DOCSLIB.ORG

Brady to Morton: Rediscovering Discovery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brady to Morton: Rediscovering Discovery FUNDED BY A GRANT FROM THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TEXAS MUNICIPAL COURTS EDUCATION CENTER 2210 HANCOCK DRIVE, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78756 TELEPHONE 512.320.8274 1.800.252.3718 FAX 512.435.6118 Brady to Morton: Rediscovering Discovery Presented by David Newell, Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals It is essential that criminal law practitioners know the elements of Brady v. Maryland and the duties it imposes on prosecutors and judges, as well as the remedies for violations. In Texas, it is also essential to know the elements of Article 39.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the duties it imposes on prosecutors, judges, and criminal defense lawyers. Recent changes to Article 39.14, made by the Michael Morton Act, further add to what practitioners must know. Questions remain. What are the requirements for requesting disclosure of materials in possession of the prosecution? What kinds of evidence are subject to Article 39.14? What requirements does the Michael Morton Act impose on prosecutors who receive Article 39.14 disclosure requests and on trial judges to supervise discovery? What limits, if any, are there to a prosecutor’s obligation to disclose once a request has been made? By the end of the session, participants will be able to: 1. Describe the procedures for requests made by pro se defendants, the role of the trial judge in handling these requests, and the ways in which such requests differ from those made by defendants represented by counsel. 2. Explain how the requirements of Brady v. Maryland and due process compare with those of Article 39.14; and 3. Identify ways in which discovery requirements and processes involve professional responsibility. TMCEC IS A PROJECT OF THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL COURTS ASSOCIATION IN THE WAKE OF MICHAEL MORTON Civil vs. Criminal Discovery vs. Civil vs. Criminal Discovery Civil discovery “wide open” Parties in possession of “complete” information more likely to settle Criminal discovery Until recently – no general right to discovery Facilitate evidence manipulation? Give a defendant unfair advantage? 1 Criminal Discovery Procedures and tools not designed for discovery Open Records requests Bail reduction and habeas corpus hearings Examining trials Motions to suppress Limit was “due process” Nevertheless – “open file policy” Brady – Due Process Limits In 1963 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Brady v. Maryland, holding that: “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused…violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83, 87 (1963) Brady – What was that case about? Brady and Boblit were tried and convicted of capital murder Brady claimed Boblit did the actual killing Prosecution did not disclose a statement by Boblit Found out after conviction Society wins not only when guilty are convicted but also when criminal trials are fair 2 What does “Brady” mean? 1. Brady applies to “exculpatory,” “material” information in possession of the government 2. The prosecution has a duty to find this information 3. The prosecution has a duty to disclose this information to the accused, whether requested or not OK, but what does “exculpatory” mean? Brady material includes more than just information that would prove the defendant not guilty It includes favorable information Talking about impeachment? Giglio convicted of passing forged money orders Co-Conspirator testified against Giglio During appeal – discovered deal between prosecutors and co-conspirator co-conspirator never indicted Brady includes impeachment evidence – Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 3 OK, but what does “exculpatory” mean? Brady material includes more than just information that would prove the defendant not guilty It includes favorable information “Favorable” information includes impeachment evidence that tends to bring into question the credibility or reliability of a witness for the state How is “exculpatory” different than “favorable?” Exculpatory information is information of any type that tends to reduce the likelihood of guilt or bears favorably on culpability or some other component of punishment; in other words – information that tends to show the defendant didn’t do it or that punishment should be mitigated Is “favorable” limited to what’s favorable at trial? Favorable information may relate to both pretrial matters and trial matters For example, information related to the circumstances surrounding an out-of- court identification process would be relevant to determining the admissibility of the identification testimony for trial purposes – so the information would need to be disclosed prior to the suppression hearing. 4 Ex parte Palmberg, 491 S.W.3d 804 Fact that presumptive test used all the drugs isn’t a crucial fact Defendant who takes a plea, does so with a roll of the dice Must be affirmative evidence that defendant didn’t commit the crime What does “Brady” mean? 1. Brady applies to “exculpatory,” “material” information in possession of the government 2. The prosecution has a duty to find this information 3. The prosecution has a duty to disclose this information to the accused, whether requested or not Only “material” information is covered by Brady “Evidence is ‘material’ … only where there exists a ‘reasonable probability’ that had the evidence been disclosed the result at trial would have been different.” 5 How did we get “material”? Feds prosecute Bagley for drugs and guns Bagley asks about deals between the Govt. and the witnesses Borrowed the prejudice standard from ineffective assistance - U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) See Ex parte Pena, 2017 WL 8639778 … and it must be admissible Not only must the evidence be favorable to the accused and material to the case, the undisclosed evidence must also be of the type that would have been admissible at trial. Make the argument after the fact What does “Brady” mean? 1. Brady applies to “exculpatory,” “material” information in possession of the government 2. The prosecution has a duty to find this information 3. The prosecution has a duty to disclose this information to the accused, whether requested or not 6 Government possession? State gives copy of videotape of traffic stop to defendant Original has audio of defendant’s conversation in back of patrol car Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) What does “Brady” mean? 1. Brady applies to “exculpatory,” “material” information in possession of the government 2. The prosecution has a duty to find this information 3. The prosecution has a duty to disclose this information to the accused, whether requested or not OK, I see what Brady material is, but what’s this “duty to find?” Brady is not limited to favorable, material evidence in the physical possession of the prosecutor Possession of this evidence by the police counts as possession for purposes of Brady, even if the police do not disclose the Brady material to the prosecutor. 7 Um . What? Kyles was convicted of first-degree murder and sentence to death Prosecution claimed no exculpatory evidence Police didn’t tell the prosecutors about exculpatory statements Imputing knowledge forces disclosure – Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) It’s not just what’s in the files! Brady information is still Brady information even though the police don’t write it down For example, a witness tells the investigating officer she can’t identify the suspect So what’s the worst that can happen if Brady is violated? A conviction can be set aside on due process grounds Disciplinary action by the Bar State officials can be held liable for money damages ○ An individual state actor could be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for depriving a person of a right, privilege, or immunity guaranteed by the Constitution ○ A government entity (e.g., the city) could be held liable, too, if it directs the misconduct or has a policy or custom that allowed the violation ○ But see Hillman v. Nueces Co., 2019 WL 1231341 8 Risk management [i.e., how to make sure you’re following the law if you’re “the State”] Train all prosecutors and law enforcement officers to recognize and disclose Brady material Develop and review policies that ensure this material is known and disclosed, then enforce them Supervise, check, double-check at all levels Take it seriously because it’s serious So how do I know it’s Brady? When it doubt, turn it over test Spit-take test Brady paradox test Do you understand how many cases we handle? Not really But many of your cases escape review Def. can waive duty to disclose impeachment evidence as part of a plea bargain – U.S. v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) 9 Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 39.14 – A disclaimer Primarily a run through the statute with you Not really any more than one case from CCA interpreting this new version of the statute A lot of the lower court cases interpreting it are not binding because they are unpublished Article 39.14 Art. 39.14 is the general discovery statute in Texas criminal procedure It applies to all courts and state agencies, including fine-only courts The discretionary “good-cause” standard has been replaced to require disclosure by the State of covered material and information Does this mean there is now a mandatory “open-file” policy for prosecutors? Watkins v. State - pending 10 Article 39.14 Broad strokes No longer court centric Sets up two “tracks” – one for represented defendants and one for pro se defendants State must turn over “inculpatory” evidence on a request State has continuing duty to turn over “exculpatory, impeachment, or mitigating” evidence without a request What does 39.14 cover? Any of the following that are under the control of the State or any person under contract with the State MUST be produced upon request: Offense reports Any designated documents, papers, written or recorded statements of the defendant Any written or recorded statements from witnesses Any witness statements of law enforcement officers, excluding the work product of prosecutors and their investigators But wait! There’s more .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2021 SPSA Conference Program
    Preliminary Program v. 5.0 Southern Political Science Association 2021 Annual Meeting Online, January 6-9, 2021 (please note: all times are Central Standard Time, UTC-6) Updated 5 January 2021 1100 SPSA Workshop: Case Studies for Policy Analysis I Wednesday Program Chair's Panels/Program Chair's Panels (Online) 8:00am-11:00am Churchill A1 - 2nd Chair Floor Derek Beach, Aarhus University 1100 SPSA Workshop: Generalized Linear Regression Models for Social Scientists I Wednesday Program Chair's Panels/Program Chair's Panels (Online) 8:00am-11:00am Churchill A2 - 2nd Chair Floor Jeff Gill, American University 1100 1100 SPSA Workshop: Analyzing the 2020 American Election I Wednesday Program Chair's Panels/Program Chair's Panels (Online) 8:00am-11:00am Churchill B1 - 2nd Chair Floor Harold Clarke, University of Texas at Dallas 1400 SPSA Workshop: Process-Tracing Methods I Wednesday Program Chair's Panels/Program Chair's Panels (Online) 12:30pm-3:30pm Churchill A1 - 2nd Chair Floor Andrew Bennett, Georgetown University 1400 1400 SPSA Workshop: Generalized Linear Regression Models for Social Scientists II Wednesday Program Chair's Panels/Program Chair's Panels (Online) 12:30pm-3:30pm Churchill A2 - 2nd Chair Floor Jeff Gill, American University 1400 SPSA Workshop: Analyzing the 2020 American Election II Wednesday Program Chair's Panels/Program Chair's Panels (Online) 12:30pm-3:30pm Churchill B1 - 2nd Chair Floor Harold Clarke, University of Texas at Dallas 1600 1600 SPSA Workshop: Defining and Working with Concepts in the Social Sciences I Wednesday
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Discovery
    Criminal Discovery In This Issue Introduction to the Criminal Discovery Issue of the USA Bulletin. 1 By the Hon. James M. Cole September 2012 The New Criminal ESI Discovery Protocol: What Prosecutors Need to Volume 60 Know . .. 3 Number 5 By Andrew D. Goldsmith and John Haried United States Department of Justice Executive Office for Getting a Clue: How Materiality Continues to Play a Critical Role in United States Attorneys Washington, DC Guiding Prosecutors’ Discovery Obligations . .13 20530 By Kelly A. Zusman and Daniel Gillogly H. Marshall Jarrett Director Assessing Potential Impeachment Information Relating to Law Contributors' opinions and statements should not be Enforcement Witnesses: Life After the Candid Conversation. 21 considered an endorsement by EOUSA for any policy, program, By Charysse L. Alexander or service. The United States Attorneys' Bulletin is published pursuant to 28 Federal Rule of Evidence 806 and its Discovery Obligations. .27 CFR § 0.22(b). By Stewart Walz The United States Attorneys' Bulletin is published bimonthly by the Executive Office for United Avoiding a State of Paralysis: Limits on the Scope of the Prosecution Team States Attorneys, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, for Purposes of Criminal Discovery. 33 Columbia, South Carolina 29201. By Kimberly A. Svendsen Managing Editor Jim Donovan When Disclosure Under Brady May Conflict With the Attorney-Client Law Clerks Privilege. 41 Carmel Matin Jeremy Summerlin By Vincent J. Falvo, Jr. Internet Address www.usdoj.gov/usao/ reading_room/foiamanuals. Discovery and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. 49 html By Carolyn Bell and Caroline Heck Miller Send article submissions and address changes to Managing Editor, United States Attorneys' Bulletin, National Advocacy Center, Office of Legal Education, 1620 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29201.
    [Show full text]
  • Disclosure and Accuracy in the Guilty Plea Process Kevin C
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 40 | Issue 5 Article 2 1-1989 Disclosure and Accuracy in the Guilty Plea Process Kevin C. McMunigal Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kevin C. McMunigal, Disclosure and Accuracy in the Guilty Plea Process, 40 Hastings L.J. 957 (1989). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol40/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Disclosure and Accuracy in the Guilty Plea Process by KEVIN C. MCMUNIGAL* Consider the following disclosure problem. The government indicts a defendant on an armed robbery charge arising from a violent mugging. The prosecution's case is based entirely on the testimony of the victim, who identified the defendant from police photographs of persons with a record of similar violent crime. With only the victim's testimony to rely on, the prosecutor is unsure of her ability to obtain a conviction at trial. She offers the defendant a guilty plea limiting his sentencing exposure to five years, a significant concession in light of the defendant's substantial prior record and the fact that the charged offense carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years incarceration. As trial nears, the victim's confi- dence in the identification appears to wane. The robbery took place at night. He was frightened and saw his assailant for a matter of seconds.
    [Show full text]
  • The Retributive Philosophies of Executive Clemency
    IS THERE JUSTICE IN MERCY? THE RETRIBUTIVE PHILOSOPHIES OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY Gina N. Gibbs Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2013 APPROVED: Peggy Tobolowsky, Co-Major Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice Chad. R. Trulson, Co-Major Professor Adam Trahan, Committee Member Thomas Evenson, Dean of the College of Public Affairs and Community Service Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Gibbs, Gina N. Is There Justice in Mercy? The Retributive Philosophies of Executive Clemency. Master of Science (Criminal Justice), May 2013, 85 pp., 9 tables. Executive clemency is assumed to be a mechanism to correct miscarriages of justice brought about by the criminal justice system, yet little empirical research exists to confirm this assumption. This research study examined the types of rationales cited in 799 cases of executive clemency from six states from 2005 to 2012. Rationales based upon retributive philosophies, in which a miscarriage of justice was cited, were further analyzed. This analysis revealed that only seven percent of all clemency decisions from the examined states cited retributive rationales. Of the fifty-six grants of clemency that cited retributive rationales, most were granted in the forms of pardons. The analysis indicated that executive clemency is utilized as a mechanism to correct injustices, specifically in cases of innocence. This study concludes with a discussion of policy implications and the reliance on executive clemency as a fail-safe to the criminal justice system. Copyright 2013 by Gina N. Gibbs ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my mother and father.
    [Show full text]
  • Death-Penalty-Pakistan
    Report Mission of Investigation Slow march to the gallows Death penalty in Pakistan Executive Summary. 5 Foreword: Why mobilise against the death penalty . 8 Introduction and Background . 16 I. The legal framework . 21 II. A deeply flawed and discriminatory process, from arrest to trial to execution. 44 Conclusion and recommendations . 60 Annex: List of persons met by the delegation . 62 n° 464/2 - January 2007 Slow march to the gallows. Death penalty in Pakistan Table of contents Executive Summary. 5 Foreword: Why mobilise against the death penalty . 8 1. The absence of deterrence . 8 2. Arguments founded on human dignity and liberty. 8 3. Arguments from international human rights law . 10 Introduction and Background . 16 1. Introduction . 16 2. Overview of death penalty in Pakistan: expanding its scope, reducing the safeguards. 16 3. A widespread public support of death penalty . 19 I. The legal framework . 21 1. The international legal framework. 21 2. Crimes carrying the death penalty in Pakistan . 21 3. Facts and figures on death penalty in Pakistan. 26 3.1. Figures on executions . 26 3.2. Figures on condemned prisoners . 27 3.2.1. Punjab . 27 3.2.2. NWFP. 27 3.2.3. Balochistan . 28 3.2.4. Sindh . 29 4. The Pakistani legal system and procedure. 30 4.1. The intermingling of common law and Islamic Law . 30 4.2. A defendant's itinerary through the courts . 31 4.2.1. The trial . 31 4.2.2. Appeals . 31 4.2.3. Mercy petition . 31 4.2.4. Stays of execution . 33 4.3. The case law: gradually expanding the scope of death penalty .
    [Show full text]
  • Brady-List-Sjc.Pdf
    NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; [email protected] SJC-12869 IN THE MATTER OF A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION. Suffolk. April 7, 2020. - September 8, 2020. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ. Grand Jury. District Attorney. Police Officer. Evidence, Grand jury proceedings, Testimony before grand jury, Immunized witness, Exculpatory, Disclosure of evidence, Impeachment of credibility. Practice, Criminal, Grand jury proceedings, Immunity from prosecution, Disclosure of evidence. Witness, Immunity, Impeachment, Police officer. Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on October 2, 2019. The case was reported by Cypher, J. William T. Harrington (Edward P. Harrington also present) for the petitioners. Shoshana E. Stern, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Scott P. Lewis, Samuel B. Dinning, Matthew R. Segal, Jessica J. Lewis, & Daniel L. McFadden, for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc., & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. 2 GANTS, C.J. In 2019, the district attorney learned through immunized grand jury testimony that two police officers, the petitioners in this case, knowingly made false statements in their police reports that concealed the unlawful use of force by a fellow officer against an arrestee and supported a bogus criminal charge of resisting arrest against the arrestee.
    [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]
  • 532 Administrative Law Iraq, 210–212, 399–417 Libya, 242–243 Morocco, 354–357 Oman, 298–299 Sudan, 252–253 Syri
    532 Index Administrative law Armed force Iraq, 210–212, 399–417 defence see Self-defence Libya, 242–243 implied authorisation, 18–20 Morocco, 354–357 Iraq see Iraq War Oman, 298–299 UN Charter, 5, 11–21 Sudan, 252–253 Aviation Syria, 202 final status agreement, 443 Afghanistan Lockerbie trial, 507–508 administration, 481–482 Axis of evil, 5 constitutional law, 457–485 fundamental rights, 461–466 Bahrain government, 470–471 commercial agents, 288 judiciary, 478–481 constitutional law, 288–289 Loya Jirga, 477 elections, 289 National Assembly, 471–477 employment, 285–287 president, 467–470 freedom of expression, 287 state of emergency, 482–483 legislation, 290–294 statehood, 458–460 media law, 287 transitional provisions, 485 Banking Al-Qa’eda Egypt, 192–193 Iraq, 10 governing law, 511, 522–525 Pakistan, 372, 373, 378 guarantees, 516–517, 525–526 Arab League Lebanon, 239–240 Beirut Summit, 430 murâbaha/Morabaha contracts, judicial cooperation, 86 509–526 Palestinian refugees, 115, 154–155 Oman, 300–301 Arab Peace Initiative, 449 Saudi Arabia, 73 Arbitration Shamil Bank case, 509–526 see also Dispute resolution shari’a, 509–526 Egypt, 182–183 shari’a board, 510 foreign arbitration, 81–83 Yemen, 335 ICSID Convention, 84–86, 262 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement (1998), Lebanon, 235–236, 238 93 New York Convention, 81–83 Belgium, 95 OPIC Convention, 83–84 Bosnia Herzogovina, 91, 93–94, Saudi Arabia, 79–86 101–102, 106–107 shari’a, 79 Botanical products, 191 United Arab Emirates, 275 Index 533 Canada, 128, 160 Compensation Capital markets Dayton
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 20 YEARS LATER Where Does Diplomacy Stand?
    PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION SEPTEMBER 2021 20 YEARS LATER Where Does Diplomacy Stand? September 2021 Volume 98, No. 7 Focus on 9/11, Twenty Years Later 22 Getting Off the X In a compelling personal account of the 9/11 attacks, one FSO offers tactics for surviving when catastrophe strikes. By Nancy Ostrowski 26 The Global War on Terror and Diplomatic Practice The war on terror fundamentally changed U.S. diplomacy, leaving a trail 39 of collateral damage to America’s readiness for future challenges. Intervention: FS Know-How By Larry Butler Unlearned Lessons, or the Gripes of a Professional 46 31 The State Department’s failure to Whistleblower effectively staff and run interventions Protections: America and 9/11: has a long history. Four critical A Nonpartisan The Real-World Impact of lessons can be drawn from the post-9/11 experience. Necessity Terrorism and Extremism As old as the United States itself, In retrospect, 9/11 did not foreshadow By Ronald E. Neumann whistleblowing has protections the major changes that now drive worth knowing about. U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy. By Alain Norman and 43 Raeka Safai By Anthony H . Cordesman From the FSJ Archive 9/11, War on Terror, Iraq 35 and Afghanistan FS Heritage The Proper Measure of the Place: 48 Reflections on the Diplomats Make Afghan Mission a Difference: Drawing from two tours, a decade The U.S. and Mongolia, apart, a veteran diplomat explores the competing visions for Afghanistan. 1986-1990 In the 1992 FSJ, Ambassador By Keith W.
    [Show full text]
  • Roberts V the Queen [2021] VSCA 28
    SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL S EAPCR 2020 0249 JASON JOSEPH ROBERTS Appellant v THE QUEEN Respondent --- JUDGES: MAXWELL P, NIALL and EMERTON JJA WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE DATE OF HEARING: 22 January 2021 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26 February 2021 MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2021] VSCA 28 JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: [2020] VSC 793 (Beach JA) --- CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Bail – Murder – Miscarriage of justice – Retrial ordered after convictions quashed – Application for bail pending retrial – Bail refused – Appeal from refusal of bail – Whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail – Appellant in custody for 20 years before convictions quashed – Whether period of custody constitutes pre-trial delay – Reliance on injustice of corrupted trial and resulting hardship of incarceration – Whether continued incarceration unjust – Whether judge misconstrued applicable provisions – Whether refusal of bail unreasonable – No specific error – Refusal of bail reasonably open – Appeal dismissed – Bail Act 1977 ss 1B, 3AAA, 4A, 4E. WORDS AND PHRASES – ‘exceptional circumstances exist that justify the grant of bail’. --- APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors For the Appellant Mr P Matthews Stary Norton Halphen and Mr P Smallwood For the Respondent Mr B Ihle SC Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for with Mr G Hayward Public Prosecutions COURT OF APPEAL 459 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000 MAXWELL P NIALL JA EMERTON JA: Summary 1 On 15 August 2000, the appellant was arrested and charged with murdering two police officers. On 31 December 2002, he was convicted of both charges of murder. On 24 February 2003, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a non- parole period of 35 years. Successive applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and the High Court failed.
    [Show full text]