Posted in Compensation/Exoneree compensation, Exonerations, Uncategorized
Tagged AEDPA, compensation, Criminal Justice Reform, Emerson Stevens, habeas corpus, Jeffrey MacDonald, Johnny Hincapie, reform legislation, The Innocence Project of the University of Virginia School of law, Tyler Edmonds
Posted in Asia, Police conduct (good and bad)
Tagged compensation, exoneree compensation, forensic science, forensic testimony, habeas corpus, interrogations, investigation, police interrogations, police misconduct, shaken baby
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…
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
I came across a great article by Professor Jordan Barry of University of San Diego School of Law on prosecution of the exonerated.
Jordan Barry, Prosecuting the Exonerated: Actual Innocence and the Double Jeopardy Clause, 64 Stanford Law Review 535 (March, 2012). It is obtainable on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
In certain circumstances, a prisoner who challenges her conviction must convince a court that she is actually innocent in order to get relief. Unfortunately, such judicial exonerations often fail to persuade prosecutors, who are generally free to retry prisoners who successfully challenge their convictions. There have been several instances in which prisoners have convinced courts of their innocence and overturned their convictions, only to have prosecutors bring the exact same charges against them a second time. This Article argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects these exonerated defendants from the ordeal of a second prosecution. Permitting prosecutors to continue to pursue such individuals contradicts established Supreme Court case law, violates the policies animating the Double Jeopardy Clause, and impairs the operation of the criminal justice system.