Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions Recommends Expanded Post-Conviction DNA Testing, Habeas Corpus Based on Changing Science
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
U.S. District Court Judge William T. Moore, Jr., who presides in the Southern District of Georgia, recently observed in the death penalty case of Troy Davis (here and here) that only one state of the 35 states that have the death penalty does not have any post-conviction avenue for inmates to either secure or offer evidence of innocence. That lone state is Oklahoma. Altogether, 47 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes which provide varying degrees of access to remedies to establish innocence in a post-conviction setting. Massachusetts, Alaska, and Oklahoma are the only three hold-out states which have elected not to enact reform legislation in the critical area of establishing “actual innocence” despite the ever-increasing number of DNA exonerations.
Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides inmates claiming actual innocence with an avenue to procure DNA testing. Article 64.01 permits an inmate to motion for DNA testing of evidence containing biological material. The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit outlining the facts supporting the motion. The motion can secure DNA testing only of evidence that was in possession of the state during the trial of the offense for which he was convicted, provided the following conditions are met: 1) the evidence was not subjected to DNA testing because such testing was not available; 2) DNA testing was available but was not technologically capable of producing probative results; or 3) DNA technology has improved with newer testing techniques which provide more accurate results.
Recently the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions (“Panel”) pointed out that Texas inmates who make claims of being wrongfully convicted not related to DNA evidence—such as improper ballistics analysis, faulty arson forensic evidence, or staged dog scent evidence—must petition the courts through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant Art. 1107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in non-capital cases and Art. 11.071 in death penalty cases.
The burden facing a defendant in a habeas proceeding trying to establish “actual innocence” has been historically high because the U.S. Supreme Court has never definitively recognized what is called a “freestanding” actual innocence claim in habeas proceedings. Just last year the Court in case of District Attorney’s Office of the Third Judicial District v. Osborne held that the “actual innocence claim” issue was an “open question.” Yet just two months later the Court ordered a hearing in the case of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis on the issue of “actual innocence,” saying it would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to execute an innocent man as Davis has claimed to be. Against this conflicting constitutional backdrop, Judge Moore conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing and in August issued a comprehensive ruling that Davis had failed to establish his “actual innocence” test by “clear and convincing evidence”—the standard of evidence the federal judge said should be applied in such claims.
motion for discovery of victim impact evidence; 9) request for notice of state’s intention to introduce punishment evidence pursuant to Art. 37.07 (Code of Criminal Procedure); 10) motion in limine (extraneous offenses); 11) request for notice of state’s intention to offer extraneous offenses pursuant to Rule 404(b)[Rule of Evidence]; 12) motion for pretrial hearing on admissibility of extraneous offenses; 13) written objections to admissibility of extraneous offenses and requesting for findings of fact and conclusions of law; 14) request for notice of extraneous offenses in child abuse case; 15) request for notice of state’s intention to use evidence of extraneous offenses or acts pursuant to Art. 38.37 C.C.P.; 16) request for notice of state’s intention to use evidence of impeachment pursuant to Texas Rules of Evidence 609; 17) request for notice of state’s intention to use certified copies of official documents or business records; 18) comprehensive request for notice of state’s intention to introduce evidence under rules of evidence and code of criminal procedure; 19) notice of intent to introduce evidence of extraneous offense; 20) punishment evidence or prior conviction information, motion for discovery of punishment evidence; 21) motion to list state’s witnesses [all persons contacted]; 22) motion for discovery of criminal records of all state’s witnesses; 23) motion to produce witness statements; 24) motion to require police to maintain personal notes; 25) motion to require police to maintain and produce recorded communications; 26) application to take deposition of witness and notice thereof; 27) application to take deposition of witness by written interrogatories and notice thereof; 28) motion for discovery of grand jury testimony; 29) motion for discovery of defendant’s previous trial; 30) motion for transcript of co-defendant’s trial, motion to reveal agreements entered into between the state and witnesses; 31) motion requesting disclosure of expert witnesses; 32) designation of expert witness; 33) motion for voir dire of expert witness and for pretrial ruling on admissibility of expert testimony; 34) motion for approval of expert witness funds, motion for independent forensic testing; 35) motion for defendant’s access to physical evidence; 36) motion for forensic identity testing; 37) motion for approval of funds for court-appointed investigator; 38) motion for approval of mitigation specialist funds; 39) motion for approval of forensic psychologist funds; and 40) motion for additional investigative funds.
Subscribe
