• DNA Exonerations Lead to Key Policy Changes Throughout the U.S. In the wake of more than 200 exon­er­a­tions based on DNA evi­dence, includ­ing some wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed death row pris­on­ers, juris­dic­tions through­out the U.S. are enact­ing key pol­i­cy reforms that add safe­guards to pro­tect against wrong­ful con­vic­tions and pro­vide inmates with bet­ter access to cru­cial evi­dence dur­ing appeals. All but eight states now give inmates vary­ing degrees of access to DNA evi­dence that might not have been avail­able at the time of their con­vic­tions, and many states are over­haul­ing the way wit­ness­es iden­ti­fy sus­pects, crime labs han­dle evi­dence, and infor­mants are used. Reform mea­sures to change crime lab over­sight poli­cies are pend­ing in 21 states, and more than 500 local and state juris­dic­tions have adopt­ed poli­cies that require the record­ing of inter­ro­ga­tions. California law­mak­ers have also passed a bill that requires infor­mant tes­ti­mo­ny to be cor­rob­o­rat­ed before it can be heard by a jury. ​“The leg­isla­tive reform move­ment as a result of these DNA exon­er­a­tions is prob­a­bly the sin­gle great­est crim­i­nal jus­tice reform effort in the last 40 years,” said Peter J. Neufeld, a co-direc­tor of the New York City-based Innocence Project. Efforts to pass key reforms have been bol­stered by recent wrong­ful con­vic­tion research. A 2005 study con­duct­ed by University of Michigan Law School Professor Samuel R. Gross found that 340 pris­on­ers sen­tenced from 1989 to 2003 had been exon­er­at­ed. Of those, 205 were con­vict­ed of mur­der and 121 of rape. Half of the wrong­ful mur­der con­vic­tions and 88% of the wrong­ful rape con­vic­tions includ­ed false eye­wit­ness iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. DNA evi­dence was used to exon­er­ate 144 of these inmates. Gross notes that his research indi­cates a far larg­er prob­lem, stat­ing, ​“Of the 340 exon­er­a­tions I looked at, 96 per­cent are for rape and mur­der. Does that mean nobody was wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed for drug pos­ses­sion, or drunk dri­ving or bur­glary? Chances are there are many, many more false con­vic­tions for less­er crimes.” Only eight states do not have laws that give inmates access to DNA evi­dence, and reform advo­cates say they intend to lob­by for pas­sage of access laws in those states dur­ing the next leg­isla­tive ses­sion.
    (New York Times, October 1, 2007).
  • Senators Leahy and Specter Introduce Habeas Corpus Restoration Act On December 5, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania intro­duced leg­is­la­tion (S. 4081) to restore the right to habeas cor­pus to those deemed to be ene­my com­bat­ants and who are fac­ing tri­al before mil­i­tary com­mis­sions, includ­ing those being detained at the U.S. Guantanamo prison in Cuba. Habeas cor­pus pro­vides an avenue for inmates in deten­tion to chal­lenge the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of their con­fine­ment. The roots of this pro­tec­tion go back to ear­ly English law and the right to habeas cor­pus is guar­an­teed in the U.S. Constitution. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed in September 2006, pre­clud­ed ene­my com­bat­ants from pur­su­ing habeas cor­pus relief and barred cas­es decid­ed by mil­i­tary com­mis­sions from habeas review. Those to be tried before mil­i­tary com­mis­sions could face the death penal­ty. ​“The Constitution of the United States is explic­it that habeas cor­pus may be sus­pend­ed only in time of rebel­lion or inva­sion,” observed Sen. Specter. ​“We are suf­fer­ing nei­ther of those alter­na­tives at the present time. We have not been invad­ed, and there has not been a rebel­lion.” ​“This bill would restore the great writ of habeas cor­pus, a cor­ner­stone of American lib­er­ty for hun­dreds of years that Congress and the President rolled back in an unprece­dent­ed and unnec­es­sary way with September’s Military Commissions Act,” said Senator Leahy. (See Congressional Record: December 5, 2006 (Senate), Page S11197-S11199, intro­duc­to­ry state­ments of Sens. Leahy and Specter to the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2006). See Military Commissions.
  • Former FBI Director Warns Against Stripping Death Penalty Appeals The for­mer Director of the FBI, William Sessions (pic­tured), along with Timothy Lewis, a for­mer judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, called on mem­bers of Congress to refrain from bar­ring death row inmates and oth­er defen­dants from the full access to the fed­er­al courts in their appeals. Some leg­is­la­tors have pro­posed elim­i­nat­ing fed­er­al habeas cor­pus review in many cas­es, and bar­ring access to the fed­er­al courts to many of those rais­ing chal­lenges to their death sen­tences. The authors of the op-ed wrote, in part:“We take a back seat to no one in our sup­port for strong law enforce­ment, but we are equal­ly com­mit­ted to our coun­try’s long-stand­ing com­mit­ment to fair tri­als and con­sti­tu­tion­al safe­guards. These safe­guards are essen­tial to mak­ing as sure as pos­si­ble that when we charge some­one with a crime, we have the right per­son and that that per­son, if con­vict­ed, receives the sen­tence he or she deserves. All Americans should be alarmed at the many recent exon­er­a­tions of inno­cent peo­ple who have served years in prison or on death row. Not only have we locked up the wrong peo­ple, but the true per­pe­tra­tors remain free to inflict more harm. As a result, we are pro­found­ly dis­turbed about reports of a new and mis­guid­ed assault on the writ of habeas cor­pus. In a back-door action, the pro­vi­sion in ques­tion would be attached to entire­ly unre­lat­ed leg­is­la­tion in the few remain­ing days before Congress adjourns. It has nev­er been exam­ined by any con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tee, so no sen­a­tor or rep­re­sen­ta­tive has heard what no doubt would be an out­cry of pub­lic oppo­si­tion against it. The pro­vi­sion would cov­er much of the same ground as the Streamlined Procedures Act, an ill-con­ceived bill that gen­er­at­ed enor­mous oppo­si­tion last year. For the first time, both the Judicial Conference, rep­re­sent­ing the coun­try’s fed­er­al judges, and the Conference of Chief Justices, rep­re­sent­ing the chief jus­tices of all states, force­ful­ly opposed the act because it would have stripped the fed­er­al courts of much of their juris­dic­tion to hear habeas peti­tions. Numerous oth­er rea­son­able voic­es across the polit­i­cal spec­trum also opposed this leg­is­la­tion. They did so because, as the chief jus­tices stat­ed, ​“The wrong­ful con­vic­tion of an inno­cent per­son leaves the actu­al per­pe­tra­tor free and under­mines pub­lic trust and con­fi­dence in our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem.” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 26, 2006).
  • Patriot Act Likely to Curtail Death Penalty Appeals Congress recent­ly passed the re-autho­riza­tion of the Patriot Act and this bill is like­ly to cur­tail the appeals of state death row inmates in fed­er­al courts. The leg­is­la­tion, which is due to be signed into law this week by President Bush, would allow states to obtain approval of their sys­tems of rep­re­sen­ta­tion in death penal­ty cas­es from the U.S. Attorney General rather than from the fed­er­al courts, as required under a pre­vi­ous law. Once approval is grant­ed, habeas cor­pus peti­tions alleg­ing con­sti­tu­tion­al error in death ver­dicts would be put on a fast track for res­o­lu­tion. (Under the old law (the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act), only one state’s (Arizona) sys­tem of appoint­ment and com­pen­sa­tion for defense coun­sel had been deemed ade­quate by the courts.) Critics of the new mea­sure fear that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (pic­tured), a strong death penal­ty pro­po­nent, will allow the faster appeals in many states that have failed to meet basic stan­dards for com­pe­tent defense rep­re­sen­ta­tion. They also wor­ry that the short time­lines will deter pri­vate attor­neys from tak­ing cap­i­tal cas­es in fed­er­al court, and could leave some peo­ple on death row with­out coun­sel alto­geth­er. (The (Calif.) Daily Journal, March 8, 2006).
  • Innocence Protection Act Signed Into Law President Bush signed into law the Justice for All Act (H.R.5107) that includes a ver­sion of the Innocence Protection Act. The bill was co-spon­sored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D‑Vt.) and Orrin Hatch (R.-Ut.). It will cre­ate a post-con­vic­tion test­ing process to pro­tect inno­cent defen­dants and pro­vide train­ing funds for the defense and pros­e­cu­tion in death penal­ty cas­es. (Salt Lake Tribune, Nov. 2, 2004). 
  • Senate and House pass ver­sions of Innocence Protection Act On October 9, the U.S. Senate passed by voice vote a bill called the ​“Justice for All Act of 2004” that con­tains impor­tant ele­ments of the Innocence Protection Act, orig­i­nal­ly intro­duced in 2000. A sim­i­lar bill recent­ly over­whelm­ing­ly passed the House of Representatives (HR 5107), and it is expect­ed that the final leg­is­la­tion will now be signed into law. The bill pro­vides for expand­ed access to DNA test­ing for prison inmates and assis­tance to states for both defense and pros­e­cu­tion in con­duct­ing death penal­ty tri­als. The broad­er leg­is­la­tion also pro­vides assis­tance to vic­tims of crime. (Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2004).
  • House Overwhelmingly Passes DNA Bill That Includes The Innocence Protection Act By a vote of 357 – 67, the U.S. House of Representatives passed leg­is­la­tion des­ig­nat­ing $25 mil­lion in fund­ing over five years for DNA test­ing that could help prove the inno­cence of some death row inmates. The bill also pro­vides fund­ing for states to improve the qual­i­ty of legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion for those fac­ing cap­i­tal charges. The bipar­ti­san-sup­port­ed bill, enti­tled The Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003 (H.R. 3214), includes a com­pre­hen­sive pack­age of pro­grams that pro­vides over $1 bil­lion over the next five years to assist Federal and State author­i­ties in solv­ing crimes and pro­tect­ing the inno­cent. The U.S. Senate is con­sid­er­ing a sim­i­lar mea­sure. (Associated Press, November 5, 2003)
  • Innocence Protection Act Clears Senate Judiciary Committee By a vote of 12 – 7, the Innocence Protection Act today cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipar­ti­san sup­port. The leg­is­la­tion pro­vides safe­guards to pre­vent wrong­ful con­vic­tions and exe­cu­tions by ensur­ing inmate access to DNA test­ing and improv­ing the qual­i­ty of legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion for cap­i­tal defen­dants. (Congressional Quarterly​.com, July 19, 2002) See also, The Justice Project’s Press Release.
  • The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D‑VT), held hear­ings on June 27, 2001 regard­ing the bipar­ti­san Innocence Protection Act of 2001 (IPA). The hear­ings, which focused pri­mar­i­ly on the need for defen­dants to be rep­re­sent­ed by qual­i­fied and expe­ri­enced coun­sel in cap­i­tal cas­es, includ­ed tes­ti­mo­ny from Beth Wilkinson, a for­mer lead pros­e­cu­tor in the Oklahoma City bomb­ing case, and Michael Graham, a wrong­ly con­vict­ed man who spent 14 years on Louisiana’s death row before being exon­er­at­ed. ​“One of our nation’s most fun­da­men­tal rights is the right to coun­sel,” said Senator Leahy. ​“In the most seri­ous cas­es, where we are con­sid­er­ing the exe­cu­tion of a human being, the Innocence Protection Act will help ensure that defen­dants have a right not just to coun­sel, but to com­pe­tent coun­sel.” Also tes­ti­fy­ing at the hear­ings in sup­port of the IPA were Stephen Bright, direc­tor of the Southern Center for Human Rights; Texas state sen­a­tor Rodney Ellis; IPA lead co-spon­sors in the Senate, Gordon Smith (R‑OR) and Susan Collins (R‑ME); and House lead co-spon­sors William Delahunt (D‑MA) and Ray LaHood (R‑IL). Testifying in oppo­si­tion to the pro­posed leg­is­la­tion were The Honorable William H. Pryor Jr., Attorney General, Montgomery, AL; Mr. Ronald Eisenberg, Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia, PA; and Kenneth S. Brlackett Deputy Solicitor, 16th Circuit, South Carolina. (The Justice Project Press Release, 6/​27/​01). On March 7, 2001, U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D‑Vt.), Gordon Smith (R — Ore.), Susan Collins (R‑Maine), and Russ Feingold (D‑Wisc.), joined U.S. Representatives William Delahunt (D‑Mass.) and Ray LaHood (R‑Ill.) to rein­tro­duce the Innocence Protection Act in Congress. The bipar­ti­san leg­is­la­tion seeks to address prob­lems of fair­ness in the death penal­ty in order to avoid the risk of wrong­ful con­vic­tions and exe­cu­tions. The bill requires states to pro­vide qual­i­fied and expe­ri­enced attor­neys to all defen­dants fac­ing the death penal­ty, and allows for greater access to DNA test­ing. Both bills (S.486 and HR.912) began with record lev­els of bipar­ti­san sup­port — 16 (4 R, 12 D) orig­i­nal cospon­sors in the Senate and 119 (19 R, 100 D) in the House. Since the death penal­ty was rein­stat­ed, 95 peo­ple have been released from death row after new evi­dence led to their exon­er­a­tion. Read about the Innocence Protection Act at www​.thomas​.loc​.gov/​b​s​s​/​d​1​0​7​q​u​e​r​y​.html (search by bill num­ber S.486 or HR.912) or vis­it the Justice Project’s Web site for a sec­tion-by-sec­tion sum­ma­ry. See also, Innocence. On January 31, 2001, Senator Russ Feingold (D‑WI) intro­duced a bill to place a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions by the Federal Government and urge the States to do the same, while a National Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the fair­ness of the impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty. Sen. Feingold also intro­duced a fed­er­al death penal­ty abo­li­tion bill. Read Sen. Feingold’s mora­to­ri­um and abo­li­tion bills at www​.thomas​.loc​.gov/​b​s​s​/​d​1​0​7​q​u​e​r​y​.html (search by bill num­ber S233 for the mora­to­ri­um bill and S191 for the abo­li­tion bill). Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D‑IL) intro­duced a com­pan­ion mora­to­ri­um bill in the House of Representatives (H.R. 1038).