Search Term(s):
Blog Tags:
Order by: Date  Relevancy

Your search returned 5 entries.

Friday roundup

Posted: September 5, 2008 3:07 pm

New projects and investigations launched this week by innocence organizations, law schools, prosecutors and attorneys general across the country show the momentum nationwide to overturn wrongful convictions and address the root causes of wrongful conviction to prevent future injustice. Here’s this week’s roundup:

Questions were raised about standards of DNA collection and preservation in Massachusetts after improper procedures were revealed in a high-profile case. Mass. is one of 25 states without a DNA preservation law.

The Mississippi Attorney General said this week that the state is underfunding DNA tests and DNA collection and a new task force is examining the state problem.

San Jose opened California’s largest crime lab, training began in Maryland before a new law expanding the state’s database took effect and cutbacks in Georgia led to furloughs for prosecutors and could cause lab closings.

The Midwest Innocence Project this week launched an investigation into a 1988 fire that killed six Kansas City firemen and led to the conviction of five people who say they’re innocent. The North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, a first-of-its-kind panel dedicated to investigating cases of possible wrongful conviction, finished reviewing its first case, deciding that there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn the conviction of Henry A. Reeves. And  Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins asked county officials to allow filming in his offices in coming months for a Discovery Channel documentary.

Some of the best policy analysis and research to help improve our criminal justice system comes, of course, from our nation’s law schools – and now many of those schools have blogs. Marquette University Law School launched a new faculty law blog, and a post by Keith Sharfman finds that “blogging’s potential as a medium for serious legal discourse can no longer be doubted.” 

A column on Law.com asks: “Is the future of legal scholarship in the blogosphere?”

Here at the Innocence Project, we read law school blogs everyday. Among our favorites are Crim Prof Blog and Evidence Prof Blog

New York University Law School has formed a new Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, which will seek to promote “good government practices in criminal matters.”



Tags: California, North Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Texas, Innocence Commissions, Evidence Preservation, Access to DNA Testing, DNA Databases

Permalink

 

Kansas Man Granted Hearing on DNA Tests

Posted: January 5, 2009 2:30 pm

Merrill Andrews was convicted of murder in 1977 and sentenced to life in prison. Having been granted parole in 1999, Andrews is now requesting DNA tests in order to prove his innocence. Although he is currently serving a 10-year sentence for an unrelated crime, Andrews maintains his innocence in the 1977 murder of Nola Babb, a 91-year-old retired businesswoman in Wichita.

Andrews’ request for DNA testing was denied by a Sedgewick County judge, who thought Andrews was misusing a 2001 DNA state law that grants anybody convicted of rape or murder a hearing regarding any forensic evidence relevant to the case. But the Kansas Court of Appeals overruled that decision and ordered the lower court to hold a hearing on Andrews’ request. The hearing will take place later this month.

According to Deputy District Attorney Ann Swegle, the DNA testing law is rarely used in Sedgewick County, and there might be issues with evidence preservation:

"My understanding is that they keep it forever now," she said. "I'm not sure that's always been the case."
Carl Maughan, Andrews’ attorney, said his client has consistently maintained his innocence.
"Yes, he's already done his time, but if you were accused of murder and you were the wrong guy, I would assume you'd want to clear your name," Maughan said. "He just maintains that he's innocent on this charge and wants to get it cleared up."
Read the full story here. (Wichita Eagle, 1/4/09)

Read about previous exonerees in Kansas, Joe Jones and Eddie James Lowery.

Does your state have a law granting access to DNA testing? View our interactive map.





Tags: Kansas, Access to DNA Testing

Permalink

 

A Kansas Family Fights to Prove Father's Innocence

Posted: April 19, 2010 1:50 pm

According to the Lawrence Journal-World, Lannie Ornburn, the Johnson County assistant district attorney who has been handling the appeals for the past four years, said the crime scene was arranged to look like the wood pile fell on top of Barbara and was the cause of her death. 

Other evidence used at trial included bloodstains on Ken’s pants and shoes, plus two hairs found in Barbara’s hand. Early DNA testing was unable to positively identify the blood, but analysts were able to narrow possibilities on the hairs. Jurors, who convicted Ken of first-degree murder, were told that Ken was among only 7 percent of the Caucasian population from whom the hair could have come.

Ken’s defense team, however, argued that Ken had an alibi. Barbara was wearing a watch that was broken, presumably during the crime. The watch was stopped at 3:16 p.m., but a receipt from a Wendy’s restaurant showed Ken had made a purchase there at 3:18 p.m. Given the distance between the home and the restaurant, Ken could not have been at the murder scene at the time the watch stopped. Watch experts testified for both sides at trial, and while the watch could have been altered, both experts testified there was no evidence it had been.

Ken’s case was the first in Kansas to allow for post-conviction DNA testing in a murder case.  He had the original evidence retested along with a pair of glasses found at the crime scene.  DNA from a female—not Steve’s sister or their mother—was found on the glasses.

And the hairs, which at the time implicated Ken, proved also to be from an unidentified female — a fact that changes everything and should result in a new trial, says Beth Cateforis, one of Ken’s lawyers at the Project for Innocence.

“The results they presented at trial were that they were Ken’s hairs. That was a huge part of the state’s case,” Cateforis said. “This has the possibility of changing the outcome of the case.”
But Ornburn disagrees, saying the hairs could have been picked up from the garage, and don’t belong to the killer.

In addition, Ornburn said that some of the additional DNA testing proved blood on both Ken’s shoes and pants belonged to Barbara.

“The DNA evidence we have now is better than what we had at the first trial,” Ornburn said, adding that if Ken’s conviction is overturned, they’ll retry the case.

Whether or not the new DNA evidence is strong enough for a new trial has yet to be determined.  The Kansas Supreme Court heard Haddock’s argument last year and sent it back to the County where it ruled against a new trial.  Haddock appealed that decision to the higher court and hopes it will be heard in the fall. 

Kansas University School of Law students have been successful in the past year and a half helping 10 defendants get new trials through the Project for Innocence and Post-Conviction Remedies.

Read the full article here.



Tags: Kansas

Permalink

 

Kansas Supreme Court To Consider New Jury Instructions For Hearing Eyewitness Testimony

Posted: September 22, 2010 3:58 pm

“A victim or a witness takes the stand, and he or she are very sincere and often times very explicit and very confident, and all those are qualities people assume go with accuracy. But they don’t,” Wrightsman said.

“You can find confident people who are not accurate. And you can find people who are hesitant, who are just careful people, and they are very accurate.”


The consideration of new guidelines comes in the wake of a Wichita man’s conviction based on the eyewitness testimony of the victim.

Michael T. Mitchell was convicted in 2007 of aggravated robbery and sentenced to nearly seven years in prison.  Mitchell’s conviction was based largely on a confident witness who identified him in a photo lineup. According to the Associated Press, iIn Mitchell’s case, the jury was given the standard instruction on eyewitness testimony over defense objections.  He has since asked for a new trial.


“If that factor had been rejected as a poor indicator of reliability, it should be removed from the instructions guiding juries,” appellate public defender Ryan Eddinger argued in filings to the Supreme Court.

...

 “Without experts, all you have is the jury instructions to guide them,” said Michael Kaye, law professor at Washburn University.

“The public needs to know that eyewitnesses are not always right,” he said. “That the court is willing to consider science and other factors shows progressive thinking.”


Kansas isn’t the first state to consider new jury guidelines.  In New York State, the Supreme Court ruled that judges must allow experts to testify on eyewitness reliability when cases rely mostly on eyewitness testimony.

Read the full story here.




Tags: Kansas

Permalink

 

Science News - March 15, 2013

Posted: March 15, 2013 4:35 pm





Tags: Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, Ohio, Science Thursday

Permalink