OTHER HELPFUL INFORMATION & LINKS TO OTHER RESOURCES AND FORMS
About the Innocence Project
The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal clinic affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University and created by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in 1992. The project is a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. As a clinic, law students handle case work while supervised by a team of attorneys and clinic staff. |
The purpose of The House of Renewed Hope is to fight for social justice for the wrongfully accused and convicted through the following activities:
Public Education & Presentations
Information & Publications about Wrongful Conviction
Referral, Assistance and Support for Newly Released Exonerees
Fundraising to help wrongfully convicted persons obtain DNA testing and other services
Legislative Advocacy
Prosecutorial Accountability
Prosecutorial Accountability in the Post-Connick v. Thompson Era: Reforms and Solutions ABA Midyear Meeting in New Orleans ime: Saturday, February 4, 2012, 3:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. Location: Louisiana State Bar Association, Founder’s Room,
Last year in Connick V. Thompson, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court overturned a $14 million judgment awarded to exonerated death row prisoner John Thompson against the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office. The Court refused to hold the Office financially liable, provoking sharp dissents from 4 current Justices and public criticism from former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. This year, inSmith v. Cain, the Court again questioned Orleans Parish prosecutors to determine whether alleged misconduct should result in a new trial for a convicted prisoner. Both cases involved alleged violations of Brady v. Maryland, the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court cases that requires prosecutors to provide certain kinds of evidence to the defense before trial. A new study published by Yale Law Journal Online provides an in-depth examination of state bars’ procedures for disciplining prosecutors. The study finds that prosecutors are rarely sanctioned for misconduct and that reforms are needed to ensure that state bars hold prosecutors accountable.
ABA Co-Sponsors: Death Penalty Representation Project, Criminal Justice Section, Section for Individual Rights and Responsibilities, Section of Litigation, Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project DRUGS
Drug War Chronicle / By Clarence Walker 5 COMMENTS How Corrupt Prosecutors Get Away With Sending Innocent People to Jail Prosecutors are arguably the most powerful figures in the American criminal justice system, a system that is not equipped or willing to punish their crimes. May 15, 2012 | Prosecutors are arguably the most powerful figures in the American criminal justice system. They decide which charges to bring, what plea bargains to offer, and what sentences to request. Given their role in the system and the broad powers they exercise, it is critical that they discharge those duties responsibly and ethically. Brian Wilbourn's conviction was overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. But according to attorneys and criminal justice reform advocates, prosecutors across the country are misbehaving -- and getting away with it. While the most common forms of prosecutorial misconduct are hiding exculpatory evidence and engaging in improper examination and argumentation, another form of intentional misconduct is the knowing use of false testimony to win convictions. "Perjury can easily undermine a defendant's right to a fair trial," said Chicago criminal defense attorney Leonard Goodman. He ought to know. In 2009, Goodman represented Brian Wilbourn in a federal narcotics case in which prosecutors knowingly allowed an informant to testify that Wilbourn sold crack cocaine out of a penthouse apartment over a three-year period when he was in fact nowhere near the scene at any time. "Mr. Wilbourn was safely locked away in prison when the informant testified that Wilbourn was selling drugs at the penthouse between 2002 and 2005," Goodman explained. The US 7th District Court of Appeals overturned Wilbourn's conviction because of the perjured testimony. "When the government obtains a conviction through the knowing use of false testimony, it violates a defendant's due process rights," wrote Judge Daniel Manion as he ordered the reversal. And when a prosecutor knowingly allows perjured testimony to be heard, that's prosecutorial misconduct. In the Wilbourn case, Assistant US Attorney Rachel Cannon knew that her informant's testimony was false -- because Goodman told her so before the trial -- yet she has not been sanctioned in any way. That's not unusual. Legal experts say most prosecutors dedicate themselves to do an ethical and professional job, but that some prosecutors repeatedly commit misconduct because they realize they most likely will never face serious punishment. Prosecutors have immunity from civil liability for their misbehavior, and the legal system seems unable or unwilling to effectively police itself. Prosecutorial misconduct can have serious financial consequences for state and local governments. Taxpayers take the hit to retry cases thrown out because of misconduct, and they take another hit when states pay compensation to the wrongfully imprisoned. But despite the seriousness of the issue, there has been little research done nationwide on the scope of prosecutorial misconduct. What research there is suggests that even misbehaving prosecutors have little to worry about. A 2003 study conducted by the Center for Public Integrity, Harmful Error, found that among 11,452 documented appeals alleging prosecutorial misconduct between 1970 and 2002, approximately 2,012 appeals led to reversals or remanded indictments, indicating prosecutorial misconduct in 17.6% of the cases. In California, the Veritas Institute issued a 2009 report, Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California, 1997-2009, which reviewed 4,000 complaints of misconduct and found it occurred in 707 of them. Only six prosecutors were disciplined. In March, the Prosecutorial Oversight Coalition released research findings on Texas convictions between 2004 and 2008 that showed appeals courts found a pattern of prosecutorial error or misconduct in 91 cases, ranging from hiding exculpatory evidence to improper argument and examination. While the appeals courts found the errors "harmless" in 72 cases, affirming the convictions, they reversed 19 cases because of prosecutorial conduct "harmful" to the defendant. Still, none of those prosecutors were disciplined, the report found. Only one prosecutor in the state was disciplined for misconduct during that period, and that was for misconduct committed before 2004. Chicago defense attorney Leonard Goodman "As best we can determine, most prosecutors' offices don't even have clear internal systems for preventing and reviewing misconduct, but perhaps even more alarming is that bar oversight entities tend not to act in the wake of even serious acts of misconduct," said Stephen Saloom, Policy Director of the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. "We don't accept this lack of accountability and oversight for any other government entity where life and liberty are at stake, and there's no reason we should do so for prosecutors." Prosecutors want to win cases, even at the expense of justice, said legal observers. "It's a result-oriented process today, fairness be damned," said Robert Merkle, a former US Attorney in Florida. That certainly seems to be the case in the Brian Wilbourn prosecution. He was charged along with 16 other defendants in December 2007 with numerous federal counts of possession and conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, heroin, and marijuana at the Cabrini Green Public Housing Development in Chicago Illinois. The DEA and prosecutors alleged that Wilbourn was part of the Gangster Disciples drug dealing gang led by Rondell "Nightfall" Freeman. When the DEA announced federal charges against the defendant, a spokesman said the agency was "upending the gang's flagrant drug dealing at public housing projects and other apartments in the Chicago area." Charging that the group was taking in $3 million a year, the feds played on a holiday theme. "It's a season of giving, so our gift to the people is to let them live without constant fear of this drug organization all around them," said ATF Special Agent in Charge Andy Traver. "And our gift to Rondell Freeman and his organization is 20 years to life." But in the end, prosecutorial misconduct gave the defendants a gift. Wilbourn, Freeman, and three other defendants who went to trial and were convicted had their convictions thrown out because prosecutors knowingly allowed perjured testimony to be heard. "This was a case where prosecutors allowed an informant to testify falsely against my client, Brian Wilbourn," said Goodman. "Prior to trial, I informed the government that my client was in prison from 2002-2005 -- when the informant said he saw Mr. Wilbourn selling drugs in the company of co-defendant Rondell Freeman." Prosecutors conceded that Goodman submitted the certified documents to them in December 2008, two months before the trial started, but they would later argue before Judge Lefkow they could not accurately verify the dates of Wilbourn's incarceration. In one example, prosecutor Rachel Cannon noted that three separate entries in court documents said that Wilbourn was not in court in April 2002 and that a no-bail warrant had been issued for him. But Goodman explained that Wilbourn had in fact been arrested a week later, pleaded guilty to an offense, and had been sentenced to prison, from which he was not released until September 2005. "Wilbourn's incarceration date was listed on records from Illinois Department of Corrections including the time period he was re-arrested and placed in the county jail," Goodman explained. Despite Goodman's notice that Wilbourn was incarcerated during the period described in the indictment, the government plowed ahead to convict Goodman's client. And it did so in part relying on the testimony of informant Seneca Williams, who had rolled over for the feds and agreed to testify against others in exchange for a lighter sentence. Williams testified at length about an apartment penthouse that was allegedly at the center of the conspiracy, frequently placing Wilbourn on the scene discussing sales and bagging up the drugs for distribution with Freeman and other players in the group. Of particular significance to the conspiracy charge, Seneca Williams not only testified to seeing Freeman, Wilbourn, Hill, and Sanders transport and sell drugs at designated locations during specific time periods. Williams also went far as to identify Wilbourn's voice on two audio recordings -- which served as the basis for a conspiracy charge which carried up to life in prison. "You mentioned that you saw Brian Wilbourn at this apartment as well, what did you see him do?" asked prosecutor Cannon during direct examination. "I seen him use orange-striped bags to bag up crack cocaine, heroin and marijuana." Williams testified. "And when was that?" "That was early 2003." During cross examination, Goodman confronted Williams with the fact that his client was in prison from 2002 to 2005 and could not have been at the penthouse apartment discussing drug business like Williams said Wilbourn had been doing. "Now Mr. Williams, isn't it true that Brian Wilbourn was in jail from April 23rd of 2002 until September 2005?" Goodman asked. "I don't know it to be true," Williams replied. Suddenly, Assistant US Attorney Kruti Trivedi objected, saying "That's not true." "It is true, your honor," Goodman rejoined, and Judge Lefkow overruled the prosecutor. Under continued intense questioning by Goodman, Williams confessed to other misdeeds, including previously perjuring himself in an earlier drug case against Rondell Freeman to help him beat that rap. He said he testified falsely in that case because he didn't want to lose his job and a place to stay at Freeman's car wash. He added that he decided to cooperate with the government because he was facing a minimum of 20 years in prison and was looking forward to receive a reduced sentence of 58 months. That gave Goodman an even larger opening. "You would lie at Rondell Freeman's trial in state court because if he got convicted you might not get to live at the car wash, correct?" he asked. "Yes," Williams responded. "But you wouldn't lie to save yourself 15 years of your life?" "No." On redirect the government made no attempt to correct Williams' false testimony that he saw Wilbourn selling drugs between 2002 and 2005, when Wilbourn was in Illinois Department of Corrections. Instead the government tried to bolster Williams' glaringly inaccurate testimony: "Have you been truthful and tried to the best of your ability to give approximate dates as you remember them?" prosecutors asked. "Yes," he replied. In a hearing outside the presence of the jury, Goodman informed Judge Lefkow that he had filed a motion to dismiss the counts against Wilbourn because of prosecutors allowing Williams' false testimony against his client. Wilbourn had been "incarcerated from April 2002 until September 2005 -- and Williams' testimony about the events and conversations purportedly involving Wilbourn and co-defendants at the penthouse apartment on Granville during late 2002-2003, was false," Goodman told the judge. "The government had an obligation under to correct the record," he said. But prosecutors weren't interested. "The government stipulated as to the dates of Wilbourn's incarceration and if Mr. Goodman wants to argue to the jury that Seneca Williams perjured himself, he's absolutely free to do that," retorted Cannon. "Our argument will be Williams was wrong about the dates but the facts remain true." Judge Lefkow responded to Cannon's argument. "You know, you as the representative of the United States have an obligation to make sure the evidence you are presenting is truthful and accurate." "We stand by everything that's been presented, your honor," Cannon replied. Judge Lefkow then denied the motion to dismiss based on the perjured testimony, and the trial headed for its conclusion. Even in closing arguments, Cannon continued to insist that Williams had not perjured himself. "Williams did not lie," she explained. "Don't think what he testified to about Brian Wilbourn's involvement with drugs never happened. Ladies and gentleman, it's for you to decide whether these witnesses were testifying to facts as they remember them or whether they were actually lying." Goodman implored the jury to find his client not guility. "They put a liar on the stand and he got caught and the government still has the nerve to ask you to rely on Seneca Williams' testimony to convict. You should be offended." The jury sided with the government and convicted all four defendants. The jury convicted Wilbourn and Freeman on the conspiracy charge to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine, an offense that carried up to life in prison. The defendants appealed, and on appeal, prosecutors continued to argue that they did not knowingly use false testimony to convict them. That even after Judge Lefkow found that when Cannon "bolstered William's false testimony it constituted prosecutorial misconduct. The government had a duty to correct false testimony." Upon winning the appeal, Goodman felt vindicated and pleased that his client no longer faces life in prison for a conviction based on perjured testimony. "It is an important opinion because it stands for the principle that federal prosecutors are not above the law and that telling the truth is more important than winning. Federal cases are based on the word of informants who understand the only way to get a lesser sentence is to help government prosecutors convict others," he said. "Everybody knows these witnesses will lie, saying whatever the government want them to say to get a deal," said Goodman after winning the appeal. "The only difference in this case is we happened to catch one." "No trial is perfect, and sometimes mistakes are made, but for a prosecutor to put perjury on the witness stand that is scary," said Mark Vinson, a former Harris County (Houston), Texas, Chief Prosecutor, now in private practice as a criminal defense attorney. Despite winning their appeal, Wilbourn and the others remain in federal custody pending the resolution of other charges against them. Nothing has happened to Assistant US Attorney Cannon or her colleagues |
Texas Prisons Kill People with Heatby USW88 of United Struggle from Within August 2014 permalink
|
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 09, 2014
The rise of 'mass incarceration,' the term Mass incarceration, the practice, has been going on for nigh on three decades in this country. But over the summer, Oliver Roeder at the Brennan Center curiously found that the phrase "mass incarceration" didn't come into popular use until more recently. Here's a summary chart (usage data from Lexis/Nexis): Fascinating. When I searched Grits' archives, for whatever reason, I found that here, too, the first use of "mass incarceration" was in 2007. Before that, the blog pretty uniformly applied the term "over-incarceration" to the same concept. I couldn't begin to tell you where I picked up the term. By the time Michelle Alexander published The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness in 2010, the term was in frequent use on this blog. My guess: Perhaps the term's wider usage stemmed from 2007 congressional hearings titled "Mass Incarceration in the United States: At What Cost?" Bruce Western used the term in a New York Review of Books article earlier that year. The earliest Grits use I can find was from February 2007 referencing the spread of immigration detention facilities. The first use of the term on the blog was actually by a commenter, Rev. Alan Bean of Friends of Justice, the month before. ¿Quien sabe? Funny how terms creep up on you. Without seeing the data, I wouldn't have guessed the usage was that recent. |
A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual, Ninth Edition
You can download the entire contents of A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual and Supplement, one chapter at a time. You’ll need to have a program called Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer. If you don't already have it, you candownload Acrobat for free. LEGAL DISCLAIMER A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual is written and updated by members of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. The law prohibits us from providing any legal advice to prisoners. The information is not intended as legal advice or representation nor should you consider it as such. Additionally, your use of the JLM should not be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship with the JLM staff or anyone at Columbia Law School. We have attempted to provide information that is up to date and useful. However, because the law changes frequently, we cannot guarantee that this information is current or correct. |
A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual
A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual (JLM) is a handbook of legal rights and procedures designed for use by people in prison. Since publication of the First Edition in 1978, tens of thousands of prisoners in institutions across the country have used A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual to exercise their legal rights. Prisoners are often indigent and lack access to legal counsel while incarcerated. The JLM informs prisoners of their legal rights and instructs them about how to secure these rights through the judicial process, clearly explaining legal research techniques and how to read legal documents. Prisoners may use the JLM to address specific problems related to their treatment in prison, or to attack their unfair convictions or sentences. To date, more than two hundred correctional facilities across the United States have ordered the JLM, in large part due to the Supreme Court's decision in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). Bounds requires states to provide prisoners with meaningful access to the judicial system, either through legal assistance programs or adequate law libraries. This influential opinion, written by Justice Marshall, and cited in over three hundred opinions in thirty-three states and eleven federal circuits, has had a dramatic impact on the ability of prisoners to pursue their legal rights while in prison. The JLM can assist prisoners in effectively using the resources available to them in their prison law libraries. Many prison administrators have ordered the JLM as part of their efforts to build adequate law libraries, discovering that prisoners find the book easy to use and relevant to issues that concern them. The Ninth Edition of the JLM, published in 2011, contains chapters covering a wide variety of topics that are listed and available for download in PDF format here. The JLM also includes a directory of legal and social services for prisoners around the country. With the needs of prisoners across the country in mind, the Columbia Human Rights Law Review has endeavored, to the extent feasible, to make the Ninth Edition of the JLM useful to all prisoners without regard to where they are incarcerated. The information on federal actions will be helpful to a prisoner in a federal prison, or pursuing federal claims, no matter where the prisoner is located. The law, procedures and forms relating to state actions vary from state to state, however. Where possible, we provide information that is generally applicable, although we often use New York forms and procedures for specific illustrations. We regret that the size and scope of the book prevent us from providing forms and specific procedural information for all states. Nevertheless, prisoners outside New York will find the JLM a valuable research tool. In the past few years, the United States Congress has created more obstacles to keep prisoners out of the courthouse. These new laws include the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which severely restricts prisoners’ ability to bring civil lawsuits, as well as their ability to be represented by an attorney. Similarly, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act sharply limits the availability of the writ of habeas corpus, used by prisoners for centuries to challenge unlawful confinement. Finally, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act denied judicial review in many circumstances to immigrants that are ordered deported because of past criminal activity. The Ninth Edition provides up-to-date information about changes in the law. In addition to the JLM, the HRLR published an English-languageImmigration and Consular Access Supplement for the first time in April, 2007. In May, 2008, a Spanish-language Immigration and Consular Access Supplement also became available available for purchase. A Spanish-language JLM (the "SJLM") is available to provide an accessible resource for those prisoners who speak only Spanish. TheSJLM was translated from the Fifth Edition of the English-language JLM. So, readers of this resource should know that some of the law included in the SJLM may be out of date and may not reflect recent important legal changes. SJLM readers must supplement this resource with their own research. We anticipate putting out a new edition of the SJLM in the coming two years. An important part of managing and revising the JLM is responding to the heavy volume of mail we receive from prisoners. We thank the many jailhouse lawyers whose helpful comments have contributed to improvements to in the JLM. We ask that readers of the manual continue to share with us their ideas and comments. In short, we hope the JLM will help prisoners protect their rights under the law. We urge dedicated jailhouse lawyers to continue to stand up for their rights and enforce their humanity against those who would try to deny it. Remember—the JLM stands behind you! [NEW] The Columbia Human Rights Law Review (HRLR) is proud to devote Issue 3 of Volume 43 in its entirety toLos Tocayos Carlos by James S. Liebman, Shawn Crowley, Andrew Markquart, Lauren Rosenberg, Lauren Gallo White, and Daniel Zharkovsky. This book-length article presents the story of how the state of Texas executed Carlos DeLuna for a murder Carlos Hernandez likely committed. Click here to access theLos Tocayos Carlos website. The Columbia Human Rights Law Review (HRLR) is one of the oldest and the most recognized human rights journals in the world. Established in 1967, the HRLR is run by students at Columbia University School of Law. The HRLR is dedicated to the analysis and discussion of human rights and civil liberties under both domestic and international law. The Columbia Human Rights Law Review produces two publications. The HRLR is an academic journal that publishes scholarly articles written by professors, practitioners and students. Our subscribers are individuals, institutions, human rights organizations and libraries in over forty countries. Those who have published in the HRLR include Marvin E. Frankel, Arthur C. Helton, Louis Henkin, Michael Posner, Antônio Augusto Cancado Trindade, and Bishop Desmond Tutu. |
A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual, Ninth Edition
You can download the entire contents of A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual and Supplement, one chapter at a time. You’ll need to have a program called Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer. If you don't already have it, you candownload Acrobat for free. LEGAL DISCLAIMER A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual is written and updated by members of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. The law prohibits us from providing any legal advice to prisoners. The information is not intended as legal advice or representation nor should you consider it as such. Additionally, your use of the JLM should not be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship with the JLM staff or anyone at Columbia Law School. We have attempted to provide information that is up to date and useful. However, because the law changes frequently, we cannot guarantee that this information is current or correct. Table of Contents Chapter 1Introduction: How to Use the JLM Chapter 2Introduction to Legal Research Chapter 3Your Right to Learn the Law and Go to Court Chapter 4How to Find A Lawyer Chapter 5Choosing a Court and a Lawsuit: An Overview of the Options Chapter 6An Introduction to Legal Documents Chapter 7Freedom of Information Chapter 8Obtaining Information to Prepare Your Case: The Process of Discovery Chapter 9Appealing Your Conviction or Sentence Chapter 10Applying for Re-Sentencing for Drug Offenses Chapter 11Using Post-Conviction DNA Testing to Attack Your Conviction or Sentence Chapter 12Appealing Your Conviction Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Chapter 13Federal Habeas Corpus Chapter 14The Prison Litigation Reform Act Chapter 15Inmate Grievance Procedures Chapter 16Using 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 to Obtain Relief From Violations of Federal Law Chapter 17The State's Duty to Protect You and Your Property: Tort Actions Chapter 18Your Rights at Prison Disciplinary Hearings Chapter 19Your Right to Communicate With the Outside World Chapter 20Using Article 440 of the New York Criminal Procedural Law to Attack Your Unfair Conviction or Illegal Sentence Chapter 21State Habeas Corpus: Florida, New York, and Michigan Chapter 22How to Challenge Administrative Decisions Using Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Chapter 23Your Right to Adequate Medical Care Chapter 24Your Right To Be Free from Assault by Prison Guards and Other Prisoners Chapter 25Your Right to Be Free From Illegal Body Searches Chapter 26Infectious Diseases: AIDS, Hepatitis, Tuberculosis, and MRSA in Prisons Chapter 27Religious Freedom in Prison Chapter 28Rights of Prisoners with Disabilities Chapter 29Special Issues for Prisoners with Mental Illness Chapter 30Special Information for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Prisoners Chapter 31Security Classification and Gang Validation Chapter 32Parole Chapter 33Rights of Incarcerated Parents Chapter 34The Rights of Pretrial Detainees Chapter 35Getting Out Early: Conditional & Early Release Chapter 38Rights of Juveniles in Prison Chapter 39Temporary Release Programs Chapter 41Special Issues of Women Prisoners Appendix IAddresses of Federal Courts and New York State Prisons and Their Respective Federal Judicial Districts Appendix IINew York State: Filing Instructions & Addresses of New York State Courts Appendix IIIAddresses of New York District Attorneys Appendix IVDirectory of Legal and Social Services for Prisoners Appendix VDefinitions of Words Used in the JLM Appendix VIDefinitions of Latin Words Used in the JLM Immigration and Consular Access SupplementTable of Contents Section IImmigration Section IIConsular Access Guía de Inmigración y Acceso ConsularEl Manuál de Asesoría Legal Para Prisioneros (referido como JLM por sus siglas en inglés) y La Guía de Inmigración y Acceso Consular están escritos y actualizados por editores del Columbia Human Rights Law Review. Somos estudiantes, no abogados, y la ley nos prohíbe de dar asistencia legal a prisioneros. Aunque elJLM es un recurso útil, tenga en cuenta las siguientes limitaciones:
Last updated April 2011 Login© Columbia University, 2000-2011. Thanks and credit to Columbia Human Rights Law Review |