DOCSLIB.ORG

Post-Conviction Dna Testing: When Is Justice Served?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Post-Conviction Dna Testing: When Is Justice Served? S. HRG. 106–1061 POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING: WHEN IS JUSTICE SERVED? HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 13, 2000 Serial No. J–106–88 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74–753 WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............. 68 DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio, prepared state- ment ...................................................................................................................... 11 Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 85 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 80 Hatch, Hon. Orrin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ................................. 1 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 4 Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............ 91 Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 95 Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina, prepared statement .............................................................................................. 57 WITNESSES Baird, Hon. Charles F., Former Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and Co-Chair, National Committee to Prevent Wrongful Executions, Austin, TX .......................................................................................................................... 49 Edmondson, Hon. W.A. Drew, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, Okla- homa City, OK ...................................................................................................... 17 Camps, Enid, Deputy Attorney General, State of California, on behalf of Attorney General Bill Lockyear, Sacramento, CA ............................................. 41 Clarke, George, Deputy District Attorney, San Diego County, CA, and Mem- ber National Commission of the Future of DNA Evidence, San Diego, CA .... 105 Fritz, Dennis, Kansas City, MO ............................................................................. 115 Levin, Hon. Carl, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, prepared state- ment ...................................................................................................................... 14 Marquis, Joshua, K., District Attorney, Clatsop County, OR, and Member, Board of Directors, National District Attorneys Association, Astoria, OR ...... 51 Scheck, Barry C., Professor of Law, and Co-Director, Innocence Project, Ben- jamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and Member, National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, New York, NY .................................................... 100 Smith, Hon. Gordon H., a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ...................... 12 Spitzer, Hon. Eliot, Attorney General, State of New York, New York, NY ........ 36 Stevenson, Bryan A., Director, Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, and As- sistant Professor, New York University School of Law, Montgomery, AL ...... 108 Wooley, James, Baker and Hostler, and Member, National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, Washington, DC ................................................. 117 APPENDIX QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Joshua K. Marquis to Questions from Senator Leahy ................... 143 Responses of Joshua K. Marquis to Questions from Senator Feinstein .............. 145 Responses of Dennis Fritz to Questions from Senate Committee on the Judici- ary ......................................................................................................................... 146 Marquis, Joshua, Clatsop County, District Attorney’s Office: letter to Senator Leahy .................................................................................... 143 letter to Senator Feinstein ............................................................................... 145 (III) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 IV Page ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973–1995 .............................. 195 Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial ............................................ 147 Excerpt from Habeas Corpus Reform Act of 1993 ................................................ 69 Fein, Bruce, Former Associate Deputy Attorney General, letter and attach- ment ...................................................................................................................... 7 Johnson, Calvin, letter ............................................................................................ 132 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, memo- randum .................................................................................................................. 137 Postconviction DNA Testing: Recommendations for Handling Requests ............ 165 Sessions, William S., Attorneys & Counselors at Law, San Antonio, TX, letter ...................................................................................................................... 219 Yackle, Larry W., Professor of Law, Boston University, Boston, MA, letter ...... 213 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING: WHEN IS JUSTICE SERVED? TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch (chairman of the committee) presiding. Also present: Senators Thurmond, Grassley, Sessions, Leahy, Biden, Feinstein, Feingold, and Schumer. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH The CHAIRMAN. Let’s begin. This is a very important hearing. I want to welcome you all to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hear- ing on the important issue of post-conviction DNA testing, entitled ‘‘Post-Conviction DNA Testing: When Is Justice Served?’’ No one here today will quarrel with the assertion that post-con- viction DNA testing should be made available when it serves the ends of justice. Reaching agreement on a practical definition for justice, however, is a difficult and different matter. After all, justice does mean different things to different people. For the survivors of brutal crimes, justice may mean the carrying out of a court-imposed sentence without prolonged appeals. For others, especially those who are morally and vehemently opposed to capital punishment, justice may mean the indefinite delay of constitutionally-imposed death sentences. As Members of Congress, we do not have the luxury of choosing one side or the other. As the elected representatives of the people and as guardians of the Constitution, we have an obligation to bal- ance the adequacy of procedural protections afforded to defendants against the need for integrity and finality of decisions in State and Federal courts. It is my hope that in holding this hearing, we can take a first step toward reaching consensus on how best to strike this balance in the area of post-conviction DNA testing, and in doing so serving, of course, the cause of justice. Speaking of doing what is just, it is only right that at the outset of this hearing I thank Senator Leahy for his interest and leader- ship in this important topic. Those who know Senator Leahy as I do appreciate his knowledge of the law, his passion for the Con- stitution, and his willingness to take principled positions. He was among the first Members of Congress to become involved in this issue, and he came to me several weeks ago and urged this (1) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:39 Oct 05, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DISC\74753.XXX ATX007 PsN: ATX007 2 committee to undertake an examination of this issue. His bill, the Innocence Protection Act, has appropriately sparked a discussion over several important issues associated with capital punishment, and I think we should all be thankful for his initiative and his leadership. In the last decade, DNA testing has evolved as the most reliable forensic technique for identifying criminals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Making a Place for Touch DNA in Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statutes, 62 Cath
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 62 Issue 3 Spring 2013 Article 7 2013 Can’t Touch This? Making a Place for Touch DNA in Post- Conviction DNA Testing Statutes Victoria Kawecki Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Victoria Kawecki, Can’t Touch This? Making a Place for Touch DNA in Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statutes, 62 Cath. U. L. Rev. 821 (2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol62/iss3/7 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Can’t Touch This? Making a Place for Touch DNA in Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statutes Cover Page Footnote J.D. Candidate, May 2014, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law; B.A., 2011, Gettysburg College. The author wishes to thank John Sharifi for his exceptional and invaluable insight, guidance, dedication, tenacity, and inspiration throughout this process. She would also like to thank her colleagues on the Catholic University Law Review for their work on this Comment, and her legal writing professors, who taught her to question what she thinks she may know and to always lead with her conclusion. This comments is available in Catholic University Law Review: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol62/iss3/7 CAN’T TOUCH THIS? MAKING A PLACE FOR TOUCH DNA IN POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING STATUTES Victoria Kawecki+ DNA testing is to justice what the telescope is for the stars: not a lesson in biochemistry, not a display of the wonders of magnifying optical glass, but a way to see things as they really are.
    [Show full text]
  • Results Are for Rogers County. Some Numbers May Be Pre-Provisional and May Be Off by a Few Votes, but Do Not Affect the Overall Results in Any Significant Way
    Note: All results are for Rogers County. Some numbers may be pre-provisional and may be off by a few votes, but do not affect the overall results in any significant way. Source: Rogers County Election Board Archive 2010 Election Cycle Voter Turnout for Democratic Primary Election – July 27, 2010 5,990 Voted/21,913 Registered = 27.34% Oklahoma Gubernatorial Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Jari Askins Drew Edmondson 2,798 3,129 Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Susan Paddack Jerry Combrink 4,357 1,267 U.S. Senate Class 3 Seat Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Jim Rogers Mark Myles 3,949 1,521 U.S. House of Representative District 2 Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Jim Wilson Dan Boren 1,224 3,723 District Attorney, District 12 Democratic Primary – July 27, 2010 Janice Steidley Patrick Abitbol 3,774 2,078 Rogers County Assessor Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Chris Whipkey Brian Wilson 1,458 4,145 Rogers County Commissioner District 3 Democratic Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Joe Frank Clark Scott Gouard Leon Hershberger 370 873 828 Voter Turnout for Republican Primary Election – July 27, 2010 7,228 Voted/23,407 Registered = 30.88% Oklahoma Gubernatorial Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Randy Brogdon Robert L. Jackson Mary Fallin Robert Hubbard 4,249 127 2,597 186 Oklahoma Lieutenant Gubernatorial Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Bernie Adler John A. Wright Todd Lamb Paul F. Nosak Bill Crozier 373 1,176 3,986 823 361 Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Gary Jones David Hanigar 4,323 1,983 Oklahoma Attorney General Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Ryan Leonard Scott Pruitt 2,387 4,477 Oklahoma State Treasurer Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Ken Miller Owen Laughlin 4,078 2,519 Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Republican Primary Results – July 27, 2010 Janet Barresi Brian S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 1 Hearing on Nomination of Attorney General Scott
    1 HEARING ON NOMINATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SCOTT PRUITT TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Wednesday, January 18, 2017 United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Honorable John Barrasso [chairman of the committee] presiding. Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Cardin, Sanders, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and Harris. Also Present: Senator Lankford. 1 2 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN BARRASSO, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. We have quite a full house today. I welcome the audience. This is a formal Senate hearing, and in order to allow the Committee to conduct its business, we will maintain decorum. That means if there are disorders, demonstrations by a member of the audience, the person causing the disruption will be escorted from the room by the Capitol Police. Since this is our first hearing of this session, I would like to welcome our new members, Senators Jerry Moran, Joni Ernst, Tammy Duckworth and Kamala Harris. Thank you very much and congratulations in joining the Committee. I would also like to welcome Senator Tom Carper in his new role as the Ranking Member of the Committee. You are here, even if you have a scratchy throat, 40 years from when you were Treasurer of Delaware, member of Congress, governor, member of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the Attorney General Constitution, Article 6 § 1 W.A
    Executive Branch Office of the Attorney General Constitution, Article 6 § 1 W.A. Drew Edmondson, Democrat, was born in Washington, D.C., on October 12, 1946. Educated in the public schools of Washington, D.C., and Muskogee, Oklahoma, he graduated from Muskogee Central High School in 1964. He attended Northeastern State University in Tahlequah on a debate scholarship and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in speech education in 1968. Following graduation, he enlisted in the United States Navy and had a tour of duty in Vietnam from 1971 to 1972. In 1974 he was elected to the Oklahoma Legislature and served two years. In 1976 Edmondson entered the University of Tulsa Law School and graduated in December 1978. Edmondson worked as an intern in the district attorney’s office in Muskogee in 1978, and as an assistant district attorney in 1979 before entering private practice. He rejoined the district attorney’s office as chief prosecutor in 1982. In 1982, 1986, and 1990, Edmondson was elected, unopposed, district attorney of Muskogee County. Edmondson is a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association, a former member of the National and the Oklahoma District Attorneys associations, and in August 1983, was elected president of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association. He was selected Outstanding District Attorney for the State of Oklahoma in 1985 and was appointed to the District Attorneys Council by the Board of Governors of the Oklahoma Bar Association. In 1992 Edmondson joined Mark Green in private practice, and in March 1994, Edmondson announced his candidacy for the office of Attorney General and was elected in November that same year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Breadth of Congress' Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme
    H H H H H H H H H H H 5. The Breadth of Congress’s Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme of Separated Powers Overview Congress’s broad investigatory powers are constrained both by the structural limitations imposed by our constitutional system of separated and balanced powers and by the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Thus, the president, subordinate officials, and individuals called as witnesses can assert various privileges, which enable them to resist or limit the scope of congressional inquiries. These privileges, however, are also limited. The Supreme Court has recognized the president’s constitutionally based privilege to protect the confidentiality of documents or other information that reflects presidential decision-making and deliberations. This presidential executive privilege, however, is qualified. Congress and other appropriate investigative entities may overcome the privilege by a sufficient showing of need and the inability to obtain the information elsewhere. Moreover, neither the Constitution nor the courts have provided a special exemption protecting the confidentiality of national security or foreign affairs information. But self-imposed congressional constraints on information access in these sensitive areas have raised serious institutional and practical concerns as to the current effectiveness of oversight of executive actions in these areas. With regard to individual rights, the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals subject to congressional inquiries are protected by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, though in many important respects those rights may be qualified by Congress’s constitutionally rooted investigatory authority. A. Executive Privilege Executive privilege is a doctrine that enables the president to withhold certain information from disclosure to the public or even Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Note: All Results Are for Rogers County
    Note: All results are for Rogers County. Some numbers may be pre-provisional and may be off by a few votes, but do not affect the overall results in any significant way. Source: Rogers County Election Board Archive 1994 Election Cycle Voter Turnout for Special Election for County Question – February 9, 1993 6,616 Voted/41,639 Registered = 15.89% County Question Approving the Extension of a 1% Sales Tax for the Maintenance and Construction of County Roads until 1998 – February 9, 1993 Yes No 4,531 2,048 Voter Turnout for Special Election for SQ No. 659 – February 8, 1994 3,762 Voted/36,404 Registered = 10.33% SQ No. 659: Makes Local School Millage Levies Permanent until Repealed by Voters– February 8, 1994 Yes No 2,295 1,330 Voter Turnout for Special Election for SQ No. 658 – May 10, 1994 12,566 Voted/36,754 Registered = 34.19% SQ No. 658: Approval of a State Lottery with Specifics on How Funds Would Be Controlled – May 10, 1994 Yes No 5,291 7,272 Voter Turnout for Democratic Primary Election – August 23, 1994 7,678 Voted/23,936 Registered = 32.08% Oklahoma Gubernatorial Democratic Primary Results – August 23, 1994 Jack Mildren Danny Williams Bernice Shedrick Joe Vickers 3,284 646 3,312 305 Oklahoma Lieutenant Gubernatorial Democratic Primary Results – August 23, 1994 Dave McBride Walt Roberts Nance Diamond Bob Cullison 1,130 426 2,685 3,183 Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Democratic Primary Results – August 23, 1994 Clifton H. Scott Allen Greeson 4,989 1,956 Oklahoma Attorney General Democratic Primary Results – August 23, 1994 John B.
    [Show full text]
  • Irreversible Error
    Copyright © 2014 by The Constitution Project. All rights reserved. No part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of The Constitution Project. For other information about this report, or any other work of The Constitution Project, please visit our website at www.constitutionproject.org or email us at [email protected]. Cover art designed by Elias Moose THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT STAFF Larry Akey Scott Roehm Director of Communications Senior Counsel, Rule of Law Program Maria Cortina Hispanic Outreach Fellow Virginia E. Sloan President Jennifer Donley Development Coordinator Katherine Stern Senior Counsel, Christopher Durocher Rule of Law Program Government Affairs Counsel Sarah E. Turberville Louis Fisher Senior Counsel, Scholar in Residence Criminal Justice Program Kayla Haran Stephen I. Vladeck Program Assistant Supreme Court Fellow Sarah McLean Brian Yourish Communications Coordinator Office Manager I. Scott Messinger Chief Operating Officer The Constitution Project promotes constitutional rights and values by forging a non-ideological consensus aimed at sound legal interpretations and policy solutions. The Constitution Project | iii Irreversible Error iv | The Constitution Project TABLE OF CONTENTS The Death Penalty Committee .......................................................................... vii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • When Congress Comes Calling: a Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry When Congress
    When Congress Comes Calling: A Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry of Legislative on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics A Study When Congress 1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Comes Calling 202.580.6920 Email: [email protected] A Study on the www.constitutionproject.org Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry Morton Rosenberg Constitution Project Fellow WHEN CONGRESS COMES CALLING: A Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry © 2017 The Constitution Project All Rights Reserved. Requests for permission to reproduce selections from this book should be sent to: The Constitution Project, 1200 18th Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036; or by e-mail to [email protected] The Constitution Project’s mission is to safeguard constitutional rights and values when they are threatened by our government’s criminal justice and national security practices, and to strengthen our system of checks and balances. The views expressed in this study do not necessarily reflect the views of individual members of The Constitution Project’s Board of Directors. For information about this report, or any other work of The Constitution Project, please visit our website at www.constitutionproject.org or e-mail us at [email protected]. Book design by Keane Design & Communications, Inc., keanedesign.com. Contents Preface Part I: Principles, Practices and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry Chapter 1 – Introduction: Updating the Study of Legislative Inquiry and Adapting it to the Changed Climate of Congressional Oversight ............................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 – The Institutional Framework of Congressional Oversight: Purposes, Powers, Limitations and Practicalities ................................................................................................... 5 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    00-Fisher-PWP3(i-xviii)_00-Fisher-PWP3 7/5/13 1:26 PM Page vii © University Press of Kansas. All rights reserved. Reproduction and distribution prohibited without permission of the Press. CONTENTS Preface xiii Note on Citations xix 1 The Constitutional Framework 1 The British Models 1 Opposing Monarchical Powers 3 Associated War Powers 6 Repelling Sudden Attacks 8 Separating Purse and Sword 11 Commander in Chief 12 Scholarly Analysis 14 2 Precedents from 1789 to 1900 17 Indian Wars 17 President as “Sole Organ” 20 The Whiskey Rebellion 22 Quasi-War with France 23 Neutrality Act Prosecutions 26 The “Little Sarah” Incident 31 Barbary Wars 32 The War of 1812 37 The Mexican War 38 Bombarding Greytown 44 The Civil War 47 Spanish-American War 51 3 America Steps Out: 1900–1945 55 Protecting Life and Property 56 President Wilson’s Forays 60 00-Fisher-PWP3(i-xviii)_00-Fisher-PWP3 7/5/13 1:26 PM Page viii © University Press of Kansas. All rights reserved. Reproduction and distribution prohibited without permission of the Press. viii CONTENTS Intervention in Nicaragua 63 World War I 65 The Curtiss-Wright Case 68 Legislative Constraints in the 1930s 72 World War II 74 4 The UN Charter and Korea 80 The League of Nations 80 Creating the UN Charter 83 The UN Participation Act 90 Vandenberg Resolution 94 The Korean War 95 Political Repercussions 99 5 Taking Stock: 1951–1964 104 Mutual Security Treaties 104 NATO’s Legislative History 106 The “Great Debate” in 1951 110 The Steel Seizure Case 114 Eisenhower’s Philosophy 116 Area Resolutions 117 Kennedy Reasserts Executive Power 124 6 Vietnam and the War Powers Resolution 127 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution 128 Was There a Second Attack? 131 Escalation of the War 132 Free World Forces 135 National Commitments Resolution of 1969 137 Disputes in the Courts 139 The War Powers Resolution 144 Analyzing the WPR 148 Efforts to Amend the WPR 150 00-Fisher-PWP3(i-xviii)_00-Fisher-PWP3 7/5/13 1:26 PM Page ix © University Press of Kansas.
    [Show full text]
  • State V. Crumpton: How the Washington State Supreme Court Improved Access to Justice in Post-Conviction DNA Testing
    Washington Law Review Volume 90 Number 3 10-1-2015 State v. Crumpton: How the Washington State Supreme Court Improved Access to Justice in Post-Conviction DNA Testing Jordan McCrite Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Jordan McCrite, Notes and Comments, State v. Crumpton: How the Washington State Supreme Court Improved Access to Justice in Post-Conviction DNA Testing, 90 Wash. L. Rev. 1395 (2015). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol90/iss3/8 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 11 - McCrite.docx (Do Not Delete) 10/23/2015 12:50 PM STATE V. CRUMPTON: HOW THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT IMPROVED ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING Jordan McCrite* Abstract: Post-conviction DNA testing is a valuable tool for ensuring innocent people are not wrongfully incarcerated. Society has strong interests in confirming that available, yet previously untested, DNA evidence matches the person convicted. Access to post-conviction DNA testing, however, has been limited to maintain finality and avoid an over-burdened court system. This Note examines post-conviction DNA testing in Washington State, particularly after the 2014 Washington State Supreme Court decision, State v. Crumpton. In Crumpton, a majority of the Court—over a strongly worded dissent—read a favorable presumption into Washington’s post-conviction DNA testing statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Summit on Mental Illness, Substance Abuse, and Criminal Justice Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:30 A.M
    Emergency Summit on Mental Illness, Substance Abuse, and Criminal Justice Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. OVERVIEW Please join the collaborative effort to bring together community members and relevant public and private professionals to address issues relating to mental illness, substance abuse, and the Oklahoma criminal justice system. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections indicates 72 percent of incarcerated females and 32 percent of incarcerated males in our state have mental health needs. Of those individuals with a mental illness, 57 percent were incarcerated for non-violent offenses. The Oklahoma County Jail, on any given day, may have as many as 500 persons with a mental illness in the jail population. A systematic approach must be developed to address criminal justice issues relating to appropriate non-violent offenders with a mental illness or substance abuse disorder. At this Summit, nationally known experts and Oklahoma leaders will present facts that will help us enhance and expand our work on evidence-based programs, practices, and policies for non-violent offenders who have substance abuse, mental illness, or co-occurring disorders. PURPOSE STATEMENT The Summit’s purpose is to engage communities in establishing alternatives to incarceration for persons with mental illness, substance abuse, and co-occurring disorders and to promote development of strategies for reintegrating these individuals into the community. LEARNING OBJECTIVES Develop an action plan to be distributed to the Legislature and relevant agencies that will serve as a vehicle for systems change. Describe target populations appropriate for alternatives to incarceration and reintegration programs. Review and expand upon work begun by the Governor’s and Attorney General’s Task Force on Mental Illness, Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing the Real World of Racial Injustice in the Criminal Justice System Donna Coker
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 93 Article 1 Issue 4 Summer Summer 2003 Foreword: Addressing the Real World of Racial Injustice in the Criminal Justice System Donna Coker Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Donna Coker, Foreword: Addressing the Real World of Racial Injustice in the Criminal Justice System, 93 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 827 (2002-2003) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/03/9304-0827 THEJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW& CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 93, No. 4 Copyright 0 2003 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. SUPREME COURT REVIEW FOREWORD: ADDRESSING THE REAL WORLD OF RACIAL INJUSTICE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DONNA COKER* Reading Supreme Court decisions in criminal cases often feels like falling down the rabbit hole:1 a bizarre adventure where nothing is what the Court says it is and circular reasoning passes for analysis. In the Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, "there is a tendency ... to pretend that the world we all know is not the world in which law enforcement operates."'2 This is a "raceless world... a constructed reality in which most police officers do not act on the basis of considerations of race, the facts underlying a search or seizure can be evaluated without examining the influence of race, and the applicable constitutional mandate is wholly unconcerned with race." 3 It is a world in which abuse of power by law * Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law.
    [Show full text]