NACDL

Litigating Habeas Cases: Procedure & Strategies 

• Webcast and corresponding presentation of Pursuing Innocence Claims in Habeas Corpus by Charles Press & Sean O'Brien from NACDL's Righting Wrongful Convictions: Challenging Flawed Forensics conference     
• Webcast and corresponding presentation of The Innocence Narrative: Post-Conviction Storytelling by Cliff Gardner from NACDL's Righting Wrongful Convictions: Challenging Flawed Forensics conference 
• Webcast and corresponding presentation of Getting New Science into Court by Sean O'Brien from NACDL's Examining Forensic Pathology: Distinguishing Medicine from Myth conference   
• State of Arizona v. Chaparro, Case No. CR 95-05120 (Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme Court on the basis of newly discovered non-DNA evidence related to the use of lethal force because defendant was convicted upon expert testimony that has been subsequently discredited by new scientific evidence) .    
• Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Edmiston (holding that the NAS forensic report can be considered newly discovered evidence under the "newly discovered facts" exception if related to one of the twelve specific subjects of inquiry in Part 5 of the Report and not simply "generalized observations, conclusions and recommendations" such that Petition is exempt from the one year filing requirement under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545 for Statutory Post-Conviction Relief) 
  • Supplemental Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Based Upon Additional Newly Discovered Evidence and Consolidated Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition and Pending Motion for Discovery  
  • Petitioner's Reply to Commonwealth's Response in Opposition to Supplemental Petition for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Based Upon Newly-Discovered Evidence  
  • Memorandum and Order 
   
• District Attorney's v. Osborne, 557 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 2308 (2009) (Alaska was one of only four states without legislation on post-conviction DNA testing, so Petitioner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim to create a constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing, but the Court declined to create this right in holding that this task belongs to the legislature and almost all states have or are creating procedures to adequately balance the benefits of post-conviction DNA testing with the drawback of casting doubt over all criminal convictions involving biological evidence) 
• The Innocence Network brief bank    

National Academy of Sciences Report Overviews, Updates and Litigation  

• Webcast and corresponding presentation of The NAS Report and Foundations of Good "Science" by Andrea Roth from NACDL's Examining Forensic Pathology: Distinguishing Medicine from Myth conference 
• Webcast and corresponding presentation of Update on Post-NAS Report Litigation (with related NAS case list) by Jennifer Friedman & Nina Morrison from NACDL's Righting Wrongful Convictions: Challenging Flawed Forensics conference 
• Presentation: Overview of Forensic Sciences and the NAS Report, Marvin Schechter & Jennifer Friedman, Atlanta, April, 15, 2010.  
• Presentation: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, Anne-Marie Mazza, Director, Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, April 2010.  

Arson & Explosives 

• Webcast of Dog Sniffs and Fire: Winning a Post-Conviction Arson Case from NACDL's Righting Wrongful Convictions: Challenging Flawed Forensics conference 
• Webcast and corresponding presentation of Post-Conviction Strategies in Arson Cases by Barry Scheck & John Lentini from NACDL's Litigating Non-DNA Post-Conviction Innocence Cases conference 
• Improving the Understanding of Post-Flashover Fire Behavior, Steven W. Carman, International Symposium on Fire Investigation Science and Technology 2008,  p. 221-232. 
• Distinguishing Fact from Fantasy in Arson Investigations, John J. Lentini, Scientific Fire Analysis, LLC.
• Fire and Arson Scene Evidence: A Guide for Public Safety Personnel, U.S. Department of Justice (June 2000).
• The Mythology of Arson Investigation, John J. Lentini, Scientific Fire Analysis, LLC.
• The Standard of Care in Fire Investigation (a compilation of standards from various jurisdictions)
• Dugas v. Coplan, 428 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 2005) (holding that defense counsel was ineffective under Strickland for failing to thoroughly investigate the "not arson" defense because: "1) challenging the arson case was critical to Dugas's defense; 2) the arson evidence was the cornerstone of the State's case; 3) defense counsel acknowledged that he lacked any knowledge of arson investigations and never tried an arson case; 4) defense counsel knew and admitted that a layperson would be likely to view the scene as arson, so a well-informed cross-examination of the expert would be necessary; 5) defense counsel conceded that he had at least some reason to believe that there were problems with the state's arson case").
• Richey v. Mitchell, 395 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that prosecutors must prove defendant had the intent to kill for an aggravated felony murder conviction resulting from a fire and defense counsel was ineffective because defense counsel 1) hired an expert that was unqualified, 2) waited three months to contact the expert after he was retained, 3) limited the experts's investigation to ten hours, 4) failed to inform the expert of a critical problem with the State's evidence, 5) kept himself in the dark about all aspects of the expert's analysis, 6) prematurely placed expert on witness list before knowing he would testify, and 7) failed to offer any competing scientific evidence) 
• Richey v. Bradshaw, 498 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2007) (On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, which held the 2005 decision erred in the interpretation of Ohio's transferred intent issue related to the intent to kill element and  the ineffective assistance of counsel claims were procedurally barred because 1) the court considered evidence not presented in the state courts, 2) of a lack of deference to the state court findings, and 3) defendant's procedural default of certain arguments.  On each remanded issues, the Sixth Circuit held the following: 1), the court had no trouble relying on evidence developed in federal court because the State did not challenge Richie's diligence in developing his claim in State court, 2) the court reiterated it's reasons for finding defense counsel ineffective [see the Richey 2005 case directly above], and 3) the court reversed itself by holding that Richie did not meet the clear and convincing standard to demonstrate that the expert was qualified and counsel did not make an error in prematurely placing the expert on the witness list, but these considerations do not change the court's determination that Richie is entitled to habeas relief because counsel's handling of the expert was ineffective and the state courts still unreasonably applied Strickland.)
• Flashover video (detailing how a cigarette dropped between a chair cushion can result in a flashover fire in four minutes)
• United States v. Hebshie, 754 F.Supp.2d 89 (2010) (granting Hebshie's § 2255 petition by holding that defense counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge or even limit the government's effort to show that arson occurred by the "cause-and-origin" testimony of a forensic expert or testimony of a handler for an "accelerant-detection dog" even when there were substantial ground to do so and instead legitimized the government's experts when addressing the jury)
  • Defendant's Memorandum in Support of 2255 Petition and Motion for New Trial  
  • Expert Affidavit 1  
  • Government's Opposition 
  • Defendant's Reply  
  • Expert Affidavit 2  
  • Defendant's Post-Hearing Memorandum in Support of 2255 Petition  
  • Government's Memorandum in Support of Opposition  
  • Memorandum and Order re: Motion to Vacate Conviction  
  • Form Motion to Vacate Sentence by Person in Federal Custody    
   

Bite Marks   

Bloodstain Pattern  

• Webcast and corresponding presentation Blood Spatter Evidence (with related outline) by Bart Epstein from NACDL's Litigating Non-DNA Post-Conviction Innocence Cases conference 
• Presentation: Blood Pattern Analysis, Jodie English, Indianapolis, IN 
• Sample motions 
  • Motion to Exclude Government's Bloodstain Pattern Analysis  
  • Motion in Limine to Limit Expert Testimony Regarding Bloodstain Pattern Analysis   
  • Motion for Discovery Regarding Bloodstain Pattern Analysis 
   

Confessions  

• The Substance of False Confessions, Brandon L. Garrett, 62 Stanford Law Review 1051 (2010).
• The Three Errors: Pathways to False Confession and Wrongful Conviction, Richard A. Leo & Steven A. Drizin, Interrogations and Confessions: Current Research, Practice, and Policy Recommendations, American Psychological Association (2010). 

Dogs   

• Webcast and corresponding presentations of Legal Issues in Post-Conviction Dog Scent Lineups by Andrew Taslitz and Scientific Issues in Post-Conviction Dog Scent Lineups by Lawrence Myers from NACDL's Litigating Non-DNA Post-Conviction Innocence Cases conference 

Experts in Forensic Pathology  

• Webcast and corresponding presentation A Lawyer's Take on How to Prepare a Review of Pathology Evidence by John Philipsborn from NACDL's Examining Forensic Pathology: Distinguishing Medicine from Myth conference  
• Misskelley v. Arkansas: Transcripts from forensic pathology experts testifying in a case involving drowning and corresponding harm to the body caused by animals as opposed to humans
  • Dr. Baden (also testifying to the importance of having defense experts review autopsies because "sometimes" police forensic pathologists make mistakes and there is a recognized bias in crime labs and medical examiners around the country towards prosecutors -- as stated in the NAS report)  
  • Dr. Spitz 
  • Dr. Ophoven (also testifying to the difference in signs of sexual abuse in children and adults)  
   
• Effective Preparation For Examining a Pathologist in a Homicide Case, John T. Philipsborn, The Champion (2012). 

Eyewitness Identification 

• Webcast of Minutiae, IAFIS, and Statistics: Using Fingerprints to Win Innocence Claims from NACDL's Righting Wrongful Convictions: Challenging Flawed Forensics conference 
• Webcast and corresponding presentation of Friction Ridge Analysis: An NAS Panel by Carrie Sperling, Simon Cole, and Jules Epstein from NACDL's Litigating Non-DNA Post-Conviction Innocence Cases conference 
• The Use of Technology in Human Expert Domains: Challenges and Risks Arising From the Use of Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems in Forensic Science, Itiel E. Dror & Jennifer L. Mnookin, Law, Probability and Risk, Oxford University Press (2010). 
• Evaluation of Rarity of Fingerprints in Forensics, Chang Su and Sargur Srihari, Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, Canada (December 6-9, 2010).
• Cognitive Issues in Fingerprint Analysis: Inter- and Intra-Consistency and the Effect of a ‘Target’ Comparison, Itiel E. Dror, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College of London. 
• Fingerprints at the Crime-Scene: Statistically Certain, or Probable?, Cedric Neumann 9 Significance 21 (Feb. 2012)
• Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach, Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (2012).
• Uniqueness in the Forensic Identification Sciences -- Fact or Fiction?, Mark Page, et. al., 206 Forensic Science International 12 (2011).