- CBS Los Angeles: Bill Richards, Freed After 23 Years For A Murder He Didn’t Commit Tells His Story…
- Lowell Sun: DA seeking reinstatement of convictions 1980 Lowell arson-murder case…
- The Commercial Appeal: More disciplinary charges filed against DA Amy Weirich for withholding exculpatory evidence in murder trial…
- Ohio questions credibility: Project looking at pro-police bias by scientist…
- Judge denies appeal of deceased Minnesota Innocence Project client Bill Glaze…
- Ohio defense attorneys to review forensic scientist’s work…
- Sue Neill-Fraser heads to court for second freedom bid…
Blog Editor
Mark Godsey
Daniel P. & Judith L. Carmichael Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law; Director, Center for the Global Study of Wrongful Conviction; Director, Rosenthal Institute for Justice/Ohio Innocence Project
Order Here
Contributing Editors
Justin Brooks
Professor, California Western School of Law; Director, California Innocence ProjectOrder his book Wrongful Convictions Cases & Materials 2d ed. here
Cheah Wui Ling
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore
Daniel Ehighalua
Nigerian Barrister
Jessica S. Henry
Associate Professor of Justice Studies, Montclair University
Carey D. Hoffman
Director of Digital Communications, Ohio Innocence Project@OIPCommunicati1
Shiyuan Huang
Associate Professor, Shandong University Law School; Visiting Scholar, University of Cincinnati College of Law
C Ronald Huff
Professor of Criminology, Law & Society and Sociology, University of California-Irvine
Phil Locke
Science and Technology Advisor, Ohio Innocence Project and Duke Law Wrongful Convictions Clinic
Dr. Carole McCartney
Reader in Law, Faculty of Business and Law, Northumbria University
Nancy Petro
Author and Advocate Order her book False Justice here
Kana Sasakura
Professor, Faculty of Law, Konan University Innocence Project Japan
Dr. Robert Schehr
Professor, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director, Arizona Innocence Project
Ulf Stridbeck
Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway
Martin Yant
Author and Private Investigator Order his book Presumed Guilty here-
Wrongful Convictions Blog 
The Terrible Old Rule that Undermines Conviction Accuracy
Samuel Gross has provided an insightful commentary in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 22 vote (6 to 2) in Turner vs. United States, that affirmed the murder convictions of seven men and reaffirmed “a terrible old rule that has done great harm to the accuracy of criminal trials…”
A professor of law at the University of Michigan and founder and Senior Editor of The National Registry of Exonerations, Gross notes that in half of more than 800 exonerations since 1989 in which people had been wrongly convicted of murder, the prosecution had concealed exculpatory evidence at trial.
Students of the law and of wrongful convictions recognize these instances as Brady violations. In 1964, in Brady v. Maryland, the high court ruled that the government is obligated to disclose evidence that is favorable to the defense if it is “material” to the case. “Materiality” was later further defined as having a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of the trial would have been more favorable to the defendant if the evidence had been disclosed.
But can this rule be accurately applied? Is there a better way that could cure this nation’s “epidemic” of Brady violations? Gross answers both questions in his commentary, “How Concealing Key Evidence Convicts the Innocent.”
Share this:
1 Comment
Posted in Editorials/Opinion, Reforming/Improving the system, wrongful conviction
Tagged Brady Violation, Commentary, materiality, opinion, supreme court