, Gassman, Tyler and Statler, Paul v. State of Washington (2015)

Counsel	Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
Courts	Washington Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Compensation; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	No. 33179-2
Position	Wrongful conviction compensation statutes should be broadly construed in favor of exonerated individuals, with reasonable burdens of proof required.
Decision	The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s interpretation of “significant new exculpatory information” and its imposition of an improperly high burden of proof on the “actually innocent” element. The case was remanded to the trial court to decide whether the claimants proved by clear and convincing evidence they are actually innocent.
	Larson, Robert, Gassman, Tyler and Statler, Paul v. State of Washington

McKoy, Lamont v. State of North Carolina (2015)

Counsel	Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP
Courts	North Carolina Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; New Evidence of Innocence: Other Issues
Case Number	O9 CRS 11412
Position	Evidence of actual innocence is sufficient in this case to overcome procedural bars and warrants an evidentiary hearing.
Decision	Petition was denied.
	McKoy, Lamont v. State of North Carolina

Millien, Oswelt v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)

Counsel	Proskauer Rose LLP
Courts	Massachusetts Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	SJC-11928
Position	The prosecution’s expert witness testimony on SBS/AHT exceeded the limits of science and presented and the defense counsel failed to adequately challenge the state’s evidence or investigate potential defenses.
Decision	The Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that trial counsel’s performance was manifestly unreasonable in failing to seek public funds to retain an expert witness to offer opinion testimony on cause of injuries to defendant’s six-month-old daughter or to assist with cross-examination of Commonwealth’s witnesses; and trial counsel’s performance was prejudicial to defendant.
	Millien, Oswelt v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Perrot, George v. Commonwealth (2015)

Counsel	Proskauer Rose LLP
Courts	Hampden County Superior Court, Massachusetts
Issues	Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	85-5415, 16, 18, 20, 25
Position	Flawed forensics, and microscopic hair comparisons in particular, erode confidence in past convictions. Without other, more reliable, evidence as a foundation for a conviction, courts should not deny a defendant a hearing to explore whether the forensics used to convict him retain their believed reliability.
Decision	This decision holds that the 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report, Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States: A Path Forward, and the FBI Hair Microscopy Audit are newly discovered evidence that demonstrates the limits of hair microscopy.
	Perrot, George v. Commonwealth.pdf

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

Counsel	Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
Courts	Arizona Court of Appeals
Issues	Unreliable Forensic Science; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	CR-14-0108
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 truth-seeking function of the jury that there can be no confidence in the conviction.
Decision	Pending.
	Krause-Jason-Derek-v.-State-of-Arizona.pdf

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

Counsel	Davis Polk & Wardell LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	13-5307
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 and creates a circuit split that should be resolved.
Decision	Decision to grant certiorari pending.
	Case-Carl-v.-Timothy-Hatch-Warden.pdf

Garrett, William v. People (2013)

Counsel	Foley & Lardner
Courts	Michigan Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	145594
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 barriers to habeas relief
Decision	Decision pending
	Garrett-William-People-v.pdf

Prade, Douglas v. State of Ohio (2012)

Counsel	Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Courts	Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Ohio
Issues	Unreliable Forensic Science; Eyewitness Identification; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	CR 1998-02-0463
Decision	Conviction of aggravated murder with firearms specification was overturned (if Court’s order granting post-conviction relief is overturned pursuant to appeal, Motion for New Trial is granted)
	Prade-Douglas-v.-State-of-Ohio-2012.pdf

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

Counsel	Foley & Lardner LLP
Courts	Michigan Court of Appeals
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	140147
Position	Trial courts have discretion to grant a new trial where newly discovered impeachment evidence calls the credibility of a critical witness into doubt.
Decision	We hold that impeachment evidence may be grounds for a new trial if it satisfies the four-part test set forth in People v Cress. We further hold that a material, exculpatory connection must exist between the newly discovered evidence and significantly important evidence presented at trial. It may be of a general character and need not contradict specific testimony at trial. Also, the evidence must make a different result probable on retrial. Accordingly, we vacate the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand this case to the trial court for determination of whether the newly discovered evidence satisfies Cress.
	Grissom-James-E.-v.-State-of-Michigan.pdf

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

Counsel	Morgan, Lewis & Bockus LLP
Courts	New York Court of Appeals
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	2213/92
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.
Decision	Vacating judgment of conviction was not warranted based upon one witness’s alleged recantation of his trial testimony; defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate, based upon sole eyewitness’s recantation of his trial testimony; and defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate on ground that he was denied effective assistance.
	Jenkins-Eric-v.-State-of-New-York.pdf

Johnson, Erskine v. State of Tennessee (2011)

Counsel	Massey, McCluskey & Swanson; Wilkie Farr & Gallagher
Courts	Tennessee Court of Appeals
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence;  Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	W2010-01800-CCA-R3-CO
Position	Suppression of Brady evidence pointing to evidence in the form of third-party guilt warrants a new trial.
Decision	Trial court abused its discretion by concluding that newly discovered evidence of close relationship between prosecution witness and gang prostitute failed to show that jury would have reached a different verdict. Reversed, vacated, and remanded.
	Johnson-Erskine-v.-State-of-Tennessee.pdf

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

Counsel	Michigan Innocence Clinic
Courts	Michigan Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	10504-5
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.
Decision	Application for leave to appeal is denied.
	Hailey-Arthur-R.-v.-State-of-Michigan.pdf

Louis, Quentin v. State of Wisconsin (2010)

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	Unreliable Forensic Science; False Confessions; Shaken Baby Syndrome; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	2009AP2502-CR
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 be admissible at the new trial.
Decision	The Court of Appeals denied review and stated that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to order a new trial based on new medical testimony regarding shaken baby syndrome. However, it determined that because Louis’ confession was voluntary, it is admissible at trial.
	Louis-Quentin-v.-State-of-Wisconsin.pdf

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

Counsel	Cooley, Godward & Kronish LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence; Actual Innocence
Case Number	08-15943
Position	Advances in scientific research in arson cases support Souliotes’ claim of actual innocence and he exercised due diligence in bringing claim forward.
Decision	Remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether new fire testing methods could have been discovered earlier through due diligence (citing Innocence Network brief), but holding that there is no actual innocence gateway to the AEDPA statute of limitations.
	Souliotes-George-A.-v.-Anthony-Hedgpeth.pdf

Davis, Troy, In Re: (2008)

Counsel	Jenner & Block LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Issues	Eyewitness Identification; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	08-16009-P
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 to test evidence of actual innocence in a capital case.
Decision	Newly-discovered evidence requirement was not met for evidence submitted in support of initial petition; affidavit of one trial witness satisfied newly-discovered evidence requirement; affidavit did not establish actual innocence; Court of Appeals had no authority to grant petitioner leave to file a second or successive habeas petition on equitable grounds; and even if Court of Appeals had authority to grant petitioner leave to file successive petition on equitable grounds, petitioner failed to establish a compelling claim of actual innocence that would permit the filing of the successive petition.
	Davis-Troy-In-Re.pdf

Fry, John F. v. Pliler (2007)

Counsel	Cooley Godward Kronish LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	06-5247
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 erroneously found no error and hence undertook no Chapman analysis. 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.”
Decision	The Supreme Court held that federal courts hearing habeas corpus petitions must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional errors that took place in the state court criminal trial under Brecht (whether there was a substantial and injurious effect) regardless of whether the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it under Chapman (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). Find that Brecht subsumed the Chapman test, the Court determined that the 9th Circuit correctly applied Brecht.
	Fry-John-F.-v.-Pliler.pdf

Armstrong, Ralph, State v. (2005)

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project
Courts	Wisconsin Supreme Court
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence
Case Numbers	01-2789 and 02-2979
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 trial based upon newly discovered evidence should not be a strict “outcome-determinative” test, at least where the state relied at trial upon facts that turned out to be false. Statutes of limitations, limiting the time in which a prisoner can seek a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, cannot limit courts’ ability to consider new evidence of actual innocence.
Decision	The Wisconsin Supreme Court vacated the defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial in the interests of justice (and declined to consider whether a new trial should be ordered based on newly discovered evidence alone). The Court focused on the fact that newly obtained DNA evidence proved that the biological specimens found on the victim (semen and hair strands) did not belong to the defendant, whereas in the original trial, the State argued, based on DNA testing at the time, that the semen and hair likely belonged to the defendant.
	Armstrong-Ralph-State-v.pdf

House v. Bell (2005)

Counsel	The Innocence Project
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	W2006-001179-CCA-R3-PD
Position	Relevant exculpatory DNA evidence can satisfy the Schlup v. Delo actual Innocence gateway standard for permitting habeas review of otherwise procedurally defaulted claims.
Decision	The Supreme Court held that the defendant made the requisite showing under the Schlup actual innocence exception (“in light of new evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”) so that his federal habeas action could proceed, despite the fact that his claims were procedurally defaulted.
	House-v.-Bell.pdf

Slaughter, Jimmie Ray v. Mike Mullin (2005)

Counsel	The Innocence Project
Courts	Tenth Circuit
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	05-6049
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.
	Slaughter-Jimmie-Ray-v.-Mike-Mullin.pdf

Krivak, Andrew v. State of New York (2017)

Counsel	Duane Morris LLP
Courts	Supreme Court of the State of New York
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence, False Confessions
Case Number	2017-00638
Position	The Amici ask this Court to grant the relief requested by Mr. Krivak, reverse the Putnam County Court’s decision, and order a new trial, pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.10 (l)(g).
Decision	Pending
	Krivak, Andrew v. State of New York.pdf

Sanders, Amy v. Jones, Lamar (2017)

Counsel	Loewy & Loevy
Courts	Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	15-6384
Position	Police officer’s grand jury testimony should not protect him against a claim of malicious prosecution in federal court
Decision	Rehearing
	Sanders, Amy v. Jones, Lamar.pdf

Manuel, Elijah v. City of Joliet (2016)

Counsel	Innocence Project of Florida; Pennsylvania Innocence Project; Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	United States Supreme Court
Issues	Compensation; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	14-9496
Position	Malicious prosecution action based on the Fourth Amendment is cognizable under § 1983.
Decision	The Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial detention even beyond the start of legal process, abrogating Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, and Llovet v. Chicago, 761 F.3d 759, see 137 S. Ct. 911, (2017).
	Manuel, Elijah v. City of Joliet

Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Eyewitness Identification; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Informant Testimony; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	15-99002
Position	Exculpatory evidence withheld by the state undermines confidence in a verdict based on evidence of known unreliability (incentivized witnesses, flawed forensics and eyewitness identification) and on false corroboration.
Decision	Granted habeas petition in Nevada death penalty case on Brady and IAC grounds, finding that state court decision was objectively unreasonable, see 875 F.3d 444 (2017).
	Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Washington Counties Risk Pool; American International Group, INC.; Lexington Insurance Company, INC.; Vyrle Hill; J. William Ashbaugh; Ace American Insurance Company v. Clark County; Slagle, Donald; David, Larry; Northrop, Alan (2016)

Counsel	Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
Courts	Washington Supreme Court
Issues	Compensation; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	91154-1
Position	In cases involving an intentional Brady violation, the government’s failure to correct the violation and disclose the exculpatory evidence can constitute ongoing misconduct.
Decision	After oral argument, the parties negotiated a settlement and the appeal was withdrawn.
	Washington Counties Risk Pool; American International Group, INC.; Lexington Insurance Company, INC.; Vyrle Hill; J. William Ashbaugh; Ace American Insurance Company v. Clark County; Slagle, Donald; David, Larry; Northrop, Alan

Duvall, Robert Lee v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2016)

Counsel	Duane Morris LLP; Pennsylvania Innocence Project
Courts	Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Issues	False Confessions; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	80 MAP 2015
Position	Intentional misrepresentations of law or fact by police during an interrogation can lead to false confessions so they should be viewed with skepticism
Decision	Pending.
	Duvall, Robert Lee v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.pdf

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

Counsel	Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
Courts	Arizona Court of Appeals
Issues	Unreliable Forensic Science; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	CR-14-0108
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 truth-seeking function of the jury that there can be no confidence in the conviction.
Decision	Pending.
	Krause-Jason-Derek-v.-State-of-Arizona.pdf

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

Counsel	Davis Polk & Wardell LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	13-5307
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 and creates a circuit split that should be resolved.
Decision	Decision to grant certiorari pending.
	Case-Carl-v.-Timothy-Hatch-Warden.pdf

Manning, Willie v. State of Mississippi (2013)

Counsel	Robert Mink (Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP) David Voisin
Courts	Mississippi Supreme Court
Issues	Eyewitness Identification; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	2000-039-CVH
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 homicide conviction (perjured witness testimony, incentivized witness testimony, inaccurate forensics, a recanting witness State suppression of exculpatory evidence), the conviction must be reversed.
Decision	The case is still pending.
	Manning-Willie-v.-State-of-Mississippi.pdf

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

Counsel	Morgan, Lewis & Bockus LLP
Courts	New York Court of Appeals
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	2213/92
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.
Decision	Vacating judgment of conviction was not warranted based upon one witness’s alleged recantation of his trial testimony; defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate, based upon sole eyewitness’s recantation of his trial testimony; and defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate on ground that he was denied effective assistance.
	Jenkins-Eric-v.-State-of-New-York.pdf

Johnson, Erskine v. State of Tennessee (2011)

Counsel	Massey, McCluskey & Swanson; Wilkie Farr & Gallagher
Courts	Tennessee Court of Appeals
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence;  Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	W2010-01800-CCA-R3-CO
Position	Suppression of Brady evidence pointing to evidence in the form of third-party guilt warrants a new trial.
Decision	Trial court abused its discretion by concluding that newly discovered evidence of close relationship between prosecution witness and gang prostitute failed to show that jury would have reached a different verdict. Reversed, vacated, and remanded.
	Johnson-Erskine-v.-State-of-Tennessee.pdf

Smith, Juan v. Cain (2011)

Counsel	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct; Eyewitness Identification
Case Number	10-8145
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.
Decision	Reversing and remanding because the State’s witness’s statements to police, made on night of murder and five days after murder, stating that he could not ID the perpetrators, were material for the purposes of Brady.
	Smith-Juan-v.-Cain.pdf

Keith, Kevin v. State of Ohio (2010)

Counsel	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	09-1052
Position	Ohio Court of Appeals incorrectly applied a “sufficiency of the evidence” standard to evaluate Keith’s Brady claim.
Decision	Petition for certiorari denied.
	Keith-Kevin-v.-State-of-Ohio.pdf

Thompson, John v. Connick (2010)

Counsel	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP; The Innocence Project
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	09-571
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 obligations and will exacerbate the tragedy of wrongful convictons.
Decision	Prior, unrelated Brady violations by attorneys in his office was insufficient to put district attorney on notice of need for further training, and need for training was not so obvious that district attorney’s office was liable on failure-to-train theory when nondisclosure of blood-test evidence had resulted in defendant’s wrongful conviction and in his spending 18 years in prison.
	Thompson-John-v.-Connick.pdf

Cooper, Kevin v. Wong (2009)

Counsel	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	09-363
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” standard, and not 2244(b)(2) “clear and convincing ” standard should govern petitioner’s claim.
Decision	Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
	Cooper-Kevin-v.-Wong.pdf

Goldstein v. Van de Kamp (2008)

Counsel	Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Courts	U.S. Supreme Court
Issues	Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	07-854
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 establish any internal system or procedures to ensure that prosecutors have access to impeachment information concerning informants, in disregard of the mandate of Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, and despite knowing of prior repeated Brady and Giglio violations that resulted from not having such a system or procedure.
Decision	The Supreme Court held that the defendants, a district attorney and his chief deputy, were entitled to absolute immunity from the suit.
	Goldstein-v.-Van-de-Kamp.pdf

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

Counsel	Public Defender Services
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issues	Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	06-55537
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.
Decision	Administrator of prosecutor’s office are not entitled to absolute immunity from suit for failure to implement procedures to ensure compliance with Brady v. Maryland, since alleged failures were administrative, not prosecutorial in function. Reversed and remanded by Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009).
	Goldstein-Thomas-Lee-v.-Van-de-Kamp.pdf

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

Counsel	Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; ACLU of the National Capital Area
Courts	D.C. Circuit
Issues	Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Case Number	11-69
Position	A right of access to Brady materials exists under FOIA.
Decision	The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s request for documents allegedly containing Brady material. The court decided that it did not have to address whether a defendant may use FOIA to access that may contain Brady material because in the present case, the defendant was collaterally stopped from requesting one set of documents, and another court had already determined that the second set of documents did not contain Brady material.
	Martin-Harold-v.-U.S.D.O.J.pdf

Jones, Adam v. State of Ohio (2018)

Counsel	Office of the Ohio Public Defender; Ohio Innocence Project
Courts	Supreme Court of Ohio
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	2018-Ohio-673
Position	The recent and escalating judicial recognition of developments in the scientific understanding of the SBS/ AHT hypothesis undermine the validity of convictions secured wholly or in large part on the basis of this theory. Convictions like Mr. Jones’s, based exclusively on the SBS/ AHT hypothesis, lack the scientific foundation necessary to sustain a diagnosis of SBS/ AHT and, it surely follows, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the dearth of direct evidence introduced against Mr. Jones and the deeply flawed medical testimony relied upon by the prosecution, the dangers of ineffective assistance of defense counsel make this Court’s intervention critical.
Decision	Pending.
	Jones, Adam v. State of Ohio

Jackson, Syriah v. The People of the State of New York (2017)

Counsel	Proskauer Rose LLP
Courts	New York Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the 1st Judicial Department
Issues	Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	2001-0490
Position	For the foregoing reasons, the Network requests that the Court evaluate Respondent-Appellant’s appeal with a comprehensive view of the evidence, taking into account the substantial fallibility of the SBS/AHT hypothesis, and grant such relief as it deems appropriate. Cases based on the SBS/AHT hypothesis pose a serious risk of wrongful conviction. Contemporary scientific and medical research has discredited the SBS/AHT hypothesis.
Decision	The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that preponderance of evidence supported conclusion that mother and grandmother abused child, who, while in their care, suffered traumatic brain injury from which she died.
	Jackson v. The People of the State of New York

Bailey, Rene v. The People of the State of New York (2016)

Counsel	Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Courts	New York Supreme Court
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	2001-0490
Position	New medical and scientific research, relative to the existence and characteristics of Shaken Baby Syndrome, has undermined the reliability of the verdict. The trial court’s order of a new trial should be upheld.
Decision	The Court of Appeals upheld the order for a new trial, finding that advances in medicine and science that short-distance falls could have caused the child’s injuries constituted newly discovered evidence which would likely change the result upon new trial.
	Bailey, Rene v. The People of the State of New York

Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin (2016)

Counsel	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; False Confessions; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	2015AP000592
Position	Confessions can be coerced and unreliable and therefore should not always be dispositive, particularly in the SB S context , when contemporary research reveals that SBS theory is, and always has been, merely an unsupported hypothesis.
Decision	Pending.
	Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin

Ceasor, Terry v. Warden, John (2015)

Counsel	Foley & Lardner LLP
Courts	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Issues	Actual Innocence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	15=1145
Position	Public policy compels a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel in cases where there is a significant scientific dispute over the evidence and the defense fails to produce an expert. The failure to adequately investigate an expert witness and present expert testimony in an SBS/AHT case constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
Decision	Undecided
	Ceasor, Terry v. Warden, John.pdf

Epps, Derick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)

Counsel	Fierst, Kane & Bloomberg LLP
Courts	Massachusetts Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	SJC-11928
Position	The prosecution’s expert witness testimony on SBS/AHT exceeded the limits of science and presented and the defense counsel failed to adequately challenge the state’s evidence or investigate potential defenses.
Decision	The Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that the deprivation of the defense that the child’s injuries were not the result of shaken baby syndrome, but rather were the result of a series of short falls, constituted a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
	Epps, Derick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Millien, Oswelt v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)

Counsel	Proskauer Rose LLP
Courts	Massachusetts Supreme Court
Issues	Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	SJC-11928
Position	The prosecution’s expert witness testimony on SBS/AHT exceeded the limits of science and presented and the defense counsel failed to adequately challenge the state’s evidence or investigate potential defenses.
Decision	The Massachusetts Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the ground that trial counsel’s performance was manifestly unreasonable in failing to seek public funds to retain an expert witness to offer opinion testimony on cause of injuries to defendant’s six-month-old daughter or to assist with cross-examination of Commonwealth’s witnesses; and trial counsel’s performance was prejudicial to defendant.
	Millien, Oswelt v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Robins, Charles aka Sharif, Ha’im Al Matin v. Bakeer, Renne (2014)

Counsel	Snell & Wilmer LLP
Courts	Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County
Issues	Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	65063
Position	Under clearly established Nevada law, Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Appellant has offered declarations from highly credentialed experts in the fields of pediatric radiology and forensic pathology that fundamentally undermine key medical evidence presented by the State at trial. This new evidence, if credited, would negate the medical certainty expressed by the State’s trial witness that Brittany Smith’s injuries were the result of abuse and that her death was the result of intentional homicide.
Decision	Charles Robins (Ha’im Al Matin Sharif), who spent 29 years on death row in Nevada, was released from prison on June 7, 2017 on an amended judgment. This followed the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling that he had met the Schlup actual innocence requirements and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his government misconduct and IAC claims.
	Robins, Charles aka Sharif, Ha’im Al Matin v. Bakeer, Renne

Louis, Quentin v. State of Wisconsin (2010)

Counsel	Wisconsin Innocence Project
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	Unreliable Forensic Science; False Confessions; Shaken Baby Syndrome; New Evidence of Innocence
Case Number	2009AP2502-CR
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 be admissible at the new trial.
Decision	The Court of Appeals denied review and stated that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to order a new trial based on new medical testimony regarding shaken baby syndrome. However, it determined that because Louis’ confession was voluntary, it is admissible at trial.
	Louis-Quentin-v.-State-of-Wisconsin.pdf

HH, Christopher v. Sullivan County Department of Family Services (2018)

Counsel	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Courts	New York Supreme Court – Appellate Division, Third Department
Issues	Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	17265
Position	Cases based on the SBS/AHT hypothesis pose a serious risk of judicial error, especially where the evidence is presented in an incomplete or asymmetric manner.
Decision	Pending.
	HH-Christopher-v.-Sullivan-County-Department-of-Family-Services

Bailey, Rene v. The People of the State of New York (2016)

Counsel	Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Courts	New York Supreme Court
Issues	New Evidence of Innocence; Shaken Baby Syndrome; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	2001-0490
Position	New medical and scientific research, relative to the existence and characteristics of Shaken Baby Syndrome, has undermined the reliability of the verdict. The trial court’s order of a new trial should be upheld.
Decision	The Court of Appeals upheld the order for a new trial, finding that advances in medicine and science that short-distance falls could have caused the child’s injuries constituted newly discovered evidence which would likely change the result upon new trial.
	Bailey, Rene v. The People of the State of New York

Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Counsel	Cooley LLP
Courts	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; Eyewitness Identification; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Informant Testimony; New Evidence of Innocence; Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	15-99002
Position	Exculpatory evidence withheld by the state undermines confidence in a verdict based on evidence of known unreliability (incentivized witnesses, flawed forensics and eyewitness identification) and on false corroboration.
Decision	Granted habeas petition in Nevada death penalty case on Brady and IAC grounds, finding that state court decision was objectively unreasonable, see 875 F.3d 444 (2017).
	Browning, Paul Lewis v. Baker, Renee (2016)

Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin (2016)

Counsel	Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Courts	Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Issues	Actual Innocence; False Confessions; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; New Evidence of Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science; Shaken Baby Syndrome
Case Number	2015AP000592
Position	Confessions can be coerced and unreliable and therefore should not always be dispositive, particularly in the SB S context , when contemporary research reveals that SBS theory is, and always has been, merely an unsupported hypothesis.
Decision	Pending.
	Donley, Patrick v. State of Wisconsin

Pitts, Eugene Isaac v. State of Arkansas (2016)

Counsel	Proskauer Rose LLP;  Fuqua Campbell, P.A.
Courts	Arkansas Supreme Court
Issues	Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	CR-80-40
Position	To expand on the broader implications of debunked FBI hair and fiber analysis.
Decision	Petition granted. The Court ruled that the State’s expert in field of hair and fibers may have withheld evidence regarding the integrity of hair comparison analysis, constituting sufficient grounds for reinvesting trial court with jurisdiction, see 501 S.W. 3d 803 (2016).
	Pitts, Eugene Isaac v. State of Arkansas (2016)

Yell, Robert v. State of Wisconsin (2016)

Counsel	Duane Morris, LLP; The Simon Law Office
Courts	Logan Circuit Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	04-CR-232
Position	The undeniable advances in fire investigation science since Mr. Yell’s trial and the guidelines and principles adopted by the National Fire Protection Association, the International Association of Arson Investigators, and the Canine Accelerant Detection Association, all show that the outmoded investigative techniques that led to Mr. Yell’s conviction were unreliable and based more on myth than science. The ADC’s six uncorroborated alerts and his handler’s testimony regarding his subjective belief (without any proof) that the canine’s alerts were more accurate than laboratory analysis—evidence which the Commonwealth exploited in closing argument—would not be admissible in a new trial.
Decision	Pending.
	Yell, Robert v. State of Wisconsin

Crawford, Rodricus v. State of Louisiana (2015)

Counsel	Jones Walker LLP; Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Courts	Louisiana Supreme Court
Issues	Actual Innocence; Unreliable Forensic Science
Case Number	2014-KA-2153
Position	The prosecution’s medical expert testimony has no basis in science and is belied by the decedent child’s medical history. Prosecution expert witnesses showed actual bias against the defendant, resulting in an improper and unsupportable medical conclusion.
Decision	Undecided
	Crawford, Rodricus v. State of Louisiana.pdf

Epps, Derick v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2015)