Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
‘So What?’: Using Reverse Investigation To Articulate Prejudice and Win Post-Conviction Claims
By Ty Alper
It can be daunting for an attorney handling her first post-conviction capital case to know where to start. When I began working as a staff attorney at the Southern Center for Human Rights, I was given a desk, a file cabinet, and a caseload of post-conviction capital cases. Affixed by yellowing Scotch tape to the file cabinet was a small piece of paper on which someone had typed (with a typewriter) the following:
The Four Post-Conviction Questions
- What was the most damaging evidence?
- Who were the most damaging witnesses?
- Why was my client convicted?
- Why was my client sentenced to death?
Because it was some of the best advice I’ve ever received as a post-conviction attorney, I tried over the years, to no avail, to find out who had taped those questions to the file cabinet. This article is an attempt to pass along, and flesh out, the wisdom contained in those four questions.
At first blush, it seems obvious that, upon agreeing to represent a client in post-conviction, one
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.