In recent decades, the use of forensic science in criminal investigations has skyrocketed. In the media, TV crime dramas like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation portray forensic evidence collection and analysis as a flawless science that can quickly and accurately identify the perpetrator. Yet time and again, inaccurate or misleading forensic evidence and testimony has helped to convict the wrong person.

Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson were convicted of a crime they didn’t commit based on microscopic hair comparison - a notoriously unreliable forensic test. Williamson was sent to death row and Fritz spent a decade in prison before DNA testing proved their innocence. Brandon Moon, another innocent man, went to prison for seventeen years after a state forensic crime lab analyst gave erroneous testimony at his trial.

Flawless? According to a recent study, faulty forensic evidence or testimony was a contributing factor in nearly sixty percent of the first 200 DNA exonerations. While a few of those cases involved deliberate misconduct, most problems result from inadvertent errors due to the fact that many areas of forensic analysis involve discretionary interpretations by individual analysts.

Fortunately, there are simple steps that can be taken to ensure the integrity of forensic testing and analysis.

Today, The Justice Project is releasing Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science: A Policy Review.  The policy review provides an overview of the problems with certain forensic science policies and procedures, offers solutions to these problems, profiles cases of injustice, highlights states with good laws and procedures, and includes a model policy to ensure the objectivity and reliability of forensic evidence.

Substantive, independent oversight is the first step. Forensic crime labs often operate with little or no oversight, and few states have established statutory standards to ensure the objectivity, reliability, and efficiency of forensic testing and analysis. To improve accountability, states should create independent commissions to oversee forensic science laboratories. The commissions would be responsible for implementing standards for laboratory performance, overseeing analyst training and continuing education, and instituting safeguards to ensure accurate testimony.

Often, bias is inadvertent. Information such as details of the crime, names of suspects, and the expected result can impact an analyst’s objectivity. In one study, experienced examiners were given fingerprints they had correctly identified in the past along with made up information, such as that the suspect had confessed. With the additional information, these examiners misidentified seventeen percent of the fingerprints.

Given that, states should require all forensic labs to develop internal structures and policies to prevent unintentional bias in testing and analysis. The use of an evidence control officer, for instance, could manage the flow of information from law enforcement to ensure that analysts receive only the information necessary to test the evidence.

Ideally, all laboratories should be independent from law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies to eliminate bias from the process.  Instead nearly all state forensic labs are under the jurisdictions of police departments or the attorneys general.  As a result, analysts may come to see their role as part of the “crime fighting team” rather than as neutral and objective agents of science.  Independence helps labs become neutral environments dedicated to scientific procedures that ensure accurate and reliable testing.

The demands on forensic laboratories and the high stakes involved demand that analysts receive proper scientific training and are certified before they are allowed to perform forensic analysis or testify in criminal trials. Laboratories should also adopt a strong ethical code to help analysts understand the serious nature of their responsibilities and to guide them through the sometimes challenging ethical waters they face.

Of course none of these reforms can be achieved without sufficient funding. In many states, funding for forensic laboratories has remained constant despite a dramatic increase in workload. And low salaries make it difficult for forensic laboratories to hire and retain highly qualified analysts. Salaries must be competitive with other job opportunities to attract the best and brightest applicants.

While forensic laboratories have yielded critical evidence in countless cases, preventable error has subverted justice, convicted the innocent, and jeopardized public safety. Law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the public at large all have a vested interest in making sure reforms are implemented to reduce the risk of mistakes and to elevate the quality and objectivity of forensic evidence and testimony.

Read More About Forensic Oversight

This week, The Justice Project is releasing Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science: A Policy Review. This policy review provides an overview of the problems that plague forensic science, offers solutions to these problems, profiles cases of injustice, highlights states with good laws and policies related to forensic science, and includes a model policy.

Learn more about improving forensic science here.

As TJP President John Terzano wrote, “While forensic laboratories have yielded critical evidence in countless cases, preventable error has subverted justice, convicted the innocent, and jeopardized public safety. Law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the public at large all have a vested interest in making sure reforms are implemented to reduce the risk of mistakes and to elevate the quality and objectivity of forensic evidence and testimony.”

Read Terzano’s blog post here.

Research on the exonerations of innocent people has identified many of the primary causes of wrongful convictions. Based on these findings, The Justice Project has constructed a national agenda for reform designed to eliminate common, preventable errors that undermine the fairness and accuracy of our criminal justice system. Providing better oversight and practices in forensic science is one of TJP’s eight initiatives for criminal justice reform.

Learn more about all eight initiatives here.

Increasing Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing: A Policy Review is a new publication from The Justice Project designed to foster a dialogue among policy makers and to help states implement better DNA testing procedures and practices. This policy review provides an overview of problems with current post-conviction DNA testing laws, offers solutions to these problems, profiles cases of injustice, highlights states with good laws and policies for DNA testing, and includes a model policy.

As TJP President John Terzano wrote on The Huffington Post, “The sad truth is that it often takes a series of miracles to gain access to post-conviction DNA testing. …  Our criminal justice system is too fraught with error to rely on miracles to find the truth. Post-conviction DNA testing serves the interests of fairness, accuracy and public confidence in the criminal justice system, and states should make every effort to facilitate testing for defendants claiming innocence.”

You can read Terzano’s blog post here and learn about post-conviction DNA testing here.

Research on the exonerations of innocent people has identified many of the primary causes of wrongful convictions. Based on these findings, The Justice Project has constructed a national agenda for reform designed to eliminate common, preventable errors that undermine the fairness and accuracy of our criminal justice system. Increasing access to post-conviction DNA testing is one of TJP’s eight initiatives for criminal justice reform.

Learn more about all eight initiatives here.

By now everyone knows that DNA testing is a powerful scientific tool for proving guilt or innocence in our criminal justice system. Often post-conviction DNA testing provides the only evidence that can correct the injustice of wrongful conviction.

But what if all the biological evidence is destroyed while you’re still in prison? What if there is evidence but it’s not discovered until after state-imposed deadline for seeking DNA testing? What if the state denies your petition for testing because you accepted a plea bargain to avoid a harsher sentence for a crime you didn’t commit? And what if you’re indigent and can’t afford an attorney to help navigate the complex legal and scientific issues involved in obtaining a DNA test?

The sad truth is that it often takes a series of miracles to gain access to post-conviction DNA testing. That’s because our criminal justice system continues to place significant obstacles in the way of post-conviction DNA testing that could determine whether the wrong people have been convicted and punished for crimes they didn’t commit.

Today, The Justice Project is releasing Increasing Assess to Post-Conviction DNA Testing: A Policy Review. This policy review explains the problems surrounding post-conviction DNA testing policies and procedures and identifies the best practices for states to adopt to ensure that post-conviction DNA testing contributes to a more accurate criminal justice system and restores public confidence in the system’s ability to correct its own errors.

To date, more than 200 people - including 16 who were sentenced to death - have been proven innocent by DNA testing. In many of those cases, the same DNA test helped bring the real perpetrators to justice.

But seven states - Alabama, Alaska, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Oklahoma - don’t even have laws on the books allowing for post-conviction DNA testing. And those that do have laws fall short of what is needed to ensure that DNA testing can be used effectively to correct the injustice of wrongful conviction.

All but 12 states and the District of Columbia lack statutes requiring the preservation of evidence throughout an inmate’s incarceration. An investigative series this year by The Columbus Dispatch found that “evidence had been lost or destroyed nearly two-thirds of the time that prosecutors agreed to search for it because Ohio does not require evidence to be catalogued and saved.” States should require the preservation of biological evidence throughout a defendant’s sentence and devise standards regarding the custody of evidence.

States should also ensure that all inmates with a DNA-based innocence claim may petition for DNA testing at any time without regard to plea, confession, self-implication, the nature of the crime, or previous unfavorable test results. Nearly a dozen of the more than 200 DNA exonerees initially plead guilty, and 50 purportedly confessed to crimes they did not commit. And because DNA testing technology continues to improve, a defendant’s right to request testing must not be subject to time limitations. If new technology develops that might change the outcome of a test, the test should be performed.

The complexity of the petitioning process also creates an unreasonable burden for a wrongfully convicted person who needs DNA testing to prove his or her innocence. The steps involved in obtaining DNA testing are difficult even for experienced advocates. That’s why states should provide counsel and cover the cost of post-conviction DNA testing for indigent petitioners.

These are just a few of the steps that need to be taken. As with any good policy, the benefits of post-conviction DNA testing statutes outweigh the costs. While improving access to post-conviction DNA testing will require states to incur some initial costs, those costs are minimal and could end up saving states money in the long run.

The federal government recognized the importance of post-conviction DNA testing with the passage of the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) in 2004. The IPA includes the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program, which authorizes $25 million over five years to help states defray the cost of post-conviction DNA testing. The program is named for Kirk Noble Bloodsworth, the first person sentenced to death to be exonerated by DNA evidence.

In Bloodsworth’s case, the DNA test results not only proved that he did not sexually assault and murder nine-year-old Dawn Hamilton, they also identified the real perpetrator who then confessed to the crime. But it took another series of miracles for that to happen. It was only through a chance encounter that Bloodsworth’s attorney learned that the trial judge had kept some of the evidence in a cardboard box in his chambers. And the attorney paid for the testing out of his own pocket.

Our criminal justice system is too fraught with error to rely on miracles to find the truth. Post-conviction DNA testing serves the interests of fairness, accuracy and public confidence in the criminal justice system, and states should make every effort to facilitate testing for defendants claiming innocence.

This event is open to the public.

This event is not open to the public.

This includes the recent DNA exonerations of Thomas McGowan and James Lee Woodard, both exonerated in the two weeks prior to the summit. Woodard spent 27 years in jail, making him the longest imprisoned exoneree cleared by DNA evidence in the country.

Among the issues emphasized at the conference was the fact that DNA evidence is only available in a small number of cases. Therefore, efforts to promote innocence must go beyond just post-conviction DNA testing in the state. Other issues discussed were problems of faulty eyewitness identification, Brady violations by prosecutors, and bad lawyering in the state of Texas.

Ellis pledged to sponsor a bill in the next legislative session that would mandate a series of best practices that police departments would be required to follow with regard to eyewitness identification. Mistaken eyewitness identification is a major problem in the state of Texas, leading to 82% of all wrongful convictions in the state.

Further coverage of the Summit on Wrongful Convictions:

Wrongly Convicted Gather at Texas Capitol to Share Stories (AP, 05/08/08)
Exonerated Inmates Urge Criminal Justice Changes in Texas (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 05/09/08)
Innocence Summit Drew Officials, Opinion Leaders from around the State (Grits for Breakfast, 05/08/08)
More from the Texas Innocence Summit (Grits for Breakfast, 05/09/08)

Editorial support for Innocence Commissions in Texas:

• Dumb on crime means broken lives (Austin American Statesman, 05/17/08)
• Who’s Guilty Now? (The Dallas Observer, 05/16/08)
• State needs innocence commission (The Dallas Morning News, 05/11/08)
• Watchdog needed for criminal justice (San Antonio Express-News, 06/14/08)

The Houston Police Department Crime Laboratory has been a striking example of these failures. In recent years, the lab has been linked to numerous forensic science flaws that have led to three wrongful convictions. Because of these flaws, the lab has had to be closed on multiple occasions. Currently, the lab is closed and under investigation. The lab has hired a new DNA manager. The old manager resigned during a scandal involving cheating on proficiency exams by analysts.

More information:
Office of the Independent Investigator of the HPD Crime Lab
Stories from the Houston Chronicle on the problems of the HPD Crime Lab
HPD DNA Lab Could Soon Be Back Open (KPRC Houston, 06/23/08)
No tough questions from council committee for scandal plagued HPD lab boss (KHOU Houston, 06/23/08)
Ronald Taylor says pardon brings new meaning to life (Houston Chronicle, 06/19/08)

My name is Michael Graham. In 1986, I was 22 years old, working as a roofer, and living with my mom and my two little brothers in Virginia Beach. That summer, I met a family from Louisiana and got friendly with their son, Kenneth. They suggested that I return with them to Louisiana for a vacation. I took up their offer.

While down in Louisiana, Kenneth and I got arrested for writing some bad checks. I was no angel back then, but I never physically hurt anyone, and was never accused of hurting anyone. That is, until a couple of months later. While in jail for the bad checks, I was arrested for the brutal murders of an elderly couple. I couldn’t believe it. I told the police that I didn’t know anything about the murders and had never met the couple.

All the time, I was sure that the truth would come out and I would be found innocent. It seems funny now, but I even asked one of my public defenders if he would represent me in my false arrest lawsuit.

My trial was in early 1987. One of my two lawyers had some criminal law experience, but had never tried a death penalty case. My other lawyer had just graduated from law school. The state didn’t have any physical evidence against me. Basically, all it had was three witnesses, including a jailhouse snitch with a history of serious mental illness.

My lawyers had a tough time at the trial. They didn’t investigate the snitch’s deal with the prosecution. They didn’t know the rules of evidence. They didn’t object to a jury instruction that I later learned was totally illegal under Louisiana law. And they did nothing to prepare for my sentencing phase. They didn’t even ask my mother to come down and testify on my behalf. My trial only lasted a few days. When the jury convicted me of capital murder, I was stunned. So was my experienced lawyer, who disappeared. That left my inexperienced lawyer, just out of law school, to handle the sentencing hearing by himself. When the jury sentenced me to death, I could hardly talk - I was in such a state of shock.

A few months later, my co-defendant, Albert Burrell, was also convicted and given a death sentence. I understand that his lawyers were even worse than mine.

I’ll never forget my first night on death row. The night before the state had executed another inmate, and I was given his cell. During the night, I looked down at the floor and completely freaked out. I thought I saw a pool of blood. It turned out to be rusty water.

That pretty much set the tone for the next fourteen years. I spent 23 hours a day in my 5 by 10 foot cell, alone. I was allowed out one hour a day to shower and walk up and down my tier. Three times a week I could go outside and spend an hour by myself in an exercise yard. Whenever I left my tier, my hands and legs were shackled. Everyone in my world was either a prison guard who considered me an animal or a condemned man. The guards told me when to wake up and when to go to sleep, and just gave me a few minutes to eat.

I tried not to go crazy by reading and praying to the Lord. I also passed the time by trying to keep up on my case and what was happening in the outside world. I studied for a GED, but the prison ended the program right before I was going to take the test.

Each day I would beg the Lord to make sure nothing happened to my family. My family is poor and my mother was only able to visit me twice. My brothers never made it down. The Lord answered my prayers. But my co-defendant wasn’t so fortunate. Albert’s mother died while we were on death row. One of the guards told me that telling Albert his mother was dead was one of the hardest things he ever did.

As in many cases, there was no DNA evidence to exonerate me and Albert. But we were two of the lucky ones. We both had pro bono lawyers who worked their tails off for us and stuck with our cases for many years. If we had depended on state lawyers, we probably would still be on death row, or worse.

After years of hard work, my attorneys got me a new trial on March 3, 2000. It was the second greatest day in my life. My lawyers proved that the prosecution had withheld evidence showing I was innocent. They also proved that the jailhouse snitch was a pathological liar, and got sworn statements from the other two witnesses recanting their testimony. They even got a statement from the prosecutor saying that the case should never have been brought in the first place because the evidence was too weak.

Ten long months later, in December, the state dismissed the case against me and Albert. The Attorney General said that there was “a total lack of credible evidence” linking us to the crime. On December 28, 2000 - the best day in my life - I was released from Louisiana’s death row, where I had spent close to 14 years for two murders I did not commit. I was the 92nd innocent person released from death row since 1973. Albert was released a few days later, and became the 93rd innocent person released from death row.

Half of my adult life had been taken from me. I had been falsely branded as a murderer in connection with horrible crimes. Meanwhile, the suffering family of the victims was misled into believing that the crime was solved, when in fact the real murderer or murderers had not been brought to justice.

In compensation, the state gave me a $10 check and a coat that was five sizes too big. Not even the price of a bus ticket back to Virginia. My lawyers had to buy that for me. At first, when I got back to my family in Virginia, I was afraid to go out. I thought people would guess from my complexion that I had just come out of prison. I couldn’t stop guzzling down my food and pacing the floor. Men in uniforms freaked me out.

Nowadays, I am just trying to put my life back together. I am getting to know my family again, including my brothers who are now young men. I have a job as a roofer, and I am getting married in October.

During my 14 wasted years on death row, I always hoped that my nightmare would count for something. That’s why I’m here today. Mistakes like my nightmare are real. I never figured that this could happen to an innocent person before it happened to me, and I am sure that many people listening today feel the same way. I ask you to listen to my story and to the many others like mine, and do what you can to fix the process.

Throughout his murder trial, the prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial and conflicting evidence. The state failed to link Amrine to the scene through physical evidence. Instead, the state presented three inmates who maintained they saw Amrine stab Barber-all with inconsistent statements in their depositions. The first inmate to come forward, Terry Russell, was himself identified as a suspect by corrections officer John Noble. Six other inmates stated that Amrine was elsewhere playing cards at the time of the killing. Even with a solid alibi and unreliable evidence against him, Amrine was unable to win an acquittal at trial. Amrine’s state-appointed counsel failed to present any mitigating evidence. He never impeached witnesses with prior inconsistent statements. During sentencing, he never objected to false testimony regarding a prior alleged stabbing by Amrine. The jury foreman in the case later admitted that, in spite of all the evidence supporting Amrine’s innocence in depositions, the jury “didn’t have much trouble deciding that Mr. Amrine was guilty” after hearing the actual trial. On October 30, 1986, the jury convicted Amrine of murder and sentenced him to death.

Appeals and Recantations

At a post-conviction hearing in 1989, two of Amrine’s three accusers-Terry Russell and Randall Ferguson-recanted their testimony, and the third accuser, Jerry Poe, recanted his in 1997. All three later admitted in letters, videotaped depositions, and signed affidavits that they lied as a result of threats and promises by the authorities or fear of rape and violence from other inmates. At a 1998 federal district court hearing, in fact, Russell admitted he lied to deflect suspicion of the murder away from himself. Even as these recantations became known, Amrine’s four appeals and his application for pardon to Missouri Governor Bob Holden were denied. Before 1997, appeals courts claimed that, even though the other accusers had recanted, Jerry Poe’s testimony still implicated Amrine. After Poe recanted, courts maintained that his retraction could not be relied upon. By 2003, Amrine’s appellate counsel, Sean O’Brien and Kent Gipson, made significant progress in obtaining justice for their client. While his execution date was actively sought by the state, Amrine appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri. Assistant Attorney General Frank Jung argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the case, regardless of the evidence pointing to Amrine’s innocence, because there was no constitutional violation during his first trial. Jung actually urged the court to execute Amrine even if it found him to be innocent. Four of the seven Missouri Supreme Court Justices disagreed and overturned Amrine’s conviction. In their decision, they established “actual innocence” as a Missouri standard in which the Court can reserve the right to overturn sentences upon their “loss of confidence” in a capital case, even if that case contains no technical errors. Judge Richard B. Teitelman wrote the opinion for the majority, noting that Amrine had indeed proven that a “manifest injustice” would occur without habeas relief even though the conviction was the product of an otherwise fair trial: “It is difficult to imagine a more manifestly unjust and unconstitutional result than permitting the execution of an innocent person.” Two months after his conviction was overturned, local prosecutor Bill Tacket filed new murder charges against Amrine. One month later, however, Tacket announced that he would no longer seek a new trial, noting that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate Amrine. Joe Amrine, who spent 26 years in prison - 17 of which were on death row-would have left jail a free man in 1992 had he not been wrongly convicted for Barber’s murder. Just before his sentence was overturned, Amrine had chosen the song “I Feel Like Going Home” for his funeral. “That’s how I felt,” he later said, “like going home.” On July 28, 2003, after spending almost two decades on death row for a crime he did not commit, Joseph Amrine was finally released from prison. From there he made it home — to his family.

In 1985, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were jointly sentenced to death for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a girl in DuPage County, Ill. Though both men maintained their innocence, presented a credible alibi, and were never physically linked to the crime scene, the jury nevertheless found Cruz and Hernandez guilty. Testimony from opportunistic prisoners and investigators formed the only substance of the prosecution’s case against them, much of it involving Cruz’s alleged and unrecorded confession of murderous “dream visions,” admitted into evidence through testimony from a sheriff’s detective.

From its beginning, as the Chicago Tribune later reported, the case was “intertwined with politics.” The county’s State’s Attorney J. Michael Fitzsimmons indicted Cruz and Hernandez just two weeks before his reelection bid. Prisoners testified years later that some of the charges against them were “possibly” dropped after they falsely testified against the two defendants. The crime itself was like “the boogeyman come to life,” as one local lawyer observed, instilling terror throughout the largely white and middle-class suburb.

In 1985, just after Cruz and Herdandez were sentenced, a newly apprehended repeat sex offender and murderer, Brian Dugan, confessed to area authorities that he had in fact committed the crime - and acted alone. Yet Dugan’s testimony, corroborated with considerable evidence, was discounted and deliberately looked over by the prosecution for years.

Three years later, in 1988, Cruz won an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Court reversed and remanded both Cruz’s and Hernandez’s case back to DuPage County, but only on technical grounds, insisting both men be tried separately. Once there, new juries, after hearing much of the same prosecutorial evidence and without full knowledge of Dugan’s confession, convicted both men for a second time.

In 1990, a volunteer legal team led by Professor Lawrence C. Marshall at Northwestern University Law School agreed to represent Cruz on a second appeal. Multiple amicus briefs and the revelation of Dugan’s statements back in 1985 prompted the Illinois Supreme Court to reverse their convictions a second time. Almost 10 years after their initial sentence, the Cruz/Hernandez case would be moved back to DuPage County for a potential third trial.

Around the same time, in September 1995, new DNA tests proved that neither Cruz nor Hernandez could be contributors to physical evidence gathered at the crime scene. Dugan, however, was traced directly to the scene. And yet DuPage County prosecutors, though now conceding that neither man could have been the rapist, still maintained they were “present” at the scene of the crime, and proceeded to indict both men in a third trial. The Chicago Tribune began openly speculating that the DuPage law enforcers were more interested in protecting reputations than justice.

In the third trial, just before the judge was to give his direct ruling, a lieutenant who originally swore to Cruz’s “dream vision” statements testified that, in fact, he was in Florida the day the purported conversation occurred. Finally, on November 3, 1995, the DuPage County circuit judge, on the basis of the recanted testimony, the new DNA evidence, and lack of any other substantial evidence against him, acquitted Cruz, calling the initial murder investigation “sloppy.”

In the trial’s aftermath, a special grand jury indicted four sheriff’s deputies and three prosecutors for perjury and obstruction of justice in their involvement with the Cruz and Hernandez case (”The DuPage Seven”). In December 2002, based on their innocence, Illinois Governor George Ryan pardoned both men.

Morris and Ruth Gauger were murdered on April 8, 1993 at their McHenry County farm, where they, in addition to farming, operated a motorcycle shop and sold imported rugs. Gauger, who lived with his parents, discovered his 74-year-old father’s body the next day and called 911 to summon paramedics, who notified sheriff’s police. Shortly after deputies arrived, they found the body of 70-year-old Ruth in a trailer from which the rugs were sold.

Gauger was indicted on May 5, 1993, on two counts of murder. He denied that he had confessed, claiming he had made the statements only hypothetically after his interrogators persuaded him it was possible he had committed the double murder during an alcoholic blackout. The statements were not electronically recorded, and deputies made no contemporaneous recording of them.

At a hearing on a pretrial motion to suppress the alleged confession, Gary testified that deputies had induced him to speculate about how he might have committed the crime. He said they accomplished this by telling him that he had failed a polygraph examination and that clothes drenched in his parents’ blood had been found in his room. In fact, the polygraph had been inconclusive and there were no blood-drenched clothes.

At trial, the jury heard the official version of Gary’s allegedly inculpatory statements. According to deputies, Gary told them he committed the crimes by coming upon his parents from behind, pulling their heads back by their hair, and cutting their throats. The only evidence introduced to corroborate the alleged statements was the testimony of a pathologist who performed autopsies on the bodies and a state forensic scientist who examined loose hairs found near Ruth’s body.

After the jury found him guilty on both counts, Gary waived a jury for sentencing and was sentenced to death by Judge Henry L. Cowlin of January 11, 1994. Nine months later, after Northwestern University Law Professor Lawrence C. Marshall agreed to take the case on appeal, Cowlin reduced the sentence to life in prison.

On March 8, 1996, the Second District Illinois Appellate Court unanimously reversed and remanded the case for a new trial on the ground that Cowlin erred in failing to grant a motion to suppress Gary’s allegedly inculpatory statements. In an unpublished opinion written by Judge S. Louis Rathje, with Judges Robert D. McLaren and Fred A. Geiger concurring, the court held that the statements were the fruit of an arrest made without probable cause and therefore should not have been admitted at the trial.

Without the confession, McHenry County State’s Attorney Gary W. Pack had no choice but to drop the charges, and set Gary free. Pack continued to suggest publicly that Gary had in fact committed the crime and was freed only because the prosecution could not meet its burden of proof without the confession.

Pack’s position was severely undermined in June of 1997, however, when a federal grand jury in Milwaukee indicted two members of a Wisconsin motorcycle gang known as the Outlaws for 34 acts of racketeering, including the murder of the Gaugers. One of the Outlaws, James Schneider, pleaded guilty to acts relating to the murders in 1998. The other, Randall E. Miller, was convicted of the charges in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee in June of 2000.

At Miller’s trial, prosecutors played tape recordings in which Miller was heard to say that the authorities had nothing to link him to the Gauger murders because he had been careful not to leave any physical evidence. The recordings had been made by an Outlaw who turned government informant.

After his release, Gauger returned to farming in McHenry County.

Photo used with permission from Rob Warden, Executive Directer of the Center on Wrongful Convictions. photograph © Loren Santow

Jerry Hillard, 18, and Marilyn Green, 19, were shot to death in Washington Park on the south side of Chicago on August 15, 1982. Porter was charged with the crime two days later and, with the identification testimony of William Taylor, was convicted and sentenced to death. When Taylor was first questioned by police at the scene, he said he did not see the perpetrator. In later questioning at the police station, he claimed he saw Porter running by right after shots were fired. After 17 more hours of questioning, Taylor said he saw Porter shoot the two victims.

In early 1999, while Porter’s mental fitness was still under investigation, William Taylor recanted his trial testimony to volunteer private investigator Paul Ciolino and a student of David Protess, a professor of journalism at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University. A few weeks later, Protess, Ciolino, and two students obtained a signed affidavit and videotaped statement from a woman named Inez Jackson admitting that her husband, Alstory Simon, had in fact killed the couple. In February 1999, Ciolino obtained a videotaped confession from Simon and in September 1999, Simon pleaded guilty to the double murder and was sentenced to 37 years in prison.

Used with permission from The MacArthur Justice Center. Photograph © Loren Santow

Falsely accused by others and unfairly tried by a corrupt judge, Tillis and Cobb were exonerated only after an area lawyer’s chance remembrance of an old conversation implicating someone else. Enduring eight years on death row, Tillis and Cobb were put on trial more times than any other defendant in U.S. history.

On November 13, 1977, a little after 5:00 a.m., two men running a hot-dog stand on Chicago’s North Side were robbed at gunpoint, shot and killed. Three weeks later, a woman named Phyllis Santini went to the police with a story accusing Tillis and Cobb of the crime, claiming she had driven the getaway car. Both men were then arrested. When Cobb was apprehended - without a warrant - the police discovered he had a watch belonging to one of the victims. Cobb insisted he had recently bought it for $10 from Johnny Brown, Phyllis Santini’s boyfriend. Johnny Brown would later be suspected of being the actual killer.

Throughout the first three trials, the prosecution’s case revolved around the watch (the only physical evidence), Santini’s accusation, and the testimony of Arthur Shields, a bartender at a tavern across the street from the hot-dog stand, who testified that he had seen two black men stand inside his tavern’s door around the time of the homicides.

The defense was barred from presenting its full evidence to the court. Two defense witnesses, Patricia Usmani and Carol Griffin, offered testimony that Phyllis Santini had admitted to committing the murders with Brown and that she expected a reward for testifying against Cobb and Tillis. Santini was in fact paid $1,200.

The presiding judge of the first three trials, Thomas J. Maloney, refused to allow the testimony of Usmani and Griffin, even after the defense made an offer of proof. Judge Maloney, who was later convicted in a federal trial of taking bribes in criminal cases (and was accused of being tough on the defendants who did not offer bribes, like Tillis and Cobb), never instructed the jury to review Santini’s testimony, that of an accomplice witness who could have been charged with the crime herself, with suspicion (a legal procedure known as “jury instruction on accomplice testimony” or simply “accomplice instruction”).

Four years after Cobb and Tillis were sent to death row, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded their case. The Supreme Court found that Judge Maloney’s refusal to direct the jury with accomplice instruction constituted a judicial error. The Court also found Maloney erred by not allowing the testimony implicating Santini and her boyfriend.

After the reversal, Michael Falconer, a local lawyer, read an investigative story about the Cobb/Tillis case in Chicago Lawyer magazine. Falconer then came forward and reported that he had worked with Phyllis Santini in a factory many years ago. While there, Santini had told him that she and her boyfriend had robbed a restaurant and that her boyfriend had shot someone during the robbery.

Despite Falconer’s story, prosecutors tried Cobb and Tillis two more times. The fourth trial ended in a hung jury, but the fifth - a bench trial - resulted in an acquittal, largely due to Falconer’s testimony implicating Santini and Brown. On January 20, 1987, Darby Tillis and Perry Cobb - after spending eight years of their lives on death row - were finally cleared. In 2001, Illinois Governor George Ryan pardoned both men. Brown and Santini, in spite of all the evidence against them, have never been charged.

Following his release, Perry Cobb found a job as a janitor in a Chicago apartment building, giving up his old singing career due to a loss of confidence following his experience on death row. Darby Tillis became a preacher and formed an organization to help released death row inmates readjust to society. He has actively campaigned for death penalty moratoria in Illinois and elsewhere. Despite these accomplishments, however, Tillis’s horrific experience on death row will always be with him: “When you get the death penalty, most of us try to stand up and take it like a man,” he later explained. “Then you get to death row. You’re hit by the stench of Pinesol, feces, urine, body odor, sick odor. You are in the Death House…you’re warehoused for death, treated like contaminated meat to be disposed of. You sit there and await death, and the pain you know will come to you some day.”

photograph © Loren Santow

One of Washington’s defense attorneys told journalists that, in his view, Washington, an African-American in a southern town, had “found that the way to get by in his community as a mentally challenged black man was [to say] ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘Yes, sir,’ is an easy answer for him. It means he’s pleased his interrogator.” In an interview with Human Rights Watch, Washington’s lawyer elaborated: “Earl Washington developed a coping mechanism of pleasing authority figures. When police let him know what they wanted, he gave them that. He didn’t see the danger.”

Earl Washington Jr. came within nine days of being executed for a murder he did not commit. Washington spent nearly 18 years in prison, including nine on death row, before DNA testing led to his exoneration on February 12, 2001.

In her book, “An Expendable Man: The Near-Execution of Earl Washington, Jr.,” Margaret Edds explains, “Washington was freed in February, 2001, not because of the legal and judicial systems, but in spite of them. While DNA testing was central to his eventual pardon, such tests would never have occurred without an unusually talented and committed legal team and a series of incidents that are best described as pure luck.”

Case

In 1983, Washington was taken into custody by police on charges unrelated to the murder that led to his wrongful conviction. While in custody, Washington waived his Miranda rights and was coerced by police into “confessing” to several crimes that he did not commit. One of the crimes that Washington “confessed” to was the 1982 rape and murder of Rebecca Williams. Police eventually acknowledged that Washington could not possibly have committed most of the crimes he had admitted to, but were less willing to let go of his confession in the Williams case, which had gone unsolved for a year. At trial, however, Washington’s lawyer failed to inform the jury of Washington’s other false confessions. His lawyer also failed to present evidence of Washington’s mental limitations and low IQ - factors that played a considerable role in his confessions.

Washington later recanted his confession, insisting that he had not committed the crime. He said, “I guess I just agreed with whatever [the police] told me, that’s what I agreed. Whatever they said, I agreed with, I guess.” In his “confession,” his trial lawyers said, “Earl, on more than ten to fifteen occasions simply uttered the words either yes or no.”

Police and prosecutors insisted on Washington’s guilt despite various odd aspects of the information volunteered. Washington, for instance, told the police that Rebecca Williams, his supposed victim, was black, although she was, in fact, white. He described her as “short” although she was 5′8″. He said he kicked in the door, which was found undamaged. He said he stabbed her two or three times, rather than the 38 times she was actually stabbed. He also said she was alone, although Williams’s two small children were present.

Despite Washington’s mental retardation, the trial court found that he had voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and that his confession was valid - even though the court knew that he had been found to be innocent of virtually everything else he had “confessed” to doing. After a three-day trial - in which prosecutors did not reveal to the jury Washington’s various false confessions - Earl Washington was sentenced to death.

During the trial, Washington’s lawyer, John Scott, failed to raise several key issues. Scott never sought an independent psychiatric evaluation and thus was unable to prove that Washington did not understand the larger implications of waiving his Miranda rights and confessing to the murder. Scott also failed to point out the large gaps in police notes from the interrogation that indicated Washington’s confession was coerced.

Subsequent appeals to state and federal courts were all denied, despite newly discovered forensic evidence that showed the seminal fluid found at the crime scene could not have been Washington’s. In 1993, new DNA tests were performed on the blood and semen found on the victim, and the results did not match Earl Washington’s DNA. Governor Wilder of Virginia nevertheless refused to overturn Washington’s conviction, arguing that perhaps Washington had had an accomplice (despite the victim’s dying words, in which she said her assailant had been alone), but on his last day in office he did reduce Washington’s sentence to life in prison.

In 2000, a new series of DNA tests ordered by Wilder’s successor, Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, showed once again that there was no trace of Washington’s blood or semen at the crime scene. After 18 years in prison, including nine and a half on death row, Washington received a pardon from Governor Gilmore and was released on February 12, 2001.

Each time another Texan is wrongly imprisioned, the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system is undermined. Texas has had 33 exonerations from DNA evidence since 2001. Sixteen exonerations came after 2005. These 33 people have spent a combined total of 427 years in prison. James Lee Woodard was recently exonerated after spending 27 years in prison, the longest of any exoneree in the country.

While there have been 33 exonerations in 10 separate counties in the state due to DNA evidence, many other exonerations have occurred without the aid of DNA evidence. It is important to remember that DNA evidence is only available in a fraction of cases and that the uniquely high number of Dallas County exonerations was only made possible because of good evidence preservation in recent years. Work must be done to improve the criminal justice system to limit wrongful convictions altogether, not just in cases where DNA evidence is available.

Congress’ innocence mission
“The death penalty aside, the tragedy placed on guiltless men and women and crime victims because of inequities in the system should be [Congress’s] guiding force in assuring the full funding of the Innocence Protection Act. There can be no greater horror to justice than the shackling of the innocent.”
- Fort Wayne Journal Gazette (IN), 03/17/05

No justice for all without funding
“Congress should fund law to help reduce DNA backlog and improve errors in capital cases…Fairness and justice demand that states improve reversible mistakes in capital cases. The Justice for All Act would do just that.”
- Indianapolis Star (IN), 03/16/05

Protecting the innocent
“Bush has been trying…to help prosecutors clear huge case backlogs. Meantime, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., tried to get money for post-conviction DNA testing. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., last year won passage of the Justice for All Act, which calls for both kinds of DNA testing…Many states provide few resources for poor defendants, so any federal help would be welcome.”
- The Denver Post (CO), 02/14/05

Change of Heart
“If Mr. Bush really wants to improve capital defense, he should propose funding the Justice for All Act.”
-The Washington Post, 02/13/05

Legal Counsel for Capital Cases
“Beyond expanding training, the new law [The Justice For All Act] contains well-written provisions that set standards for effective representation and provide large financial incentives for states to meet them.”
-The New York Times, 02/05/05

Fatal inequities
“Last month, President Bush signed the Justice For All Act, which (among other things) provides more hope to inmates awaiting DNA tests that could prove their innocence.”
-Daytona Beach News Journal (FL), 11/19/04

New DNA law a triumph for victims and justice
“If one side of the issue is the large number of untested evidence in rape trials, the other side is the tragedy of convictions against innocent people. The new law makes innocence easier and quicker to determine.”
-The Tennessean (TN), 11/08/04

Aid For The Innocent
“The new legislation, which had bipartisan support, is remarkably even-handed and goes beyond DNA testing…The double helix is a double-edged sword that has freed the innocent and convicted the guilty. But it can do so only if DNA testing is readily available. This legislation should help ensure that it is.”
-The Times Picayune (LA), 11/07/04

DNA-Test Success Should Make It A Funding Priority
“The Justice for All Act of 2004, passed by Congress in early October, commits $755 million to tackle states’ backlogs and adds $25 million for post-conviction DNA testing. It also provides money for training officers, forensic scientists and lawyers who try death penalty cases. The accuracy of DNA testing makes it the most powerful forensic tool the justice system has ever had…The state and nation can’t afford to ignore this powerful technology.”
-Columbus Dispatch (OH), 11/02/04

DNA Testing Act Finally Passes
“This new legislation — adopted after several years of debate — will reduce the evidence backlog, expand defendants’ access to post-conviction testing, support the development of new DNA technology and improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases.”
-Hartford Courant, 10/28/04

Wrongly Imprisoned Deserve Much More Than Bus Fare
“Congress passed an anti- crime bill that eases the way for federal prisoners to obtain new DNA tests of evidence. It also provides $25 million to help states defray the costs of post-conviction testing.”
-USA Today, 10/18/04.

Calling all DNA
“Congress is creating legislation that would boost funding to expedite DNA testing nationwide. A bill that passed the House of Representatives last week would provide $755 million in grants over the next five years to help clear the testing logjam…the feds should free the funds that would allow justice to be done expeditiously.”
-The Free Lance Star (VA), 10/16/04

DNA Evidence of Bipartisanship
“Congress deserves credit for overriding objections from the Justice Department and approving a pioneer program to provide federal suspects better defense lawyers and fairer access to DNA evidence in seeking post-conviction exonerations.”
-The New York Times, 10/14/04

Congress Ensures Justice For Some
“Congress did its part to correct some of the horrible injustices of the past and to prevent others from happening in the future.”
-Birmingham News (AL), 10/13/04

Fairness in DNA testing
“The House vote of 393-14 overwhelmingly approved $755 million for wider and more effective DNA tests, including tests that could prove innocence after a person is convicted of a federal crime.”
-The Journal News (NY), 10/12/04

Speed Up DNA Testing to Ensure Justice Is Done
“Help may be on the way, through a DNA evidence and crime victims bill known as The Justice for All Act of 2004…[it] contains provisions to solve two problems with DNA evidence, both of which have created nightmares for crime victims and for people wrongly convicted of crimes…The Justice For All Act would be an important supplement to help the innocent get out of prison.”
-Wisconsin State Journal (WI), 10/10/2004

Clear the DNA backlog
“Can the nation afford to delay identifying people who have committed violent crimes? The answer should be obvious. Congress should move as quickly as possible to help law enforcement officers and the courts use this valuable tool.”
-Chicago Tribune (IL), 09/25/04

DNA Bill Advances Without Sessions
“Making sure innocent people don’t go to jail ought to unite Republicans, Democrats and folks of every other political persuasion. It serves nobody’s interest to lock up the innocent and let the guilty go free. No doubt, that’s why a bill which would provide extra funding and resources for DNA testing drew bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.”
-The Birmingham News (AL), 09/25/04

Sessions Needs to Stop Blackballing DNA Bill
“Sen. Sessions should not use his leadership position to block a bill with such importance to the U.S. judicial system.”
-The Decatur Daily (AL), 09/23/04

Expanded DNA testing good for victims, accused
“This bill is a rare piece of legislation that is of benefit both for victims and the accused.”
-The Daily Dispatch (NC), 09/23/04

OK to DNA Funds
“A prosecutor and a large part of the public believed at one point that each of those former Death Row inmates was a “murderer.” Science proved them wrong…Why in the world would we deprive our judicial system greater certainty?”
-The Anniston Star (AL), 09/22/04

Dawdling Over DNA
“[The Innocence Protection Act is] a worthy measure that would ensure fairer access to post-conviction DNA testing and encourage states to improve the abysmal caliber of legal representation in capital cases.”
-The New York Times, 09/21/04

DNA testing serves justice
“Whether DNA evidence proves someone guilty or proves him innocent, it can advance the cause of justice better than just about anything we’ve got going.”
-Birmingham News (AL), 09/21/04

DNA testing bill helps innocent
“Providing more federal money for DNA testing could free up state money for other forensics work…If one person is serving time for a crime he or she did not commit, a “justice system” worthy of the name would allow that person access to modern technology to prove it…If passed, this legislation would help convict the guilty and free the not guilty. Even a former prosecutor should be comfortable with both results.”
-Montgomery Advertiser (AL), 09/20/04

Opposing DNA Reform
“The bill does little that shouldn’t be a matter of consensus. It would make sure that physical evidence in federal cases is preserved and made available for post-conviction testing and law enforcement purposes.”
-The Washington Post, 09/14/04

Exonerations Expose Blinders on Public Officials
“The exonerations speak, as well, to the need for passage of the Innocence Protection Act…That bill…would ensure national access to post-conviction DNA testing and provide funds to test a national backlog of more than 300,000 rape kits and other crime scene evidence.”
-The Virginian-Pilot (VA), 09/13/04

Toward justice
“This progressive legislation passed overwhelmingly in the U.S. House last fall. It is now in the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and an affirmative vote is expected soon in the Senate.”
-The News & Observer (NC), 07/13/04

Give DNA testing a fair chance
“Justice delayed is justice denied, and by improving law enforcement DNA testing, this bill will both help catch the guilty and free the innocent with the speed we expect and demand.”
-Chicago Sun-Times, 07/02/04

State DNA lab needs oversight
“…[T]he mounting realization of potential error, particularly when dealing with genetic mixtures and with weak or limited DNA samples, means that state and local labs cannot be too careful. The Innocence Protection Act, approved by the U.S. House and now before the Senate, requires that states create a process for independent external investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct involving forensic evidence. The act merits passage.”
-The Boston Globe, 06/24/04

DNA justice
“The benefits of DNA testing in criminal cases ought to be widely available throughout the United States, to help punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent. A bill before the US Senate would do just that, if it is not gutted under pressure from the Justice Department. [...] The US system of justice is balanced between respect for defendants’ rights and the need to punish wrongdoers. The Senate should approve the bill as passed by the House to further these compatible goals.”
-The Virginian-Pilot, 06/24/04

Justice delayed
“…[V]ictims of violent crimes without suspects also deserve the use of this singularly effective tool. As good as DNA matching is for catching criminals, victims and prosecutors aren’t the only beneficiaries. Just as a solid match can point to a suspect, solid nonmatches have freed wrongly convicted prisoners, including some on Death Row. [...] Such a potent truth-telling system, able to convict the guilty and free the innocent, should not languish for lack of funds.”
-The Columbus Dispatch (OH), 06/18/04

Clear the DNA bottleneck
“DNA test results often provide the smoking-gun proof to confirm a suspect’s guilt or validate his innocence. [...] Such legislation would be welcomed by tens of thousands of rape victims, who sometimes wait months to see results from the DNA samples connected to their cases. At least $755 million would go for the testing of the 300,000 rape kits and other crime-scene evidence that’s gathering dust while awaiting analysis. [...] For justice’s sake, the DNA technology bill deserves approval by the Senate…”
-The Indianapolis Star, 06/17/04

DNA technology act is needed
“Hatch and Leahy are to be commended for this bipartisan effort to help ensure that the perpetrators of violent crime are justly tried and people wrongly convicted can be exonerated. Victims of violent crimes, as well as their loved ones, deserve to have their cases handled as quickly as possible to aid in their recovery. [...] Between giving states the financial resources to conduct DNA tests and provide better legal representation, this legislation stands to make great strides in enhancing America’s system of justice. The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to take the next step by endorsing the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act and sending it to the full Senate for passage.”
-Deseret Morning News (UT), 06/17/04

DNA Testing Bill Fixes Some Flaws in Justice
“The final component of this ‘Innocence Protection Act’ also contains provisions in the form of grants to states to improve the quality of representation in death penalty cases for those who cannot afford lawyers. Sponsors of the bill hope that these monies will persuade states to draft better systems whereby such public defenders are put in place. Obviously DNA tests would not be required nearly as often to prove the innocence of those on death row if they had received decent legal representation in the first place.”
-Aberdeen American News (SD), 11/12/03

Strong Measure for Justice
“Both sides of the aisle in both chambers, through months of talks, have hammered out their differences to craft a worthy piece of legislation that primarily would maximize the use of DNA evidence to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. […] The original proposal [of the Innocence Protection Act] featured sticks as well as carrots for the states. The finished product is all carrots. For instance, the legislation offers states $500 million over five years to improve the prosecution of capital cases and to ensure that defendants have adequate counsel. […] Indeed, Congress should pass it and Bush should sign it.”
-The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/17/03

Protecting the Innocent
“Freeing innocent people at the initial trial doesn’t only avert the tragedy of punishing the innocent. It saves the expense of lengthy appeals that clog the court system. So it helps justice work better for all. […] Still, in a nation that has dedicated itself to truth and justice, the provisions in the bill announced last week to increase access to DNA evidence and better defense counsel are just common sense.”
-Omaha World Herald, 10/14/03

Justice Through DNA
“A bipartisan group of lawmakers from both houses of Congress unveiled a bill last week that would revive a long-languishing and critically important measure to prevent erroneous convictions in death penalty cases. […] The act would ensure that physical evidence in federal criminal cases is preserved and available for post-conviction testing, and would create financial incentives for states to adopt rules on such testing and also improve defense representation in death penalty cases.”
-The Washington Post, 10/07/03

Justice Ill-Served
“Given adequate resources, the police forensic unit can hold the key to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of unsolved cases that turn on DNA evidence. Justice is ill-served if local law enforcement agencies fail to take advantage of this valuable tool. It takes anywhere from several minutes to an hour to run a DNA sample through the database.”
-The Baltimore Sun, 9/10/2003 (Read the complete editorial)

Congress Should Pass Innocence Protection Act
“This year, Congress should take a stand for the cause of justice and finally pass the Innocence Protection Act. If states are going to execute people for crimes, they have an obligation, both to the inmate and to the inmate’s family, to make sure they have it right. After all, once a person is executed, the state can’t correct its mistake if the person is later found to be innocent.”
-The Jackson Sun (TN), 2/19/03

Protecting the Innocent
“This vitally needed measure, the Innocence Protection Act, would also have helped remedy the problem of inadequate defense counsel, the most frequent cause of wrongful convictions. [...][B]y the time lawmakers adjourned, the number of Republican and Democratic House members sponsoring the Innocence Protection Act had swelled to 250, well over half the chamber.”
-The New York Times, 11/26/02

In Defense of the Innocent
“The proposed Innocence Protection Act, a bipartisan bill making its way through Congress, would help reserve death row for the guilty. It would provide set federal standards for the collection and testing of DNA evidence and provide money to states that adopt those standards. The bill also would establish a grant program to encourage states to improve their capital defense programs. [...] Some 3,700 men and women around the nation now have a date with the executioner. The prospect that innocent people could be among them should frighten every American.”
-The Los Angeles Times, 9/21/02

Back DNA Tests - Our Position: Congress Should Pass a Law Preventing Execution of Innocent People
“Now is the time to push this common-sense law [Innocence Protection Act], because it has broad bipartisan support, with 240 co-sponsors in the U.S. House. [...] The proposal’s supporters include those who are for and those who are against capital punishment. The issue here is not the merit of the death penalty. What’s more important is maintaining the public’s trust in the nation’s system of justice. That trust would evaporate if an innocent person were to be executed.”
-The Orlando Sentinel, 09/07/02

Giving Inmates Access to DNA Tests Only Just
“Supporters of the bill include death-penalty proponents. They understand that a wrongful conviction has two consequences. Not only does an innocent person face execution, but a guilty one remains on the loose - free to strike again. [...] [The Innocence Protection Act] deserve[s] passage as quickly as possible.”
-San Antonio Express-News, 8/19/02

Protecting the Innocent: Bipartisan Measure Would Improve Odds of Getting the Right Verdict in Death Cases
“Congress is taking its time passing the Innocence Protection Act, and it needs to pick up the pace. [...] No matter where one stands on capital punishment, the Innocence Protection Act is a needed measure. It ought to be passed and signed into law.”
-The Columbus Dispatch, 8/3/02

Death Penalty Fixes
“The bill [Innocence Protection Act] has strong backing in Congress, reflecting the public’s growing awareness of problems inherent in the death-penalty system. In some form, it’s likely to become law, adding to the momentum to reshape that system and make it less subject to abuse.”
-The Christian Science Monitor, 8/24/02

Help for Poor Defendents
“The Senate Judiciary Committee has endorsed a promising bill that could prevent people who have been wrongly convicted of capital crimes from being executed. It’s a bold initiative that is getting surprising, bipartisan support - as well it should. [...] The state should never put to death an innocent person. The Innocence Protection Act backs up principle with funding. It deserves the support of lawmakers in both houses.”
-The Miami Herald, 7/24/02

Pass This Bill
“The Senate Judiciary Committee has begun marking up the Innocence Protection Act, a bill designed to protect capital defendants from wrongful conviction and execution…The new version strips out some of the initial bill…but it still would constitute a dramatic improvement in the legal landscape for innocent people wrongly accused of capital crimes. [...] The bill should pass. Events of the past few years have proven that the American death penalty poses grave and unacceptable risks to innocent people.”
-The Washington Post, 7/15/02

Congress Takes Small Step to Avert Wrongful Verdicts
“One-hundred-and-one. That’s the number of inmates who’ve been released from death rows nationally since 1973 due to evidence of innocence. It’s also the number of reasons Congress should pass the Innocence Protection Act now gathering steam in Washington, D.C. So long as capital punishment remains in the arsenal of punishments, it would be a crime in itself not to do everything possible to avoid such miscarriages of justice. The Innocence Protection Act is an opportunity to improve the system.”
-Virginian-Pilot, 6/24/02

A Fairer System of Justice
“No one should oppose the Innocence Protection Act now under review in Congress. Few issues are as divisive as capital punishment. Yet both sides can agree that no stone should be left unturned in the quest for justice. [...] This bill provides a way to ensure that goal. Congress should unite behind it.”
-The Tennessean, 6/19/02

DNA Bill Serves Justice
“A remarkable proposal in Congress aims to assure that no innocent person is executed and that everyone accused of a capital crime has competent legal representation. No wonder the Innocence Protection Act enjoys bipartisan backing from both supporters and opponents of the death penalty.”
-Arizona Republic, 6/14/02

When the Innocent Spend Years in Prison
“Thanks to growing bipartisan support in Congress, the Innocence Protection Act stands a promising chance for passage. Failure to enact this law would be an affront to the nation’s criminal justice system and would risk more innocent lives being ruined.”
-News & Record (NC), 6/7/02

I. Improve the quality of evidence relied upon in criminal cases.

• Eyewitness misidentification was the main factor is over 80% of all Texas’ DNA-documented wrongful convictions
  • Learn about history/background of eyewitness identification reform in Texas
• Forensic science is becoming increasingly relied upon, but Texas has only recently begun to guarantee the integrity of such results.
  • Learn about Texas failures in forensic science
  • Learn about the status of reform in Texas
  • See the consequences of faulty forensic analysis
• Texas needs recording of custodial interrogations
  • Learn about wrongful convictions in the state that would have likely been prevented if interrogations were recorded in Texas
• Unfair discovery practices in Texas undermine a fair defense
  • Learn about how unfair discovery robs Texas of Justice
  • See the consequences of unfair discovery

II. Create an official mechanism to review errors when they are discovered to prevent future mistakes.

• We must promote better oversight to ensure fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.
  • Learn about our efforts to promote better government oversight in the state of Texas
  • Support for better government oversight of our criminal justice system

III. Reform the system of indigent defense in Texas to ensure that government is accountable and provides fairness and accuracy to all members of society.

• Texas leads the nation in executions, and Dallas County leads the nation in exonerations, but the system in Texas does not even guarantee a decent lawyer.
  • Learn about the problems with indigent defense in Texas (Austin American Statesman, 10/06)
  • Learn about our featured reform, The Office of Capital Writs

• The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy’s (D-VT) Statement on the Legislative History of the IPA. From the Congressional Record, issued November 19, 2004
• Statement from the Honorable William Delahunt (D-MA 10th) on the Passage of the ‘Justice for All Act or 2004.’ Issued October 10, 2004.
• Statement from the Honorable Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on the Passage of the ‘Justice for All Act of 2004′ in the US Senate. Issued October 9, 2004.
• Statement from the Honorable Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on the Passage of the ‘Justice for All Act of 2004′ in the US Senate. Issued October 9, 2004.
• Statement from the Honorable Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) on the Passage of the ‘Justice for All Act of 2004′ in the US House of Representatives. Issued October 6, 2004.
• Statement from the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI 5th) on the Passage of the ‘Justice for All Act of 2004′ in the US House of Representatives. Issued October 6, 2004.

Wrongfully Convicted

• Letter to Congress from Kirk Bloodsworth, May 24, 2004.
• Statement from Kirk Bloodsworth on the Introduction of the Innocence Protection Act of 2003.
• Learn about Kirk Bloodsworth

Current and Former Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Officials

•  Letter from Prosecutors, Law Enforcement Officers, and Justice Department Officials to Congress

  Editorial Support

• Op-Ed: Unclog the Backlog, by Marty Goddard. East Valley Tribune (AZ), May 17, 2004.
• Op-Ed: DNA Testing Bill Would Protect the Innocent, by Jennifer Thompson. Durham Herald-Sun (NC), April 26, 2004.
• More Editorials from around the country in support of the IPA.