Tag Archives: Brady

Thursday’s Quick Clicks…

Posted on October 20, 2016 by Liza Dietrich | Leave a comment

(CO) The Intercept: Losing Face: How a Facial Recognition Mismatch Can Ruin Your Life…
WMDT: Delaware DOJ creates The Actual Innocence Project…
KITV: Lawyer: Cops ‘put a thumb on the scale’ to convict innocent man…
Daily News (opinion by Richard Emery & David Lebowitz): The justice system’s tunnel vision: How cops and prosecutors, worried they’ll have to turn over Brady material, don’t even look for it…
Daily News: Brooklyn community fears DA Ken Thompson’s replacement won’t continue his mission to overturn wrongful convictions…
Observer-Dispatch: ‘Potato Hill killer’ Bernard Hatch still claims innocence…
10 TV: Wrongfully convicted Joe D’Ambrosio, Supreme Court Justice argue for ending Ohio death penalty…
NZ Herald: Innocence Project attorneys take up 2nd case in Puerto Rico…
The Herald: A pledge to make it right for wrongly convicted Chester men jailed 40 years for murder…
The Badger Herald: Wisconsin Innocence Project advocates for wrongfully convicted…

West Virginia Supreme Court Rules that Brady Requirement Applies to Plea Negotiations

Posted on November 13, 2015 by Nancy Petro | 4 comments

From the West Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling released Tuesday, November 10, 2015:

“This Court is presented with a situation in which a defendant repeatedly requested the results of DNA testing; was incorrectly informed that such testing was not yet complete; and was presented with a time-limited plea offer that he accepted upon advice of counsel. We find that the DNA results were favorable, suppressed, and material to the defense. Thus, the Petitioner’s due process rights, as enunciated in Brady, were violated by the State’s suppression of that exculpatory evidence.”

Further, “…This Court…remands this matter for an order granting habeas relief and permitting the Petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea.”

The West Virginia Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Buffey v. Ballard, reversing the June 3, 2014, order of the Circuit Court of Harrison County, enables Joseph A. Buffey to withdraw his 2002 guilty plea in the case of the rape of an 83-year-old woman and requires the prosecutor to either retry the case or Continue reading →

4 Comments

Posted in Editorials/Opinion

Tagged Brady, Brady Violation

Friday’s Quick Clicks…

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Mark Godsey | Leave a comment

In New Jersey, Anthony Mitchell loses another appeal to overturn murder conviction…
A Pennsylvania judge granted a new trial to Roderick Johnson in the 1996 slayings of two Reading cousins, ruling prosecutors failed to provide the defense with key police records…
Michigan compensation bill continues to make its way through the legislature…
North Carolina exoneree Daryl Hunt fights for criminal justice reform…
9 experts say Thomas Rhoades is not a killer…
Sedrick Courtney sues the City of Tulsa for wrongful conviction…
In Idaho, Judges for Justice launch campaign to overturn Christopher Tapp conviction…

Tuesday’s Quick Clicks…

Posted on June 23, 2015 by Mark Godsey | 2 comments

In Canada, a wrongfully convicted man has been exonerated 45 years after being convicted of manslaughter…

Lincoln Caplan argues in the New Yorker that a recent SCOTUS ruling, overturning a Ninth Circuit decision calling for the retrial or release of a California inmate on death row, will have dire effects on prisoner rights…

New evidence of prosecutorial misconduct may be the key to overturning former No Limit rapper’s manslaughter conviction…

In Kansas, protesters aim to raise awareness for those who are wrongfully convicted…

2 Comments

Posted in Exonerations, New Evidence

Tagged AEDPA, Antiterrorism andn Effective Death Penalty Act, Brady, Brady Violation, canada, Death Penalty, habeas corpus, lincoln caplan, new yorker, prosecutorial misconduct, SCOTUS, supreme court

Washington Supreme Court Grants a New Trial to a Death Row Inmate

Posted on May 10, 2012 by Kana Sasakura | 1 comment

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington handed down this morning a decision to grant a new trial to a death row inmate, Darold Stenson. Read: In re PRP of Darold Stenson.

Stenson raised a due process claim based on alleged violations of Brady v. Maryland. The Court held that the State violated Stenson’s rights under the mandates of Brady and its progeny, and it reversed his aggravated first degree murder conviction as well as the sentence of death and remanded for a new trial. Read the news here.

Excerpt: Stenson, convicted in the 1993 slayings of his wife and business partner, is due a new trial because prosecutors failed to share evidence with his attorneys prior to trial, the eight-justice majority ruled.

Stenson will not be released following Thursday’s decision, which was authored by Justice Gerry Alexander. He is expected to face a second trial in Clallam County.

“We are left with the fact that constitutionally significant mistakes were made in Stenson’s trial, resulting in imposition of the ultimate punishment without the full benefit of due process protections,” Alexander wrote in the majority opinion. “The question here is not whether Stenson has proved his innocence.” ….

1 Comment

Posted in Capital punishment, Junk science, Prosecutorial conduct (good and bad)

Tagged Brady, new trial, Washington State

New York Times urges open files in U.S. federal cases

Posted on February 27, 2012 by Nancy Petro | Leave a comment

A New York Times editorial yesterday properly urged that the Justice Department require federal prosecutors’ files be open to the defense. While Brady v Maryland requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence, too often prosecutors at all levels skirt this requirement and courts dismiss the undisclosed information as not “material,” a subjective call that can be flawed as revealed in many DNA-proven wrongful convictions.

As the editorial points out, 96% of federal cases are resolved in plea bargains. The lax application and court enforcement of Brady puts defendants at the considerable disadvantage of not knowing the evidence against them in plea negotiating. The editorial advocates an open files federal rule, which would be an important example for the states.

Ohio and North Carolina were mentioned as two states that now have open files rules. At the state level this requires leadership; Ohioans can thank the late Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, who championed this rule change, adopted by the high court’s rules committee in July 2010.