WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS: Fall 2008 - UMKC School of Law

WEEK VICAUSES OF WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS: FALSE CONFESSIONSMONDAYA. Missouri Revised Statute § 500.700.B. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).C. Winthrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993).D. Black & Mills, “What Causes People to Give False Confessions?” CHICAGOTRIBUNE, July 11, 2010.WEDNESDAYE. Drizin & Leo, “The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World,” 82N.C.L. REV. 891 (March 2004) pp. 2-5, 8-end.F. Gallini, “Police "Science" in the Interrogation Room: Seventy Years ofPseudo-Psychological Interrogation Methods to Obtain InadmissibleConfessions,” 61 Hastings L.J. 529 (2010).G. White, “False Confessions and the Constitution: Safeguards AgainstUntrustworthy Confessions,” 32 HARV. CIV. RIGHTS-CIV. LIBERTIES L.REV. 105 (1997).H. Actual Innocence Chapter 4I. The Innocent Man Chapters 5-6WEEK VIICAUSES OF WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS: UNRELIABLE FORENSIC SCIENCEMONDAYA. Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (1923).B. Daubert v. Merrill Dow, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).C. “Strengthening Forensic Science in the U.S.: A Path Forward” NationalAcademy of Science Report. (2009).7

WEDNESDAYD. Cooley, “Forensic Science And Capital Punishment Reform: An„Intellectually Honest‟ Assessment,” 17 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 299.E. United States v. Hines, 55 F.Supp.2d 62 (D. Mass. 1999).F. Actual Innocence Chapters 5 & 7G. The Innocent Man Chapters 7-8WEEK VIIICAUSES OF WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS: JAILHOUSE SNITCHESMONDAYA. Rob Warden, “The Snitch System: How Incentivised Witnesses Put 38Innocent Americans on Death Row,” Center on Wrongful ConvictionsResearch Report, available at222.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/documents/Snitch.htm.B. United States v. Singleton, 165 F.3d 1297 (10 th Cir. 1999) (en banc).C. Motion to Preclude Creation of Snitch TestimonyD. Actual Innocence Chapter 6WEDNESDAYE. Yaroshefsky, “Cooperation with Federal Prosecutors: Experiences of TruthTelling and Embellishment,” 68 Fordham L. Rev. 917 (1999).F. Mosteller, “Prosecutorial Discretion: The Special Threat of Informants tothe Innocent Who Are Not Innocents: Producing „First Drafts,‟ RecordingIncentives, and Taking a Fresh Look at the Evidence,” 6 Ohio St. J. Crim.L. 519 (2010).G. Wilson, “Prosecutors „Doing Justice‟ Through Osmosis – Reminders toEncourage a Culture of Cooperation,” 45 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 67 (2008).8

WEEK IXCAUSES OF WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS: POLICE MISCONDUCTMONDAYA. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).B. Kyles v. Whitney, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).C. Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004).WEDNESDAYD. NAACP Amicus Brief In Re Troy Davis pp. 13-16.E. Walberg & Lee, “Burge Found Guilty,” CHICAGO TRIBUNE, June 28,2010.F. Actual Innocence Chapter 8G. The Innocent Man Chapter 9WEEK XCAUSES OF WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS: PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCTMONDAYA. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).B. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959).C. Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78 (1935).D. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Prosecution Function and DefenseFunction, (1993). Read Standards 3-1.1 through 3-6.2.9

WEEK XIIDNA EVIDENCEMONDAYA. NIJ, “Postconviction DNA Testing: A Recommendation for HandlingRequests” (Executive Summary and chapters 1-6).B. NIJ, “What Every Law Enforcement Officer Should Know About DNATesting”C. Actual Innocence Chapter 2WEDNESDAYD. Hansen, “DNA Dragnet,” ABA JOURNAL (May 2004).E. Laville, “Global DNA test narrows hunt for serial rapist,” THE GUARDIAN,April 28, 2004.F. Murphy, “The Art In The Science Of DNA: A Layperson's Guide To TheSubjectivity Inherent In Forensic DNA Typing,” 58 Emory L. J. 489(2008).MONDAYWEEK XIIIPRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE &POSTCONVICTION ACCESS TO DNAA. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).B. Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988).C. Whitaker, “DNA Frees Inmate Years After Justices Rejected Plea,” NEWYORK TIMES, August 11, 2000.D. Jones, “The Right Remedy For The Wrongly Convicted: Judicial SanctionsFor Destruction Of DNA Evidence,” 77 Fordham L. Rev. 2893 (2009).11

WEDNESDAYE. Wade v. Brady, 460 F.Supp.2d 226 (D. Mass. 2006).F. District Attorney’s Office For The Third Judicial District Et Al. V.Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308, (2009).G. Garrett, “DNA and Due Process,” 78 Fordham L. Rev. 2919, (2010).WEEK XIVMONDAYEXECUTIVE CLEMENCYA. Mo. Const. Art. IV, § 7 (2008).B. MO. Rev. Stat. § 217.800 (2008).C. Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458 (1981).D. Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 118 S.Ct. 1244 (1998).E. Governor Ryan‟s Address at Depaul University School of LawWEDNESDAYA. MO. Rev. Stat. § 650.058 (2008).LIFE AFTER EXONERATIONB. Lopez, “$10 and a Denim Jacket? A Model Statute for Compensating theWrongly Convicted,” 36 GA. L. REV. 665 (2002).C. Lavandera ,“DNA Cleared Them, But They‟ll Never Feel Free,” CNN.com(2008).D. The Innocent Man Chapter 15-End12