EvidenceProf Blog

Editor: Colin Miller
Univ. of South Carolina School of Law

Wednesday, October 12, 2022

Reconsideration of John Brookins's Request for Parole

Tomorrow, the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons will reconsider John Brookins's request for parole. Last year, John's request for parole was denied in large part based upon a letter (Download Bucks letter) sent by the Bucks County District Attorney's Office. Unfortunately, this letter was inflammatory, prejudicial, and misstated several of the facts in the case. As a result, John's team has filed a 223 page binder ( Download Brookins Reconsideration Binder) to the Board of Pardons correcting the misstatements in the District Attorney's letter. This packet is consistent with the reporting we did on the Undisclosed Podcast on John's case. The packet and the podcast series both show the weakness of the State's case against John Brookins, John's actual innocence, and the strong evidence pointing to an alternate suspect in the case. They also show John's clean prison record and how he runs fitness and meditation programs for his fellow inmates. Moreover, they lay out the current dispute in his case: John wants DNA testing of crime scene evidence that could prove his innocence while the State vehemently opposes it.

Unfortunately, John's case has become a political football due to John Fetterman casting the lone vote in favor of parole for John last year. As a result, his political opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz, has portrayed Fetterman as a man who has tried to free a cold blooded murderer. As a doctor, however, Dr. Oz should support DNA testing in this case. He should also consider the record of cases we have covered on Undisclosed, with 17/27 cases leading to relief granted so far. The decision on whether John Brookins should be released should be based on facts, not politics.

-CM

October 12, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, September 24, 2022

Why the Alternate Suspect Having the Opportunity to Kill Hae Min Lee is Critical

At the hearing on the joint motion to vacate Adnan Syed's murder conviction, Becky Feldman from the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office said something fairly extraordinary. Her statement was in regard to one of the alternate suspects in the case. Here were the details on the suspect from the joint motion:

Screen Shot 2022-09-24 at 8.28.41 AM

At the hearing, though, Feldman went further, stating that this alternate suspect had motive, means, and opportunity to kill Hae Min Lee. I first got this detail from the update episode of the Serial Podcast (at about 8:30). A journalist who was at the hearing then confirmed that Feldman had said these exact words: "Suspect had motive opportunity and means to commit this crime."

This is a shocking statement and one that raises strong suspicion that this alternate suspect killed Hae. Why?

Continue reading

September 24, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (19)

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Undisclosed Mega-Update Thread 10

Yesterday, Judge Melissa Phinn granted the joint motion by the prosecution and defense to vacate Adnan Syed's murder conviction. Given this terrific turn of events, I wanted to do an update on the status of all of the cases we covered on Undisclosed.

Total cases covered: 27 cases.

Relief granted: 17 cases: 13 exonerations: (1) Shaurn Thomas; (2) Terrance Lewis; (3) Willie Veasy; (4) Chester Hollman III; (5) Charles Ray Finch; (6) Theophalis Wilson; (7) Jonathan Irons; (8) Dennis Perry; (9) Ronnie Long; (10) Joseph Webster; (11) Darrell Ewing; (12) Joey Watkins; and (13) Adnan Syed. 2 stays of execution: (1) Marcellus Williams; and (2) William Montgomery. 1 commutation: Cyntoia Brown. 1 grant of parole: Cyrus Wilson.

Currently pending: 6 cases. (1) Pedro Reynoso's CIU petition; (2) Fred Freeman/Temujin Kensu's CIU petition; (3) John Brookins's DNA petition; (4) Jeff Titus's CIU petition; (5) Pam Lanier's motion for a new trial; and (6) Wayne Braddy and Karl Willis's motion for a new trial.

New appeals expected soon: 3 cases: (1) Jamar Huggins; (2) Greg Lance; and (3) Jason Carroll

Options being explored: 1 case: Rocky Myers

1. Adnan Syed

Screen Shot 2022-09-20 at 8.45.22 AM

Adnan Syed was convicted of the 1999 murder of his ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee (Undisclosed series). As noted, yesterday, Judge Phinn vacated his conviction and set him free.

2. Joey Watkins

JWat

Joey Watkins was convicted of the 2000 murder of Isaac Dawkins (Undisclosed series). Judge Don W. Thompson of the Superior Court of Walker County granted Joey Watkins's petition for writ of habeas corpus on April 11, 2022, meaning that Joey's conviction for murdering Isaac Dawkins has been tossed. The State's appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia will be heard on October 4th.

3. Jamar Huggins

Hugg

The one witness to implicate Jamar Huggins in a home invasion in Conway, South Carolina in 2014 has since recanted and named the actual person who committed the crime (Undisclosed series). The initial claim was that this was "new evidence" allowing for a new trial. But the Circuit Court found this recantation was known and not used by trial counsel. That decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of South Carolina. This was all expected and sets up a pretty compelling argument for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. I'm currently working on that argument with Jamar's attorney.

4. Marcellus Williams

MWill

Marcellus Williams was convicted of the 1998 murder of Felicia Gayle. Governor Eric Greitens  stayed Marcellus Williams's execution in August 2017 (Undisclosed special episode). He also appointed a Board of Inquiry to review his case. That Board has not yet issued its report.

5. Shaurn Thomas

Stho

Shaurn Thomas was convicted of the 1990 murder of Domingo Martinez (Undisclosed series). In March 2017, the Conviction Integrity Unit in Philadelphia threw out Shaurn Thomas's conviction. Philadelphia officials later agreed to pay him $4.15 million.

6. Willie Veasy

Veasy3

Willie Veasy was convicted of the 1992 murder of John Lewis (Undisclosed series). On October 9, 2019, a judge vacated his conviction, and the State later dropped the charges against him due to compelling evidence of his innocence. Willie ultimately settled with the State for $5 million.

7. Terrance Lewis


Lewis3

Terrance Lewis was convicted of the murder of Hulon Bernard Howard in 1996. Judge Barbara McDermott declared Terrance innocent in May 2019, leading to his release from prison (Undisclosed series). On June 30, 2020, it was announced that he had reached a settlement in which the city would pay him $6.25 million. Terrance has since started the Terrance Lewis Foundation, "a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for wrongfully convicted people who are seeking legal representation."

8. Chester Hollman III

Hollman3

Chester Hollman III was convicted of the 1991 murder of Tae Jung Ho (Undisclosed series). On July 15, 2019, he was released based on a finding that Hollman was innocent, and all charges against him were subsequently dropped on July 30th. Subsequently, on December 30, 2020, a settlement was reached, pursuant to which Chester Hollman III will be awarded $9.8 million for his 28 years of wrongful conviction.

9. Cyntoia Brown

Cbrown

Cyntoia Brown was convicted of the 2004 murder and robbery of Johnny Michael Allen (Undisclosed special episode). Governor Bill Haslam granted Cyntoia Brown clemency, and she was released August 7, 2019.

10. Ronnie Long

RLong6

Long was convicted of the 1976 rape of Gray Bost (Undisclosed series). In August, 2020, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina entered an order vacating Ronnie Long's convictions for first-degree rape and burglary. In September 2020, he was released from prison. On December 17, 2020 North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper issued a Pardon of Innocence for Ronnie Long, making him eligible for $750,000 in compensation. On May 3, 2021, Long filed a civil action, seeking additional compensation for his decades of wrongful conviction.

11. William Montgomery

Monty

William Montgomery was convicted of the 1986 murder of  Debra Ogle (Undisclosed special addendum interview). Governor John Kasich commuted William's death sentence to a life without parole sentence in March 2018.

12. Pamela Lanier

Lanier3

Pam Lanier was convicted of the 1997 murder of her husband Dorian (Undisclosed series). Pam's team at Wake Forest has filed motion for a new trial  based on new scientific evidence that Pam's husband died from arsenic poisoning based on ingesting turkey medication rather than being poisoned by her. A hearing that was scheduled for June 27, 2022 was postponed.

13. Dennis Perry

DPer

Dennis Perry was convicted of the 1985 murders of Harold and Thelma Swain (Undisclosed series). In April 2020, it was reported that glasses likely left at the crime scene by the killer had hairs that returned a DNA match for alternate suspect Erik Sparre. A hearing on Dennis's motion for extraordinary relief was held on July 13, 2020. The result of that hearing was Dennis Perry being granted a new trial. On July 23, 2020, he was released from prison. Legislators in Georgia recently cleared legislation that "would pay 60-year-old Dennis Perry $1.23 million for the 20 years he spent in state custody."

14. Charles Ray Finch

Finch

Charles Ray Finch was convicted of the 1976 murder of Richard Holloman (Undisclosed special episode). The Fourth Circuit first found that Charles Ray Finch had proven his "actual innocence."  Then, a federal district court granted his habeas petition and set him free in May 2019. Finch recently died in January.

Screen Shot 2019-05-23 at 12.09.19 PM

On June 16, 2021, Governor Roy Cooper issued a Pardon of Innocence for Finch.

15. Rocky Myers

RMy

Rocky Myers was convicted of murdering Ludie Mae Tucker in 1991 and given a death sentence as a result of judicial override, despite the jury voting 9-3 for a life sentence. As a result, it is difficult to see a path toward exoneration in the courts. That said, we hope that his death sentence can be commuted to a life sentence due to the use of judicial override in his case, and we also hope that we can convince Governor Kay Ivey to stay execution if and when that execution is scheduled (Undisclosed series).

16. Joseph Webster

Jweb

Joseph Webster was convicted of the 1998 murder of Leroy Owens (Undisclosed series). Webster was exonerated after a judge agreed with the Davidson County Conviction Review Unit that he was wrongfully convicted, and he was released on November 10, 2020. Based on a GoFundMe fundraiser, Joseph will be able to move into his own apartment.

17. Cyrus Wilson

Cyrus5

Cyrus Wilson was convicted of the 1992 murder of Christopher Luckett (Undisclosed special episode). On October 23, 2019, he was granted parole by the Tennessee Board of Parole.

18. Greg Lance

Lance

Greg Lance was convicted of the murders of Victor and Alla Kolesnikow in 1998 (Undisclosed series). Expect to hear about a new appeal soon.

19. Pedro Reynoso

PRey

Pedro Reynoso was convicted of the 1991 murders of Charles Rivera and Carlos Torres (Undisclosed special episode). In December, the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons voted to hold his case under advisement to determine if they are allowed to consider actual innocence claims. His case is also being reviewed by Philadelphia's Conviction Integrity Unit.

20. Theophalis Wilson

Theo Wilson

Theophalis Wilson was convicted of the 1989 murders of Otis Reynolds, Gavin Anderson, and Kevin Anderson (Undisclosed special episode). On January 21, 2020, a judge declared him innocent of these murders and set him free. Earlier this year, Wilson filed a civil action seeking compensation for his decades of wrongful conviction.

21. Fred Freeman/Temujin Kensu

FReeman1

Fred Freeman was convicted of the murder of Scott Macklem in 1986 (Undisclosed series). His clemency request is on the desk of Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

22. Jonathan Irons

Iron2

Jonathan Irons was convicted of a burglary and shooting that occurred at the home of Stanley Stotler in O'Fallon, Missouri back in 1997 (Undisclosed series). On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court of Missouri refused to hear the State's appeal from Judge Daniel Green's opinion granting Jonathan Irons a new trial. On July 1, 2020, Jonathan was released from prison. The following day, the prosecutor announced that he would not take Jonathan's case back to trial. Jonathan was then released from prison. On March 8, 2021, Irons filed a civil action seeking compensation for his decades of wrongful conviction.

23. John Brookins

Jbo

John Brookins was convicted of the 1990 murder of Sheila Ginsberg (Undisclosed series). John is currently appealing the denial of his DNA petition.

24. Jeff Titus

Titus

Jeff Titus was convicted of the 1990 murders of Doug Estes and James Bennett in the Fulton State Game Area in Kalamazoo County (Undisclosed series). Titus's case is currently being reviewed by Michigan's statewide Conviction Integrity Unit.

25. Darrell Ewing

Ewing Fam

Darrell Ewing was convicted of the 2009 murder of J.B. Watson in Detroit, Michigan (Undisclosed series). Ewing was eventually granted a new trial based upon jury misconduct, and the State ran out of appeals for that ruling on March 2, 2021. The State is currently trying to take Ewing's case back to trial.

26. Jason Carroll

Screen Shot 2022-04-12 at 9.30.04 PM

Jason Carroll was convicted of the July 1988 murder of Sharon Johnson in New Hampshire (Undisclosed series). Appellate options are currently being explored, and his case will be covered on the Bear Brook podcast.

27. Wayne Braddy and Karl Willis

Screen Shot 2022-04-12 at 9.33.19 PM

Karl Willis and Wayne Braddy were convicted of the murder Maurice Purifie on June 15, 1998 in Toledo, Ohio (Undisclosed series). A judge recently denied their motion for a new trial because the only witness against them, Travis Slaughter, has now said he falsely confessed. They will be appealing soon.

-CM

September 20, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (5)

Friday, August 5, 2022

Eighth Circuit Finds No Error With Judge Preventing For Cause Challenge to Juror Who E-Mailed Detective One or Twice a Week

A party can move to strike a prospective juror for cause based upon implied bias by the juror. One ground for such implied bias is a connection with one of the witnesses in the case. Even if the prospective juror claims that they can be impartial, the judge should grant a motion to strike if that connection is of a type that should cause the judge to disregard the prospective juror's claim of impartiality. Given this, I'm not quite sure how the Eighth Circuit found the judge in United States v. Farrington, 2022 WL 3024690 (8th Cir. 2022), properly denied a for cause challenge.

Continue reading

August 5, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, August 3, 2022

Court of Appeals of Mississippi Finds Rule 801(d)(1)(C) Only Applies to Technical Identifications

Similar to its federal counterpart, Mississippi Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C) provides an exclusion to the rule against hearsay when

The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:....

(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.

So, what types of identifications are admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(C)? That was the question addressed by the Court of Appeals of Mississippi in its recent opinion in Bays v. State, 2022 WL 3038838 (Miss.App. 2022).

Continue reading

August 3, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, August 2, 2022

LSU Law Center Seeks an Evidence Professor

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, PAUL M. HEBERT LAW CENTER seeks to hire tenure-track or tenured faculty in a variety of areas, including, but not limited to, faculty who have expertise in business law, civil & comparative law, civil procedure, constitutional law, contracts, criminal law and procedure, evidence, family law, professional responsibility, and property. Applicants should have a J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school (foreign equivalencies will also be considered), superior academic credentials, and a demonstrable commitment to the production of quality scholarship, as well as a commitment to outstanding teaching. 

Louisiana State University is an R1 land, sea, and space-grant university with a footprint across the state of Louisiana. It is one of only eight universities in the nation with a law school, dental school, medical school, veterinary school, and an elite MBA program. The LSU Law Center, the flagship state law school of Louisiana, is part of LSU A&M’s campus, located in the state capital, Baton Rouge. See more about LSU, including links to the area, at https://lsu.edu/visit/index.php.

LSU is committed to providing equal opportunity for all qualified persons in admission to, participation in, or employment in the programs and activities which the University operates without regard to race, creed, color, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical disability, or veteran’s status. LSU is committed to diversity and is an equal opportunity/ equal access employer. LSU believes diversity, equity, and inclusion enrich the educational experience of our students, faculty, and staff, and are necessary to prepare all people to thrive personally and professionally in a global society. To learn more about how LSU is committed to diversity and inclusivity, please see LSU’s Diversity Statement and Roadmap.

Please note that applicants must apply through the LSU Career Opportunities website. Only those persons who apply online will be considered for employment. Please apply using the following link: (https://lsu.wd1.myworkdayjobs.com/LSU/job/0400-Hebert-Law-Center/Assistant-Professor-of-Law-Associate-Professor-of-Law-Professor-of-Law_R00069560). Applications should include a letter of interest, resume including a list of three references, research agenda, and, if available, teaching evaluations.  

Questions may be directed by email to Ms. Pamela Hancock, the LSU Law Center’s Coordinator of Administration, who assists the Faculty Appointments Committee (phancock@lsu.edu). 

August 2, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, July 31, 2022

CALL TO ACTION: Seeking Contributions to Nicholas Newbold's Legal Defense Fund in His "Shaken Baby Syndrome" Retrial

Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is the flawed theory that an infant with a traditional triad of symptoms -- (1) retinal bleeding; (2) subdural hematoma; and (3) brain swelling -- must have been abusively shaken. The problem with SBS is that the emperor has no clothes, leading a New Jersey judge to recently declare that a SBS diagnosis is "akin to 'junk science.'" Tragically, faulty SBS diagnoses have led to many wrongful convictions of parents grieving the losses of their infants, with many of these convictions coming in cases in which the parent had no history of violence at all. Typically, in these cases, it was not abusive shaking, but instead pregnancy/birthing issues or short falls that explain the infant dying. And this was exactly the case with Nicholas Newbold, who recently won a new trial (Download Ruling on Habeas Corpus) after a faulty SBS conviction. Stunningly, the prosecutor plans to prosecute Newbold again, forcing him to relive this tragedy for a third time. I have agreed to assist on the case on a pro bono (free) basis, but I am sharing his story and his legal fundraiser here because he has significant legal fees for his impending second trial and could use help.

Here is the link to Newbold's legal fundraiser:

https://fundrazr.com/NickNewbold?ref=tw_1BYUQ8_ab_5tIsZrhfw6g5tIsZrhfw6g.

And here are the details of the case:

Continue reading

July 31, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, July 29, 2022

Book of Interest: Frederick Schauer's "The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else"

Frederick Schauer, the David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, has published The Proof Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press). Simply put, this book is a must read for Evidence scholars and anyone interested in Evidence law.

Screen Shot 2022-07-29 at 9.49.45 AM

Here's the book blurb:

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established.

In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence. Preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence.

Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decision making—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth.

Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules.

Here is Schauer talking about how we know what is evidence and what is not on Wisconsin NPR.

And here is a very positive review of the book in the Wall Street Journal.

-CM

July 29, 2022 in Film | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Supreme Court of Ohio Finds Use of Marsy's Law to Have Victim Sit at Prosecution Table Violated the Presumption of Innocence

Over the past few years, states have begun enacting Marsy's Law, which "seeks to give crime victims meaningful and enforceable constitutional rights equal to the rights of the accused." Many legal scholars, including myself, have questioned Marsy's Law, arguing that courts could easily apply several of its provisions to erode the constitutional rights of defendants. A good example of this can be found in the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Montgomery, 2022 WL 23472102022 (Ohio 2022).

Continue reading

July 27, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, July 26, 2022

Eleventh Circuit Finds No Issue With Allen Instruction to Jury That Deadlocked Three Times

In federal court (and in about half of state courts), when a jury is initially deadlocked, the judge can give them an Allen charge instructing the jury to keep deliberating. That said, a judge cannot give jurors an Allen charge that coerces a juror to give up an honest belief. So, was the Allen charge in Ruinstein v. Yehuda, 38 F.4th 982 (11th Cir. 2022), unduly coercive?

Continue reading

July 26, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, July 25, 2022

Article of Interest: The Law’s Aversion to Naked Statistics and Other Mistakes

Professor Ronald J. Allen (Northwestern Pritzker School of Law) and Christopher Smiciklas (a recent graduate of the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law) have posted The Law’s Aversion to Naked Statistics and Other Mistakes (forthcoming in Legal Theory) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

A vast literature has developed probing the law’s general aversion to statistical/probability evidence in general and its rejection of naked statistical evidence in particular. This literature rests on false premises. At least so far as U.S. law is concerned, there is no general aversion to statistical forms of proof and even naked statistics are admissible when the evidentiary proffer meets the normal standards of admissibility, the most important of which is reliability. The belief to the contrary rests upon a series of mistakes: most importantly, mismodeling of the structure of legal systems and the nature of common law decision making. Contributing to these mistakes is the common methodology in this literature of relying on weird hypotheticals that mismodel the underlying legal relations and contain impossible epistemological demands. Collectively, these phenomena have distracted attention from issues that actually affect real legal systems.

In large part, the article is a critical examination of Smith v. Rapid Transit, which is often cited as the "'seminal case'" demonstrating the suspicion of statistical evidence." 

Allen and Smiciklas present a strong rebuttal to this claim, arguing, inter alia, that

-Not even in Massachusetts does Smith stand for what it is cited for in the literature. Instead, the Massachusetts cases break down over the quality of the evidence. If a court concludes the evidence is reliable enough, the evidence is admitted even if probabilistic, and in cases without reliable statistics, the evidence is excluded.

-The modern treatment of statistics in American litigation involves overwhelming acceptance of the evidence so long as it reliable and helpful—even when the evidence is as close to being “naked” as possible.

-There is almost no contemporary support in the various American jurisdictions for the categorical exclusion of naked statistical evidence as the basis for a verdict. Even before the advent of DNA, the general approach across the United States either was or was evolving to admit evidence critical to a judgment in statistical form where an adequate foundation had been laid and to allow experts to explain the evidence to the factfinder.

I found this to be an article that was extremely well researched and argued, and I strongly recommend it to readers interested in Evidence law.

-CM

July 25, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, July 22, 2022

Texas Appellate Court Finds Victim's Statement Didn't Qualify as an Excited Utterance

Similar to its federal counterpart, Texas Rule of Evidence 803(2) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for 

A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

What's interesting about this "excited utterance" hearsay exception is that, read literally, it could allow for the admission of statements that come well after a startling event or condition. In other words, you can imagine a person suffering from a traumatic event (like a bad car crash) and still being under the stress of excitement it caused years later. Courts, however, generally read a contemporaneity requirement into the exception, meaning that a statement must usually come hours after a startling event or condition. A good example can be found in the recent opinion by a Texas appellate court in Auld v. State, 2022 WL 2837963 (Tex. App. 2022).

Continue reading

July 22, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, July 21, 2022

Court of Appeals of Indiana Finds Statement Made by Victim After Being Shot 11 Times Qualified as a Dying Declaration

Similar to its federal counterpart, Indiana Rule of Evidence 804(b)(2) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for

A statement that the declarant, while believing the declarant's death to be imminent, made about its cause or circumstances.

Sometimes, it is clear that the declarant believes her death to be imminent, such as when she makes an explicit statement (e.g., "I can't believe I'm going die at 21."). Other times, a court can infer such belief based on the circumstantial evidence. An example of this can be found in the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Indiana in Smith v. State, 2022 WL 2349868 (Ind.App. 2022).

Continue reading

July 21, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, July 20, 2022

The William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Seeks An Evidence Professor

Faculty Hiring Announcement

Location: Las Vegas, NV
Subjects: Legal Writing, Clinical Legal Education
Start Date: July 1, 2023

The William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, invites applications from both entry-level and lateral candidates for two tenure-track or tenured faculty positions expected to begin July 1, 2023. For these two positions, we seek creative and productive scholars: one with relevant expertise in teaching Legal Writing and one with experience teaching a live-client Clinic. Our faculty who teach legal writing or clinical courses are full members of our unified tenure system with all of the privileges and scholarly expectations associated with tenure; faculty who teach legal writing or clinical courses may teach a podium course as part of our standard 3-course teaching load. Subject matter needs for podium courses are broad and include, but are not limited to, business and commercial law, criminal law, evidence, and property. 

The William S. Boyd School of Law at UNLV is a leading public law school founded on a commitment to public service and community engagement. With its nationally ranked Lawyering Process Program, Saltman Center for Conflict Resolution, and the Thomas & Mack Legal Clinic, Boyd offers a dynamic curriculum designed to teach students critical thinking and lawyering skills. Boyd has an LL.M. in Gaming Law and Regulation and a variety of distinctive Programs in Health Law; Indian Nations Gaming and Governance; International, Transnational, and Comparative Law; and Race, Gender & Policing. Through its J.D. curriculum, students can pursue academic concentrations in Business and Commercial Law, Dispute Resolution, Health Law, Intellectual Property, and Workplace and Employment Law. The law school is located at the heart of the UNLV campus. UNLV is an R1 research university that is among the most diverse campuses in the nation and is also the state’s largest comprehensive doctoral degree granting institution with Schools of Business, Dental Medicine, Engineering, Hospitality, Medicine, Nursing, and Public Health, among many others. 

Applicants for law school faculty positions should submit a letter of interest describing teaching interests and experience and providing a scholarly research agenda, along with a detailed resume, at least three professional references, and cites or links to published works. The Faculty Appointments Committee will begin interviewing candidates in August; candidates who submit applications by August 18 will be given priority.  Interested candidates should send their materials to: 

Faculty Appointments Committee
William S. Boyd School of Law at UNLV
4505 South Maryland Parkway, Campus Box 451003
Las Vegas, NV  89154-1003 
or by email at facultyrecruitment@law.unlv.edu

Members of the Appointments Committee are Professors Thomas Main (chair), Mary Beth Beazley, Frank Rudy Cooper, Mary LaFrance, Lydia Nussbaum, and Jean Sternlight.  

UNLV is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity educator and employer committed to excellence through diversity.

July 20, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 19, 2022

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Premature Deliberations Claim in Death Penalty Appeal

Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) states the following:

(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.

(2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether:

(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention;

(B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or

(C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form.

In Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the Supreme Court also created a Constitutional exception to this "no jury impeachment" rule when there is evidence of racial bias by jurors during deliberations. But, as the recent opinion of the Eleventh Circuit in Gavin v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, 2022 WL 2752366 (11th Cir. 2022), of no exceptions apply, jurors cannot testify to impeach their verdict.

Continue reading

July 19, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, July 18, 2022

Court of Appeals of Georgia Finds Statements to Responding Officer Did Not Qualify as a Present Sense Impression

Like its federal counterpart, OCGA § 24-8-803(1) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for

A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition or immediately thereafter.

So, how much time can pass between an event/condition and a statement such that the statement is no longer a "present sense impression" under the exception? Let's take a look at the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Georgia in Grimes v. State, 2022 WL 2313683 (Ga. App. 2022).

Continue reading

July 18, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, July 17, 2022

Seventh Circuit Finds District Judge Didn't Err in Denying Motion for Court Expert in Printing Press Accident Case

Federal Rule of Evidence 706(a) provides that

On a party’s motion or on its own, the court may order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its own choosing. But the court may only appoint someone who consents to act.

While a judge can thus appoint a court expert under Rule 706(a), there are few circumstances where a judge must appoint a court expert. Typically, those circumstances involve highly technical issues at trial that require expert explanation. So, what happened in Stevenson v. Windmoeller & Hoelscher Corp., 2022 WL 2526448 (7th Cir. 2022)?

Continue reading

July 17, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, July 16, 2022

Eighth Circuit Finds Third Person/Spousal-Victim Exception to Marital Privilege Applies in Felony Murder Case

The federal confidential marital communications privilege protects against the admission of confidential marital communications between spouses, much like the attorney-client privilege protects against the admission of confidential communications between a client and her attorney. But, as with the attorney-client privilege, the confidential marital communications privilege has exceptions, like the one applied in United States v. White Owl, 2022 WL 2431600 (8th Cir. 2022).

Continue reading

July 16, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 21, 2022

My Supplement to the Request for Review for Michelle Heale

On February 15, 2022, I filed a Request for Review with the New Jersey Attorney General’s Conviction Review Unit on behalf of Michelle Heale. Here was the Introduction to that Request:

On April 17, 2015, Michelle Heale was convicted of aggravated manslaughter and child endangerment based on the death of fourteen-month old Mason Hess, whom she had been babysitting. Michelle Heale is actually innocent of these crimes and would have been acquitted at trial if not for an error by her trial counsel in failing to present testimony and a report by the leading expert who could have proven her defense. Moreover, new evidence calling into question the use of the traditional triad of symptoms to diagnose Shaken Baby Syndrome – a diagnosis of exclusion, not inclusion – supports a finding of actual innocence. Indeed, this new evidence has led a New Jersey court to conclude that the evidence used to convict Ms. Heale is insufficiently reliable to even be admissible at trial.

Now, a New Jersey court has declared Shaken Baby Syndrome "akin to 'junk science'" based in large part upon testimony by the expert who was contacted by Heale's defense counsel but who never testified because they never followed up with him. As a result, I am filing a Supplement to Heale's Request for Review.  Download Michelle Heale Supplement.

-CM

April 21, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 12, 2022

Undisclosed Mega-Update Thread 9

Yesterday, Judge Don W. Thompson of the Superior Court of Walker County granted Joey Watkins's petition for writ of habeas corpus, meaning that Joey's conviction for murdering Isaac Dawkins has been tossed.

Given this terrific turn of events, I wanted to do an update on the status of all of the cases we covered on Undisclosed.

Total cases covered: 27 cases.

Relief granted: 16 cases: 12 exonerations: (1) Shaurn Thomas; (2) Terrance Lewis; (3) Willie Veasy; (4) Chester Hollman III; (5) Charles Ray Finch; (6) Theophalis Wilson; (7) Jonathan Irons; (8) Dennis Perry; (9) Ronnie Long; (10) Joseph Webster; (11) Darrell Ewing; and (12) Joey Watkins. 2 stays of execution: (1) Marcellus Williams; and (2) William Montgomery. 1 commutation: Cyntoia Brown. 1 grant of parole: Cyrus Wilson.

Currently pending: 6 cases. (1) Pedro Reynoso's CIU petition; (2) Fred Freeman/Temujin Kensu's CIU petition; (3) John Brookins's DNA petition; (4) Jeff Titus's CIU petition; (5) Pam Lanier's motion for a new trial; and (6) Wayne Braddy and Karl Willis's motion for a new trial.

New appeals expected soon: 4 cases: (1) Adnan Syed; (2) Jamar Huggins; (3) Greg Lance; and (4) Jason Carroll

Options being explored: 1 case: Rocky Myers

Continue reading

April 12, 2022 | Permalink | Comments (3)