DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States ______ NO. 08-6 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________________ DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND ADRIENNE BACHMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY Petitioners, v. WILLIAM G. OSBORNE, Respondent, ____________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ____________________ BRIEF OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT ____________________ STEVEN R. SHAPIRO WALTER DELLINGER AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES IRVING L. GORNSTEIN UNION FOUNDATION (Counsel of Record) 125 Broad Street SHANNON M. PAZUR New York, NY 10004 KATHRYN E. TARBERT (212) 549-2500 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 383-5300 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover JOHN W. WHITEHEAD BARBARA E. BERGMAN DOUGLAS R. MCKUSICK CO-CHAIR, NACDL AMICUS THE RUTHERFORD COMMITTEE INSTITUTE School of Law, P.O. Box 7482 MSC11-6070 Charlottesville, VA 22906 1 University of New (434) 978-3888 Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 Additional Counsel for Amici Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................. 4 I. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PRO- HIBITS THE CONTINUED DETEN- TION OF A PERSON WHO CONCLU- SIVELY ESTABLISHES HIS INNO- CENCE THROUGH A DNA TEST................ 4 A. A Person Convicted Of An Of- fense Has A Powerful Liberty In- terest In Securing His Release Based On New Evidence That Conclusively Establishes His In- nocence ................................................. 5 B. The Court Has Assumed That A Person Can State A Constitu- tional Claim Based On Actual Innocence ............................................. 7 C. When New DNA Conclusively Establishes A Person’s Inno- cence, His Continued Detention Violates Due Process ......................... 10 II. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ES- TABLISHES A RIGHT OF ACCESS TO DNA EVIDENCE TO PROVE AN AC- TUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM....................... 13 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page A. The Due Process Principles Un- derlying Brady Guarantee A Right Of Access To DNA Evi- dence................................................... 14 B. Petitioners’ Proposed Conditions On Access Are Impermissible............ 18 CONCLUSION........................................................ 21 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935).............................................. 11 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).......................................passim California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).......................................15, 16 Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1997)................................ 9 Cornell v. Nix, 119 F.3d 1329 (8th Cir. 1997).............................. 9 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998)............................................ 12 Davi v. Class, 609 N.W.2d 107 (S.D. 2000) .............................. 17 Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992).............................................. 12 Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66 (1967).............................................. 17 Harvey v. Horan, 285 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2002).......................passim Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)...................................... 7, 8, 9 Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975).......................................12, 18 House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006).............................................. 8 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).............................................. 5 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986).............................................. 7 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).......................................15, 17 Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976).............................................. 6 Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992).......................................12, 18 Panetti v. Quarterman, 127 S. Ct. 2842 (2007).......................................... 6 Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987).............................................. 20 Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)............................................ 12 Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).............................................. 8 Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960).............................................. 5 United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).........................................14, 15 United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002)............................................ 18 Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980).............................................. 6 Warney v. City of Rochester, 536 F. Supp. 2d 285 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) ............... 15 Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990).............................................. 6 STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 3600(g).................................................. 12 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) Page(s) OTHER AUTHORITIES Brandon L. Garrett, Claiming Innocence, 92 Minn. L. Rev. 1629 (2008).......................................................10, 11, 12 Innocence Project, Facts of Post- Conviction DNA Exonerations, at http://www.innocenceproject.org/ Content/351.php .....................................16, 17, 19 Seth F. Kreimer & David Rudovsky, Double Helix, Double Bind: Factual Innocence and Postconviction DNA Testing, 151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 547 (2002).......................................................11, 16, 19 BRIEF OF AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT The American Civil Liberties Union, Rutherford Institute, and National Association of Criminal De- fense Lawyers respectfully submit this brief as amici curiae in support of the respondent.1 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Amici have a substantial interest in the resolu- tion of the questions presented in this case. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide, nonprofit, non-partisan organization with more than 500,000 members dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality embodied in the Constitution. The ACLU has appeared before this Court in numerous cases involving the scope of the Constitution’s protection for persons convicted of criminal offenses. The Rutherford Institute is an international civil liberties and human rights organization headquar- tered in Charlottesville, Virginia. Founded in 1982 by its President, John W. Whitehead, the Institute specializes in providing legal representation without 1 Pursuant to Rule 37.6, counsel for amici curiae state that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person or entity other than amici curiae, its members, or its counsel has made a monetary contribution to the preparation or sub- mission of this brief. The parties have filed with the Clerk of the Court blanket letters of consent to briefs of amicus curiae. 2 charge to individuals whose civil liberties are threat- ened or violated. The Institute also strives to edu- cate the public about constitutional and human rights issues. During its 26-year history, attorneys affiliated with the Institute have represented nu- merous parties in state and federal courts, as well as before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Rutherford In- stitute has also filed amicus curiae briefs in cases concerning the criminal justice system and its effects on the rights of those accused with criminal offenses. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is a non-profit organization with direct national membership of more than 11,000 at- torneys, with an additional 28,000 affiliate members in every state. Founded in 1958, NACDL is the only professional bar association that represents public and private criminal defense lawyers at the national level. The American Bar Association recognizes NACDL as an affiliated organization with full repre- sentation in the ABA House of Delegates. NACDL’s mission is to ensure justice and due process for the accused; to foster the integrity, independence, and expertise of the criminal defense profession; and to promote the proper and fair administration of crimi- nal justice. In keeping with that stated mission, NACDL frequently files briefs before this Court in cases concerning the constitutional safeguards in the criminal justice system. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT If the Constitution’s protection of individual lib- erty means anything, it must mean that a state can- not continue to detain someone who conclusively proves through a DNA test that he is innocent of the 3 crime that is the basis for his incarceration. A jury’s determination of guilt rests on the evidence that was before it. That jury determination cannot, and does not, extinguish a person’s fundamental liberty inter- est in securing his release based on new evidence that conclusively proves his innocence. This Court has twice assumed that a person who can make an extraordinarily high showing of his ac- tual innocence states a constitutional claim. When a person can conclusively prove his innocence, that high threshold is satisfied. And whether or not other forms of evidence could satisfy that standard, mod- ern DNA evidence unquestionably can. When a person conclusively establishes his inno-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Promoting Accuracy and Fairness in the Use of Government Watch Lists
    STATEMENT ON PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS BY THE COALITION TO DEFEND CHECKS AND BALANCES AN INITIATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT The Constitution Project 1025 Vermont Avenue, NW Third Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-580-6920 (phone) 202-580-6929 (fax) [email protected] www.constitutionproject.org STATEMENT ON PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS BY THE COALITION TO DEFEND CHECKS AND BALANCES We are members of the Constitution Project’s Coalition to Defend Checks and Balances. We are former government officials and judges, scholars, and other Americans who are deeply concerned about the risk of permanent and unchecked presidential power, and the accompanying failure of Congress to exercise its responsibility as a separate and independent branch of government. We write to express our concerns about certain uses of presidential signing statements that we believe greatly increase this risk. We applaud Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter for calling a hearing to focus attention on an issue that goes to the very heart of our system of government. Presidential signing statements – formal expressions of the views of a President regarding legislation that he has just signed into law – are nearly as old as the Republic. There is nothing inherently troubling about them. The question is how they are used. Throughout history, signing statements have been used to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill, and express satisfaction or, on occasion, displeasure with legislation passed by Congress. More recently, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton have used signing statements as a tool to express constitutional and other objections to legislation, influence judicial interpretation, and otherwise advance policy goals.
    [Show full text]
  • MISCARRIAGES of JUSTICE ORIGINATING from DISCLOSURE DEFICIENCIES in CRIMINAL CASES A. Disclosure Failures As Ground for Retria
    CHAPTER FOUR MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE ORIGINATING FROM DISCLOSURE DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL CASES A. Disclosure Failures as Ground for Retrials: Common Law Standards and Examples This chapter will delve more deeply into one of the most fundamental causes of miscarriages of justice in (international) criminal cases, namely failure on the part of police and/or prosecution to timely, adequately and fairly disclose potentially exculpatory evidence to the judge, juries, and defense. The U.S. National Registry of Exonerations (NRE) which keeps count of exonerations in the U.S. from 1989 onwards, does not – in its offi- cial counting – include cases of group exonerations due to police and prosecutorial misconduct. In its June 2012-report the NRE counted 901 exonerations, the number has risen to 1,000 exonerations only five months later.1 The report discusses cases of at least 1,100 defendants who were exonerated in the so-called “group exonerations”. These exonerations were the consequence of the revelation of gross police misconduct in twelve cases since 1995 in which innocent defendants had been framed by police officers for mostly drug and gun crimes.2 Yet, most of the group exonera- tions were spotted accidently, as the cases are obscure and for some of the scandals the number of exonerees could only be estimated; these num- bers are not included in the 1,000 exonerations the registry counted on 30 October 2012.3 In many cases it will be hard to establish that police or prosecutorial misconduct did in fact occur; a conclusion that was also drawn by the NRE. This chapter will delve into cases where misconduct did come to light while analyzing the criminal law proceedings which led to these errors.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 17-249 John W. Whitehead Counsel
    No. 17-249 IN THE ___________ AMY YOUNG and JOHN SCOTT, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Andrew Lee Scott, deceased, and MIRANDA MAUCK, individually, Petitioners, v. GARY S. BORDERS, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lake County Florida, and RICHARD SYLVESTER, in his individual capacity, Respondents. ___________ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT __________ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS __________ John W. Whitehead Counsel of Record Douglas R. McKusick THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE 923 Gardens Boulevard Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 978-3888 [email protected] [email protected] Lantagne Legal Printing 801 East Main Street Suite 100 Richmond VA 23219 (800) 847-0477 1 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2(b), The Rutherford Institute respectfully moves for leave to file the attached brief as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioners. All parties were provided with time- ly notice of amicus’ intent to file as required by Rule 37.2(a). Counsel of record for the Petitioners grant- ed consent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Counsel of record for the Respondents denied con- sent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. The interest of amicus arises from its com- mitment to protecting the civil rights and liberties of all persons and defending advancing the laws and Constitution of the United States as a bulwark against abuses of government power.
    [Show full text]
  • Published United States Court of Appeals for The
    PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4173 MOHAMMAD SARIHIFARD, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-96-332) Argued: April 9, 1998 Decided: August 19, 1998 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAMBERS, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Chambers wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Wilkinson and Judge Michael joined. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Marvin David Miller, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel- lant. Gordon Dean Kromberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Alex- andria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ OPINION CHAMBERS, District Judge: I. FACTS Mohammad Sarihifard ("Petitioner") was convicted after a jury trial in the Eastern District of Virginia of perjury before a grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) and making false statements to a government agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The trial judge sentenced Petitioner to twenty-one months in prison pursuant to the federal sentencing guidelines. The charges against Petitioner initially stem from a conversation with federal agents where Petitioner provided the agents with inaccu- rate information. The federal agents were conducting an investigation into alleged money laundering and drug trafficking at Eagle Motors. Eagle Motors was a small used car dealership in Arlington, Virginia, owned by Ali Galadari ("Galadari"). Galadari was a target of the gov- ernment's investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Entitling the Accused to Exculpatory Evidence
    ENTITLING THE ACCUSED TO EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE: WHY PROSECUTORS SHOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE DURING PLEA BARGAINING Emily Clarke* INTRODUCTION Innocent until proven guilty1 is one of the most repeated phrases on crime television dramas and blockbuster thrillers.2 In reality, life is not so simple. While a criminal defendant is not assumed guilty at trial until a jury convicts him, what happens to this presumption for all of the cases that never reach trial? Over the last 50 years, defendants chose to proceed to a trial in less than three percent of state and federal criminal cases.3 The other 97 percent of cases were resolved through plea deals.4 Federal courts are currently split on the stage at which exculpatory evidence must be disclosed under the Brady doctrine.5 The Supreme Court has yet to give an answer as to whether a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to receive exculpatory evidence the prosecution possesses during the plea-bargaining stage or if they only get such evidence if the case reaches the trial stage. While the Supreme Court has yet to take up this question, the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Alvarez v. City of Brownsville6 has those in the legal field wondering if it is just a matter of time before we get an official answer. This contribution will first evaluate where courts around the country currently stand on when exculpatory evidence must be handed over. Next, this contribution will argue that based on the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, exculpatory evidence can and should be handed over to criminal defendants before plea bargains are accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • 14-720 Reply Brief
    NO. 14-720 In the Supreme Court of the United States JOHN DARIANO; DIANNA DARIANO, on behalf of their minor child, M.D.; KURT FAGERSTROM; JULIE ANN FAGERSTROM, on behalf of their minor child, D.M.; KENDALL JONES; JOY JONES, on behalf of their minor child, D.G., Petitioners, v. MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; NICK BODEN, in his official capacity as Principal, Live Oak High School; MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, in his individual and official capacity as Assistant Principal, Live Oak High School, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS ROBERT JOSEPH MUISE WILLIAM JOSEPH Counsel of Record BECKER, JR. American Freedom Law Center Freedom X P.O. Box 131098 11500 Olympic Blvd. Ann Arbor, MI 48113 Suite 400 (734) 635-3756 Los Angeles, CA 90064 [email protected] (310) 636-1018 ERIN MERSINO Affiliated Counsel with Thomas More Law Center The Rutherford Institute 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive Counsel for Petitioners P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (734) 827-2001 Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................... ii INTRODUCTION........................... 1 REVIEW OF RELEVANT FACTS .............. 3 ARGUMENT IN REPLY...................... 7 I. The Ninth Circuit Misapplied Tinker and Allowed a Heckler’s Veto to Silence Protected Student Speech .......................... 7 II. This Case Is the Ideal Vehicle for Deciding the Question Presented...................... 11 CONCLUSION ............................ 13 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ....................... 3 Bernhardt v. Cnty. of L.A., 279 F.3d 862 (9th Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Attorney Policy Memorandum Western District of Oklahoma • CR 14 œ
    United States Attorney Policy Memorandum Western District of Oklahoma CR 14 Date: October 15, 2010 Subject: Discovery Policies and Procedures In Criminal Prosecutions This memorandum describes the policy of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma relating to the identification, acquisition and disclosure of discovery material in criminal cases. In general this memorandum will discuss an Assistant United States Attorney’s (AUSA)1 disclosure obligations under federal rules, federal statutes, case law, local rules and policies of the Department of Justice. Additionally, this memorandum will discuss the relationship among AUSAs, agents, local law enforcement, federal agencies and any other agency/individual who may be considered a member of the “prosecution team.” This policy is intended to provide consistency in our discovery practice while at the same time provide flexibility and discretion to AUSAs in individual cases.2 AUSAs should remember that complete and early discovery is in the best interest of the government and the defendant. AUSAs are obligated to comply with the continuing duty to disclose discoverable material. This policy provides internal guidance to AUSAs in the Western District of Oklahoma3 and cannot be relied upon to create any substantive or procedural rights enforceable at law by any person in any administrative, civil or criminal matter. United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979). 1 As used in this policy, “AUSA” includes Special Assistant United States Attorneys and DOJ lawyers working on a case in this district. 2 This is an internal policy and is not for dissemination outside the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief for Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights
    No. 15-118 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, et al., Petitioners, v. JESUS MESA, JR., Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA, THE CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, AND THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- HOPE METCALF BRENT M. ROSENTHAL Counsel of Record ROSENTHAL WEINER LLP 127 Wall Street 12221 Merit Drive, Suite 1640 New Haven, CT 06511 Dallas, TX 75251 (203) 432-9404 (214) 871-6600 [email protected] [email protected] DIALA SHAMAS 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 725-1797 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Authorities ............................................. ii Interest of Amici Curiae ...................................... 1 Summary of Argument ........................................ 2 Argument ............................................................. 5 Conclusion ............................................................ 15
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______ROXANNE TORRES, Petitioner, V
    No. 19 -292 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ ROXANNE TORRES, Petitioner, v. JANICE MADRID AND RICHARD WILLIAMSON, Respondents. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ___________ BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ___________ JOHN W. WHITEHEAD JEFFREY T. GREEN* DOUGLAS R. MCKUSICK JOHN L. GIBBONS THE RUTHERFORD SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP INSTITUTE 1501 K Street NW 109 Deerwood Road Washington, DC 20005 Charlottesville, VA 22911 (202) 736-8000 (434) 978-3888 [email protected] BARBARA E. BERGMAN SARAH O’ROURKE SCHRUP NATIONAL ASSOCIATION NORTHWESTERN SUPREME OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE COURT PRACTICUM LAWYERS 375 East Chicago Avenue 1201 East Speedway Chicago, IL 60611 Boulevard (312) 503-0063 Tucson, AZ 85721 (520) 621-3984 Counsel for Amici Curiae February 7, 2020 * Counsel of Record ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ..................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................ 2 I. IF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY HERE, MS. TORRES WILL HAVE NO REMEDY AT ALL ..................... 2 II. THE DECISION BELOW CONTRADICTS THIS COURT’S JURISPRUDENCE ........... 9 III. THE TENTH CIRCUIT’S RULING EX- PANDS THE UNJUSTIFIABLY SIGNIFI- CANT DISPARITY THAT ALREADY EX- ISTS BETWEEN LIABILITY FOR CIVIL- IANS AND FOR POLICE OFFICERS ........ 12 CONCLUSION ........................................................ 17 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Adams v. Commonwealth, 534 S.E.2d 347 (Va. Ct. App. 2000) .................................... 14 Ashby v. White (1703) 92 Eng. Rep. 126; 2 Ld. Raym. 938 ........................................... 8 Baker v.
    [Show full text]
  • Precedential United States Court Of
    Case: 07-4465 Document: 003110560159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2011 PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 07-4465 JUSTIN LAYSHOCK, a minor, by and through his parents; DONALD LAYSHOCK; CHERYL LAYSHOCK, individually and on behalf of their son v. HERMITAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT KAREN IONTA, District Superintendent; ERIC W. TROSCH, Principal Hickory High School, CHRIS GILL, Co-Principal Hickory High School, all in their official and individual capacity Hermitage School District, Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Civ. No. 06-cv-00116) District Judge: Hon. Terrence F. McVerry Argued on December 10, 2008 Opinion Filed on February 4, 2010 1 Case: 07-4465 Document: 003110560159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2011 Opinion Vacated and Petition for Rehearing En Banc Granted on April 9, 2010 Rehearing En Banc Ordered for June 3, 2010 Argued En Banc on June 3, 2010 Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, GREENAWAY, VANASKIE and ROTH, Circuit Judges. (Opinion filed: June 13, 2011) ANTHONY G. SANCHEZ, ESQ. (Argued) CHRISTINA LANE, ESQ. Andrews & Price 1500 Ardmore Boulevard, Suite 506 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Attorneys for Appellant, Hermitage School District SEAN A. FIELDS, ESQ. Associate Counsel Pennsylvania School Boards Association 400 Bent Creek Boulevard P.O. Box 2042 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Pennsylvania School Board Association, filed in support of Appellant, Hermitage School District KIM M. WATTERSON, ESQ. 2 Case: 07-4465 Document: 003110560159 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2011 RICHARD T. TING, ESQ.
    [Show full text]
  • 12-1 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN Rev. 4/18/10 DISCOVERY This Chapter
    CHAPTER EIGHTEEN Rev. 4/18/10 DISCOVERY This chapter sets forth certain policies of our office regarding pretrial discovery in criminal cases and provides guidance in the disclosure of Jencks Act material and exculpatory evidence. It also discusses some special issues, for example, the office’s policy regarding the disclosure to prosecutors of potential impeachment information concerning law enforcement witnesses. By encouraging early disclosure of pretrial discovery, the office’s discovery policies are consistent with Department policies, as found in USAM 9-5.001 (Policy Regarding Disclosure of Exculpatory and Impeaching Information)(Exhibit 18-1) and in the January 4, 2010 Guidance for Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden (“the DAG Guidance”)(Exhibit 18-2). Our office policies, and the Department policies, require disclosure that is broader in scope and earlier in time than that required by the federal and local rules, the Jencks Act (18 U.S.C. §3500), and due process. In certain instances, however, early disclosure of pretrial discovery is not advisable and therefore should not be provided. This chapter recognizes the necessary limitations on early disclosure of pretrial discovery and should help you to identify when early disclosure is, and is not, appropriate. The Local Rules Concerning Criminal Cases for this district are located in the Massachusetts Rules of Court: Federal (West), which you have received. You should also be familiar with the October 28, 1998 Report of the Judicial Members of the Committee Established to Review and Recommend Revisions to the Local Rules (Exhibit 18-3), which was released in conjunction with the December 1, 1998 amendments to the local rules, and the various timetables that were also prepared at that time.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence Destroyed, Innocence Lost: the Preservation of Biological Evidence Under Innocence Protection Statutes
    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 2005 Evidence Destroyed, Innocence Lost: The Preservation of Biological Evidence under Innocence Protection Statutes Cynthia Jones American University Washington College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Evidence Commons, and the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Cynthia, "Evidence Destroyed, Innocence Lost: The Preservation of Biological Evidence under Innocence Protection Statutes" (2005). Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals. 1636. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/1636 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Scholarship & Research at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVIDENCE DESTROYED, INNOCENCE LOST: THE PRESERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE UNDER INNOCENCE PROTECTION STATUTES Cynthia E. Jones* In 1997, Texas governor George W. Bush issued a pardon to Kevin Byrd, a man convicted of sexually assaulting a pregnant woman while her two-year old daughter lay asleep beside her.' As part of the original criminal investigation, a medical examination was performed on the victim and bodily fluids from the rapist were collected for forensic analysis in a "rape kit." At the time of Mr. Byrd's trial in 1985, DNA technology was not yet available for forensic analysis of biological evidence.2 In 1997, however, a comparison of Mr.
    [Show full text]