DOCSLIB.ORG

1600 Exonerations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1600 Exonerations THE FIRST 1,600 EXONERATIONS 1. Background The National Registry of Exonerations is a project of the University of Michigan Law School. It was launched in May 2012. At that time the Registry listed 891 cases. Three years later, the Registry includes more than 1,600 exonerations, an increase of more than 700, or about 80%. The Registry changes constantly. We add exonerations every week. We have removed a few cases after learning that they do not in fact meet our criteria. And we constantly update summaries of cases that are already listed to add missing data and correct errors, based on our own research and on information from others. We also prepare periodic reports on the cases in the Registry. Given the nature of our work, each such report is a snapshot of the data on a particular date. For current information on any case and to view the most recent cases, patterns and summaries, please consult the Registry website. The first was released when the Registry was launched in May 2012: Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2012 (the Exoneration Report). It describes the 873 exonerations that we had identified and coded by March 1, 2012. That report also includes a description of 12 “group exonerations” – sets of cases in which corrupt police officers systematically framed innocent defendants for non-existent crimes, mostly possession of illegal drugs or guns. Those group exonerations included at least 1,100 additional exonerated criminal defendants who are not listed in the Registry itself. This is our fourth report summarizing all of the cases in the Registry at a particular point in time. In April 2013 we released a 2012 Update that described the status of the Registry as of the end of 2012; in February 2014 we released Exonerations in 2013 which included a description of the status of the Registry as of the end of 2013.1 This report fills the same function for the first 1,600 exonerations in the Registry, those posted as of May 18, 2015. We plan to continue to issue these reports in years to come. 1 In January 2015 we released a report entitled Exonerations in 2014, but it was limited to a description of known exonerations that occurred in calendar year 2014. NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONS UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48109 2. The First 1,600 Exonerations in the Registry A. Who's Been Exonerated, and by What Process Of the 1,600 individual exonerations from January 1989 through May 18, 2015: • 91% were men (1,461/1,600) and 9% were women (147/1,600).2 • By race: o 47% were black (750/1,600), o 40% were white (641/1,600), o 11% were Hispanic (181/1,600), and o 2% were Native American, Asian or Other (28/1,600). • 13% pled guilty (209/1,600) and the rest were convicted at trial, 79% by juries (1,262/1,600) and 7% by judges (114/1,600). In 1% (15/1,600), we don’t know whether the trial conviction was by a jury or judge. • 25% were cleared at least in part with the help of DNA evidence (398/1,600). • 75% were cleared without DNA evidence (1,202/1,600). • Almost all had been in prison for years; most for more than 7 years. • As a group, the defendants have spent more than 14,750 years in prison for crimes for which they should not have been convicted – an average of 9 years and 3 months each.3 As a procedural matter, these exonerations occurred in several ways. (Some defendants were exonerated more than once, in different ways – for example by a dismissal in 1998, followed by a pardon in 2003.): Pardons: In 112 cases, governors (or in some states, other government officers or bodies) issued pardons based on evidence of the defendants’ innocence, including 43 cases of defendants whose charges had previously been dismissed, and three who had been acquitted on retrial by a jury or a judge.4 Dismissals: In 1,240 cases, criminal charges were dismissed by courts, generally on motion by the prosecution, after new evidence of innocence emerged (this is not counting dismissals in which the defendant was later pardoned or received a certificate of innocence). 2 Because of this lopsided distribution, we generally refer to exonerated defendants using male pronouns. 3 This is a conservative estimate of the direct consequences of these wrongful convictions. We have not counted time spent in custody before conviction. Nor have we included time spent on probation or parole, or time on bail or other forms of supervised release pending trial, retrial, or dismissal, even though all of these conditions involve restrictions on liberty – some mild, some onerous. 4 Under the Texas Wrongful Imprisonment Act (the “Tim Cole Act”), for example, an exonerated defendant may need a pardon even after a dismissal or an acquittal in order to be eligible for compensation for wrongful incarceration. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 103.001 (2011). P AGE | 2 NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONS UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48109 Acquittals: In 201 cases, the defendants whose convictions were vacated on review were acquitted on retrial on the basis of newly presented evidence of innocence, mostly by juries (181 cases), occasionally by judges (20 cases). Certificates of Innocence: In a small but growing number of cases – 49 to date – courts have issued “certificates of innocence,” “declarations of wrongful imprisonment,” or similar judgments of innocence.5 (In one case, the defendant also received an executive pardon.) Posthumous Exonerations: Thirteen defendants received posthumous exonerations; three of them also received judicial declarations of innocence, and one of those three received an executive pardon as well. Overall, 32% of known exonerations in the United States since 1989 included cooperation by police or prosecutors or both (515/1,600). As we have mentioned in previous reports, the number and proportion of such cases appears to be increasing over time.6 B. Exonerations by Crime The great majority of known exonerations in the first 1,600 exonerations are homicide cases— 44% (708/1,600)—and sexual assault cases—28% (449/1,600) (including both child sex abuse and adult sexual assaults). But the proportion of exonerations in cases that do not involve homicide, rape or child sex abuse continues to climb as we learn about more exonerations. It was 4% in the most comprehensive national report on exonerations published before the advent of the Registry,7 in 2005; 17% in the Exoneration Report; and 28% in this report. See Table 1 for a complete breakdown of exonerations by crime. 5 See, e.g., 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/2-702 (2012) (detailing Illinois’s procedure for filing a petition for a certificate of innocence). 6 The numbers of exonerations by year and official cooperation are tabulated below: Exonerations with Prosecutor or Police Cooperation (PPC) Over Time ‘89 ‘90 ‘91 ‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 '13 ‘14 '15 TOTAL PPC cases 8 7 8 10 8 7 11 9 7 7 7 20 20 21 17 15 18 19 22 26 25 21 14 52 36 68 33 516 All Cases 22 27 38 35 34 31 36 46 46 33 50 73 86 57 77 57 60 63 70 63 89 71 70 92 91 128 55 1,600 % PPC 36% 26% 21% 29% 24% 23% 31% 20% 15% 21% 14% 27% 23% 37% 22% 26% 30% 30% 31% 41% 28% 30% 20% 57% 40% 53% 60% 32% 7 Samuel R. Gross et al., Exonerations in the United States, 1989 Through 2003, 95 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 523 at 529 Table 1 (2005). P AGE | 3 NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONS UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48109 Table 1: Exonerations by Crime, 1989 – 2015 CRIME Homicide 44% (709) Murder 42% (675) Death sentences 7% (111) Other murder convictions 35% (564) Manslaughter 2% (34) Sexual Assaults 28% (449) Sexual assault on an adult 17% (272) Child sex abuse 11% (177) Other Crimes of Violence 13% (214) Robbery 6% (92) Attempted murder 2% (32) Assault 3% (51) Arson 0.8% (13) Kidnapping 0.6% (10) Child & Dependent Adult Abuse 0.4% (7) Other Violent Felonies 0.6% (9) Non-Violent Crimes 14% (228) Drug crimes 8% (126) Tax/Fraud/Bribery & Corruption 2% (27) Gun Possession 0.6% (10) Theft/Stolen Property 0.7% (11) Solicitation/Conspiracy 0.8% (13) Sex Offender Registration 0.4% (7) Burglary/Unlawful Entry 0.5% (8) Immigration 0.3% (4) Miscellaneous 0.1% (22) TOTAL 100% (1,600) P AGE | 4 NATIONAL REGISTRY OF EXONERATIONS UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48109 C. Exonerations over Time There was a rapid increase in the annual total of known exonerations at the beginning of the period we cover, from 22 in 1989 to 73 in 2000. After that we see an uneven plateau through 2011, with annual totals from 57 through 86, followed by three record high years since 2012, including a sharp spike up to 128 in 2014. Since 1989, known exonerations have averaged 61 a year. From 2000 through 2014 the annual total has averaged 76. Since 2005, the number of DNA exonerations has been essentially flat, averaging 22 a year, while the number of non-DNA exonerations has nearly tripled and averages 58 a year. Overall, the proportion of exonerations based on DNA has dropped from 37% of those known on March 1, 2012 to 25% of the 1,600 exonerations in the Registry.8 See Figure 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings Daniel S
    MEDWED_TRANSMITTED.DOC2 2/26/2008 1:51 PM The Innocent Prisoner’s Dilemma: Consequences of Failing to Admit Guilt at Parole Hearings Daniel S. Medwed∗ INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 493 I. THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PAROLE ................................................ 497 A. HISTORICAL ORIGINS AND PURPOSES OF PAROLE ................................ 497 B. PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING: CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS AND POLICIES .................................................................................... 504 II. THE EFFECT OF PAROLE RELEASE DECISION-MAKING NORMS ON THE INNOCENT ............................................................................................... 513 A. PAROLE: AN INNOCENCE OPTION OF LAST RESORT ............................. 518 B. PRESSURE ON INNOCENT INMATES TO “ADMIT” GUILT ........................ 523 III. ADMISSIONS OF GUILT AND THE PAROLE RELEASE DECISION RECONSIDERED ....................................................................................... 529 A. THE DANGER OF ASSUMING THE LITIGATION PROCESS ACCURATELY FILTERS THE GUILTY FROM THE INNOCENT ......................................... 530 B. POTHOLES ON THE PATH TO REDEMPTION THROUGH THE PAROLE PROCESS ........................................................................................... 532 IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM .................................................................... 541 A. LIMITATIONS ON THE SUBSEQUENT USE OF STATEMENTS FROM PAROLE HEARINGS ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation Chart by State
    Updated 5/21/18 NQ COMPENSATION STATUTES: A NATIONAL OVERVIEW STATE STATUTE WHEN ELIGIBILITY STANDARD WHO TIME LIMITS MAXIMUM AWARDS OTHER FUTURE CONTRIBUTORY PASSED OF PROOF DECIDES FOR FILING AWARDS CIVIL PROVISIONS LITIGATION AL Ala.Code 1975 § 29-2- 2001 Conviction vacated Not specified State Division of 2 years after Minimum of $50,000 for Not specified Not specified A new felony 150, et seq. or reversed and the Risk Management exoneration or each year of incarceration, conviction will end a charges dismissed and the dismissal Committee on claimant’s right to on grounds Committee on Compensation for compensation consistent with Compensation Wrongful Incarceration can innocence for Wrongful recommend discretionary Incarceration amount in addition to base, but legislature must appropriate any funds CA Cal Penal Code §§ Amended 2000; Pardon for Not specified California Victim 2 years after $140 per day of The Department Not specified Requires the board to 4900 to 4906; § 2006; 2009; innocence or being Compensation judgment of incarceration of Corrections deny a claim if the 2013; 2015; “innocent”; and Government acquittal or and Rehabilitation board finds by a 2017 declaration of Claims Board discharge given, shall assist a preponderance of the factual innocence makes a or after pardon person who is evidence that a claimant recommendation granted, after exonerated as to a pled guilty with the to the legislature release from conviction for specific intent to imprisonment, which he or she is protect another from from release serving a state prosecution for the from custody prison sentence at underlying conviction the time of for which the claimant exoneration with is seeking transitional compensation.
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation for Wrongful Conviction, Wrongful Incarceration, and Exoneration
    68-West–Statehouse, 300 SW 10th Ave. Topeka, Kansas 66612-1504 (785) 296-3181 ◆ FAX (785) 296-3824 [email protected] http://www.kslegislature.org/klrd December 27, 2017 COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION, WRONGFUL INCARCERATION, AND EXONERATION Exoneration Overview The National Registry of Exonerations1 (Registry) maintains the country’s largest database of exonerations. According to the Registry, 2,141 persons have been exonerated nationwide since 1989. For purposes of the Registry, a person is considered to have been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and later was either: (1) declared to be factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official or body with the authority to take that action. The official action may be: (i) a complete pardon by a governor or other competent authority, whether or not the pardon is designated as based on innocence; (ii) an acquittal of all charges factually related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted; or (iii) a dismissal of all charges related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted, by a court or by a prosecutor with the authority to enter that dismissal. The pardon, acquittal, or dismissal must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence that either (i) was not presented at the trial at which the person was convicted; or (ii) if the person pled guilty, was not known to the defendant and the defense attorney, and to the court, at the time the plea was entered.
    [Show full text]
  • Exoneration in Sweden
    This article from Erasmus Law Review is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker Exoneration in Sweden Is It Not about Time to Reform the Swedish Model? Dennis Martinsson* Abstract receives information concerning the case from the pros- ecutor. Other signs of the respect for the rule of law are This article reviews exoneration in Sweden, with a focus on that the prosecutor should indict a person only if there the procedure of applying for exoneration. First, it highlights are sufficient reasons to believe that he or she commit- some core features of Swedish criminal procedural law, nec- ted the crime and if the assessment is that an indictment essary to understand exoneration in the Swedish context. will result in a guilty verdict. Further, the prosecutor Secondly, it outlines the possibilities in Swedish law to apply has the burden of proof and a conviction requires that for exoneration, both in favour of a convicted person and to the evidence prove beyond reasonable doubt that the the disadvantage of a previously acquitted defendant. defendant committed the crime. Another feature is that Thirdly, it identifies some challenges with the current Swed- Swedish law offers rather extensive possibilities for a ish model of administering applications for exoneration. defendant who has been convicted by a district court to Fourthly, it argues that the current system should be appeal against the judgment.3 Thus, Sweden’s several reformed by introducing into Swedish law a review commit- legal safeguards ensure that criminal law cases are trea- tee that administers applications for exoneration.
    [Show full text]
  • 15A0021n.06 No. 13-3882 UNITED STATES COURT OF
    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0021n.06 No. 13-3882 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE DONTE BOOKER ) NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ) OHIO Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) Before: MCKEAGUE and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.* KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Cleveland police officers and an ATF agent tricked Donte Booker into attempting to possess cocaine with the intent to sell it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Booker appeals his conviction, arguing that the government entrapped him as a matter of law. Booker also argues that the district court should have allowed the jury to hear evidence about his wrongful conviction for an unrelated rape. We affirm. I. Booker served 17 years in prison for a 1987 rape he did not commit. After his release, a DNA test proved his innocence and the convictions were vacated. Ohio later paid Booker $618,000 to settle his wrongful-conviction lawsuit. * The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. United States v. Booker No. 13-3882 The sting operation at issue here took place several years later. In October 2012 an informant, Daisetta Harris, told Cleveland Detective Todd Clark that Booker had asked her to help him rob drugs and money from stash houses. Detective Clark set up a sting operation to catch Booker. At Detective Clark’s behest, Harris told Booker that she knew two people who might be willing to help with a robbery: a woman named Angelique, and Angelique’s drug- courier boyfriend, Andre.
    [Show full text]
  • Unraveling Unlawful Entrapment Anthony M
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 94 Article 1 Issue 4 Summer Summer 2004 Unraveling Unlawful Entrapment Anthony M. Dillof 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 Anthony M. Dillof, Unraveling Unlawful Entrapment, 94 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 827 (2003-2004) This Criminal Law 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. 009 1-4169/04/9404-0827 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW& CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 94, No. 4 Copyright ©2004 by Northwesten University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. UNRAVELING UNLAWFUL ENTRAPMENT ANTHONY M. DILLOF* I. INTRODUCTION Entrapment is as old as a pleasant garden, a forbidden fruit, and a subtle snake. "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat," pleaded Eve in response to an accusing Lord God.' Early English cases report instances of citizens being lured into crime so they might be apprehended. 2 Nineteenth century American cases similarly record examples of persons tempted to illegality for the purpose of subjecting them to criminal sanctions. Entrapment as a social phenomenon has long been with us. .Associate Professor of Law, Wayne State University Law School. A.B., Harvard University; J.D., Columbia University School of Law; LL.M., Columbia University School of Law. I thank Anthony Duff, Stuart Green, and Peter Henning, whose insightful comments and critiques should in no way be construed as endorsements.
    [Show full text]
  • Entrapment and Terrorism Dru Stevenson
    Boston College Law Review Volume 49 Article 3 Issue 1 Number 1 1-1-2008 Entrapment and Terrorism Dru Stevenson Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Dru Stevenson, Entrapment and Terrorism, 49 B.C.L. Rev. 125 (2008), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol49/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ENTRAPMENT AND TERRORISM DRU STEVENSON * Abstract: Antiterrorism is a national priority and undercover sting opera- dons are a main antiterrorism tool. As our legal system's primary device for regulating undercover stings, the scope and vigor of the entrapment defense will impact the effectiveness of antiterrorism stings. The federal courts follOw the subjective test of entrapment, focusing on whether the • defendant was predisposed to commit the crime, or if rather the govern- ment induced the defendant to breach a legal norm. This Article argues that given the difficulty of preventing terrorist acts and the civil liberties implications of intrusive surveillance—the alternative to stings—there should be a rebuttable presumption that anyone who provides material support to terrorism was predisposed to do so. This Article argues that terrorism is such a heinous crime that it is unlikely the government could induce someone to support such criminals unless the person was one of the few predisposed to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Most Controversial Exoneration Death Penalty Law Case
    Most Controversial Exoneration Death Penalty Law Case Konstantin inculpated his protists peens essentially, but conglobate Wilmer never dueling so wanly. Dicephalous Roth mute: he moisturize his wagon-lits surlily and doltishly. Phylloid and tarsal Rodd loathes her messuages impanelled or licences synchronously. Sattazahn decision by accident that it to keep it is most death In Singapore which has by nature the highest rate of execution per capita of any. In 1960 his death case was commuted to life imprisonment Truscott was the youngest person maybe be sentenced to constant in Canada and show case provided. Many would say the domestic penalty is reasonable because it scares people away for doing things that are illegal however many others say there usually a potential of executing an office man one says justice retribution and punishment the tablet side says that execution is murder. Ginia law imposed the death penalty remains a third stealing offense6 Specifically a first. Methods of Execution and Their Effect on the ant of favor Death. For most controversial choice for crimes deserve death are most controversial exoneration death penalty law case for their investigation. Read more simply these historic racial discrimination court cases and learn. 135 exonerations in the Modern Era from specific row Florida has had 22. Death came Just Facts. Dna profiles from the effort to group two defendants before used disproportionately applied the most controversial death penalty case law, or raping children. Court denied a hero-minute stay of execution11 Davis's death inside a seminal. A lawyer defends a black stairs against an undeserved rape charge.
    [Show full text]
  • Study of Victim Experiences of Wrongful Conviction
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Study of Victim Experiences of Wrongful Conviction Author(s): Seri Irazola, Ph.D., Erin Williamson, Julie Stricker, Emily Niedzwiecki Document No.: 244084 Date Received: November 2013 Award Number: GS-23F-8182H This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant report available electronically. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Final Report Study of Victim Experiences of Wrongful Conviction Contract No. GS-23F-8182H September, 2013 Submitted to: National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Submitted by: ICF Incorporated 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22031 Final Report Study of Victim Experiences of Wrongful Conviction Contract No. GS-23F-8182H September, 2013 Submitted to: National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Submitted by: ICF Incorporated 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22031 Study of Victim Experiences of Wrongful Conviction Study of Victim Experiences of Wrongful Conviction Seri Irazola, Ph.D. Erin Williamson Julie Stricker Emily Niedzwiecki ICF International 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22031-1207 This project was supported by Contract No. GS-23F-8182H, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\Cleland\JUDGE's DESK\C1 ORDERS\05-20002.THEUNICK.Orderreentrapmentinstruction.Wpd
    2:05-cr-20002-RHC-VMM Doc # 164 Filed 08/27/07 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 1118 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 05-CR-20002 GARY THEUNICK, FREDERICK MACKINNON and MAXWELL GARNETT, Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING ENTRAPMENT INSTRUCTION Defendant Maxwell Garnett proffers that the jury be instructed on the defense of entrapment by estoppel. This defense, according to every circuit in which it has been recognized, is an affirmative defense and requires a factual basis.1 1 United States v. Rector, 111 F.3d 503, 506-07 (7th Cir. 1997) (overruled on other grounds) (citations omitted) (stating that entrapment by estoppel is an affirmative defense that requires “the one misleading the defendant be an official of the state; that he actively mislead the defendant; and that the defendant's reliance be actual and reasonable in light of the identity of the agent, the point of law represented, and the substance of the misrepresentation”; additionally, defendant's reliance must be in good faith); United States v. Aquino-Chacon, 109 F.3d 936, 938 (4th Cir. 1997) (“A criminal defendant may assert an entrapment-by-estoppel defense when the government affirmatively assures him that certain conduct is lawful, the defendant thereafter engages in the conduct in reasonable reliance on those assurances, and a criminal prosecution based upon the conduct ensues.” A defendant “must demonstrate” each of these elements); United States v. Trevino- Martinez, 86 F.3d 65, 69 (5th Cir. 1996) (A “criminal defendant may be entitled to raise a defense of entrapment by estoppel only when a government official or agent actively assures a defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably relies on that advice and continues or initiates the conduct.” A criminal defendant “must establish” these elements) (internal quotations omitted); United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Petition for Exoneration, 2. Discovery 3. Discovery 4. Public Integrity Commission 5. Compensation for the Wrongfully Convicted
    1. Petition for exoneration, 2. Discovery 3. Discovery 4. Public integrity Commission 5. Compensation for the wrongfully convicted 1. PETITION FOR EXONERATION : A. When a person or non-living person who is or has been incarcerated in a Nevada State Prison, who has continually maintained his or hers innocence throughout his or her criminal and civil court proceedings, Or claims he or she were coerced into making a false confession, the person or non-living relative(s) may file for a Petition if one or more of 1-6 of the following exists; 1. The person, the non-living person or the non-living person’s his or her relative(s) becomes aware of the newly discovered evidence and is, was, or in the non-living person’s possession of that evidence. The person, the non-living person who has filed with the Court(s) and the Courts did not fully address each and every ground that was raised in his or her petition(s) for relief, and or are barred by the Statute of limitations. 2. There is newly discovered evidence that can be presented that shows, that there were Brady violations by any member of the District Attorney, Public Defender, Private attorney, law enforcement agency and or are barred by the Statute of Limitations. 3. The person or the non-living person’s relative(s) can show evidence that based on perjured testimony by any member of the District Attorney, Public Defender, private attorney, law enforcement agency, prosecution’s witness resulted in he or she being convicted and his or her conviction being upheld and or are barred by the Statute of Limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • Timothy Cole Exoneration Review Commission
    Staff: David Slayton, Administrative Director, Timothy Cole passed Office of Court Administration away in 1999 while he [email protected] was serving a 25-year Wesley Shackelford, Deputy Director, sentence for a crime he Texas Indigent Defense Commission did not commit. Nearly [email protected] 10 years after his death Alejandra Peña, Research Specialist, TCERC, Office of Court Administration Timothy Cole he was posthumously [email protected] exonerated through DNA evidence making it Terri Peirce, Judicial Information Data Analyst, Exoneration TCERC, Office of Court Administration the first posthumously [email protected] DNA exoneration in Review Texas history. Commission Office of Court Administration 205 W. 14th St., Suite 600 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 463-1625 www.txcourts.gov Commission Members: Presiding Officer – Representative John T. Smithee, District 86, Amarillo The Honorable Sharon Keller, Chair, Texas Indigent Defense Commission Senator Joan Huffman, District 17 Houston Senator John Whitmire, District 15 Houston Representative Abel Herrero, District 34, Corpus Christi John Beauchamp, General Counsel, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Sam Bassett, President, Texas Criminal Defense House Author: Senate Sponsor: Senator Lawyers Association Representative Ruth Jones Rodney Ellis, et al. Dr. Vincent Di Maio, Presiding Officer, Texas McClendon, et al. Forensic Science Commission Charles Eskridge, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Houston J. Staley Heatly, Chairman, Texas District and County Attorneys Association Carol Vance, Retired, Houston House Bill 48 The TCERC is a study commission charged with the following: The Timothy Cole Exoneration To review cases in the State of Texas in Review Commission (TCERC) was which an innocent defendant was convicted created by House Bill 48 which of a crime and then, on or after January 1, th passed by the 84 Texas 2010, was exonerated.
    [Show full text]