Dear Friends and Colleagues,
The 2014 Innocence Network Conference is being held in Portland, Oregon on April 11-12 (http://www.innocencenetwork.org/conference).
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
The 2014 Innocence Network Conference is being held in Portland, Oregon on April 11-12 (http://www.innocencenetwork.org/conference).
Posted in Events, Scholarship
Following the successful launch in January of 2013 of the French Project Innocence based in Lyon, a new innocence organization is in the early stages of development in Belgium. In a lecture delivered at the University Libre in Brussels, Belgium, attorney Marie Bodart explained to students and faculty the need for an innocence organization in Brussels. While there is skepticism among some in the legal community regarding the need for post-conviction innocence work there due to the perceived differences between common law adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems, criminal defense attorneys recognize the need for an innocence organization given investigation and procedural error. Attorney and innocence project advocate, Ms. Bodart spent the fall of 2012 as a visiting attorney working in Flagstaff, Arizona with the Arizona Innocence Project at Northern Arizona University where she studied investigation and post-conviction litigation, as well as ways to facilitate the operation of an innocence organization. Here’s a link to an article (in French) about the Belgian initiative published in Le Vif:http://www.levif.be/info/actualite/international/innocence-project-une-initiative-pour-traquer-les-erreurs-judiciaires/article-4000273195452.htm
Posted in Uncategorized
History has a unique way of repeating itself. Consider, for example, the question of wrongful conviction in France.The first French association designed to fight wrongful conviction was created in 1787! It was called “Association de Bienfaisance Judiciare (“charity judiciary association”), and was created by M. Boucher d’Argis. The Association both defended the poor in court, and provided them with compensation upon release. The members of the Association were booksellers, printers, nobles, and lawyers, and women were also admitted. The Association alerted the Monarchy about wrongful conviction, so in 1788, King Louis the 16th declared that it is necessary “to prevent wrongful conviction.” And this was one year before the Revolution! So while we in the United States should take great pride in the work that’s been done over the course of these last fifteen years, the French appear to be the first country that I’ve seen where wrongful conviction was officially acknowledged, and by the King no less. It’s not clear how many people were exonerated by the Association, this is a question that I plan to investigate with my French colleagues. The seeds of innocence were planted in France in 1787 and have been germinating ever since.
Project Innocence France, the twenty-first century cousin of the Association de Bienfaisance Judiciare, is preparing to launch. Once established, it will be the first innocence organization in France, and will join the growing number of international member organizations in The Innocence Network.
On Friday, January 11th I was joined by DNA expert, Dr. Greg Hampikian, to deliver a presentation at the Lyon III School of Law on the topic of wrongful conviction and innocence organizations, and the role played by DNA analysis in righting injustice. Dr. Hampikian and I were the guests of Mr. Sylvain Cormier, a criminal defense attorney from Lyon, France and the guiding force behind Project Innocence France. Dr. Hampikian and I presented the work of the Innocence Network to more than 200 people in an overrun law school auditorium (people were turned away). There is clear excitement and intrigue regarding our work, especially from students, but also from faculty and administrators, and the French press. Mr. Cormier has assembled some of the most impressive, important, and diverse justice officials in France to serve on his Board. I met a few of these people, and was introduced to the others by reputation. So far prospective members include forensic experts, retired police, retired judges, law faculty (Lyon III), and attorneys.
As with most law schools in Europe, there is no tradition of clinic work. However, at Lyon there are opportunities for apprenticeships. In addition, a course will need to be created by the law school to explore the subject of wrongful conviction. This may take time, as presently in France there are no required courses in Criminal Law or Criminal Procedure. Students are expected to learn this trade through apprenticeship (The one book that has been written on the topic of criminal procedure was first published in 2000 and is now in its 7th edition. I have made the acquaintance of the book’s author, Francois Saint-Pierre. While I was in Lyon last week, Mr. Saint-Pierre received word that he had just won judgement against France in the European Criminal Court in a homicide case. He is on the IP Board, is a law partner to Mr. Cormier, and is a powerful figure among French criminal lawyers and members of the High Court). Structurally, there are important changes being introduced to the law school by implementation of the innocence project and this is thrilling, promising, and will require patience. The law school Dean threw a reception for us after our conference and was overjoyed with the presentations, and the promise of the work. While I can’t read into the future, I do believe that there is great support and enthusiasm for the project at the law school.
Perhaps most promising and exciting was the response to our work from students at the law school. They understand the significance of innocence work as part of a broader movement for human rights and, at least for those with whom I spoke, they were committing to learn more about prospective involvement with Project Innocence France. While not something that is new to me at this point in my career with The Network, I’m still deeply touched when exposed to the awakening of spirit and commitment in young people.
The struggles confronting the French with regard to wrongful conviction are in large part shared by all jurisdictions regardless of country of origin. Evidence preservation, coerced confession, false eyewitness testimony, and poor defense were repeatedly mentioned. The French are prepared to conduct the necessary research into the causes of wrongful conviction to contribute to the growing international database.
Posted in Uncategorized
The 2013 Innocence Network Conference is being held in Charlotte, North Carolina on April 19-20 (http://www.innocencenetwork.org/conference). I am chairing the Innocence Scholarship panel session and am seeking paper submissions for consideration. Each year we have attempted to highlight the most compelling new scholarship in our field. If either you, or someone you know is working on new research pertaining to wrongful conviction please have them contact me via email at Robert.Schehr@nau.edu. We’re looking forward to seeing you in Charlotte!
Sincerely,
Dr. Robert Schehr
Arizona Innocence Project
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Northern Arizona University
Posted in Uncategorized
The Innocence Network International Committee invites you to submit your Blog entries in your original language, followed by a brief summary in English.
We truly want for this Blog to be read around the globe. To accomplish this task the International Committee believes that it would be most appropriate for contributors to write in their native language, thereby attracting more readers in their home states. And since so much of what is being contributed to this site is of interest to those of us in English speaking countries we’d love for you to include a brief summary in English of what you wrote in your native language so that we have a sense of the goings on in your location. Please keep submitting your materials, it’s been wonderful to connect in this way!
Posted in Uncategorized
One of the most intriguing wrongful conviction cases I uncovered in France is called, L’affaire d’Outreau (this link is to the original French article but can be translated online). This is a 2004 case of alleged sexual abuse of children producing 17 indictments, 4 convictions, and 12 acquittals. The case was built around testimony of one of the co-defendants who lied about the involvement of the others. Like so many of the cases investigated by innocence organizations in the United States, there was no physical evidence, only the word of an accuser.
Between January 10 and April 12 of 2006, a Parliamentary investigation was undertaken to identify those factors leading to the wrongful convictions. The commission members heard from 221 people for more than 200 hours of testimony. Witnesses included alleged victims, defendants, prosecutors, police officers, judges, sociologists, psychologists, linguists, and others. Questions focusing on oral testimony sought insight into the following: “How to listen and transcribe depositions, interrogations and confrontations,” “What form of orality is more conducive to the emergence of the truth?,” “What is the validity of orality in the construction of the judicial process?”
It is important to note that, largely in response to public outcry over the Outreau convictions, the French Parliament saw fit to establish an investigatory commission to review the entire investigation and trial to determine where fault should lie, and how procedural improvements could be made. While US legal scholars have conducted postmortem analysis of wrongful conviction cases to determine their causes, nothing similar to the French Parliamentary commission investigating Outreau has occurred in the US. This is precisely the kind of transnational sharing of information and experiences that can prove invaluable and inspirational to the human rights movement seeking justice for the wrongly convicted. For example, Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and I have each on different occasions argued for the creation of a federal level review body with the mandate to investigate the causes of wrongful convictions. I have referred to such a body as the National Safe Conviction Board (NSCB). This NSCB would have full subpoena authority and would serve to generate a set of national priorities based on its investigations (see Robert Schehr. 2010. “A View From the United States,” in M. Naughton (ed.), The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Hope for the Innocent? pp. 205-218.). Regardless of what it’s called, the purpose of a federal commission authorized to hold hearings to deconstruct the causes of wrongful convictions, and to publish its findings and recommendations for investigation and due process remedies, is something that I strongly believe we should lobby for in the United States.
The French Parliamentary commission appears to have operated much like a truth in reconciliation that privileges parrhesia – the ability to speak freely, candidly, with a degree of risk. Some of the statements made by the exonerees are compelling:
Sandrine Lavier: “We were never heard. We told them we were innocent, we were talking to a wall.” When asked “Who was this wall?” “Investigators, Judge Burgaud, the prosecutor, the juvenile judge, the Board of Appeal, all.”
Frank Lavier: “To prove our innocence, it’s like you say it’s windy but you do not see it. There is a difference: one is innocent, but we cannot prove it to you. The wind is there but does not see.”
The Commission members admitted the difficulty of attempting to determine innocence and guilt when, as in this case, there is no physical evidence.
The takeaway from reading about the Outreau affair is that, at least in this one case, the French appear to share much in common with those of us operating in adversarial systems. Perhaps the more compelling lesson for those of us operating within the United States is that we can follow in France’s footsteps by creating a National Safe Conviction Board to conduct postmortem review of exoneration cases.
Being a member of the Innocence Network Board of Directors and the co-Chair of the International Committee, I am gifted with the opportunity to travel abroad to meet our colleagues working on similar issues. I spent last week in Bordeaux, France where I was graciously hosted by the faculty and students at the Montaigne-Montesquieu – Bordeaux IV, Ecole de Droit (Law School). While there, I lectured on the topic of wrongful conviction and criminal procedure in the United States. Based on a week’s worth of conversations with my colleagues in the law school, and graduate students studying law, a few things became apparent to me. First, the students were extremely interested in the idea of being able to apply their legal training to questions of unsafe convictions. To a number, their questions were probing, thoughtful, and enthusiastic. However, to my knowledge there is no history of clinical legal education like what exists in the United States (and what manifests as innocence projects) in France for the faculty and students to participate in. Moreover, French defendants do not have access to their investigation, trial, and appellate documents making post-conviction case investigation virtually impossible.
While not insurmountable obstacles to the creation of innocence projects and the investigation of wrongful conviction more generally, a significant amount of transnational dialogue should take place between Innocence Network members and French legal scholars, students, politicians, and justice practitioners to better describe what it is that the Network does, and how that might be replicated in France. One way that we might be able to accomplish this is by developing relationships with French universities and hosting law school students on summer internships. The Arizona Innocence Project and Northern Arizona University is proposing just such a relationship with the University of Bordeaux Law School, as well as a summer study abroad. The point is to enhance our interactions with our French colleagues so that we may better understand their systemic issues, while also sharing what we know about case investigation and litigation, and legal scholarship. Of course, other non-university relationships should also be developed with justice practitioners. The Network International Committee will be engaging in these efforts.
For now, with so many French people interested in this international wrongful conviction blog, perhaps we can hear more from them about ways to proceed.