In The Research Corner, Professor Marvin Zalman presents summaries of current academic research on wrongful conviction in a succinct and readable format. We hope that the summaries will provide you with a more sophisticated understanding of innocence issues and stimulate further interest.
Proving Innocence, a charitable 501(c)(3) organization, has four major thrusts to its mission: (1) providing experienced investigators to work with those wrongfully convicted to substantiate claims of actual innocence; (2) producing video documentaries of unjust convictions to educate the public and policy makers on how they occur and the need for redress; (3) supporting procedural, structural, and legal reforms in the criminal justice system to reduce or prevent wrongful convictions; and (4) helping exonerees connect with post-release services to facilitate a successful return to society.
The Lorinda Swain case is of a child making unfounded accusations toward his mother of sexual abuse, only later to recant that testimony as totally fabricated. Lorinda server 8 years in prison and has been out on tether bond for the last three during an appeal process having to do with a retrial based on the prosecution not having turned over to the defense evidence of her innocence. For a fuller explanation, see the Lorinda Swain Case.
The thrust of the Michigan Innocence Clinic's case for a retrial was that, according to Dennis Book, Lorinda's then live-in boyfriend, Det. Pickett called him on the phone and Book vehemently asserted that there was no possible way that Lorinda could have been guilty of such a crime without him knowing it, and had he known it, he would have turned her in himself. This would be sufficient grounds to have a retrial for not turning over exculpatory evidence to the defense, what is referred to as a Bradey violation.
The prosecutor's office countered by producing two witnesses, the original trial prosecutor and the detective partner whom Pickett had mentored, who both said under oath that Det. Pickett never made phone interviews, expcept for people out of the area, and always wrote up reports on any interviews he conducted. Basically, their counter-argument was that Book is making this up in an effort to protect Lorinda.
A few days after the closing of oral arguments, the Michigan Innocence Clinic found out that in another case Pickett had admitted under oath that there were times that he conducted interviews over the phone and that he did not write up reports on every interview conducted. This statement by Pickett of his actual behavior is sure to carry more weight than the prosecution's testimony of what Pickett's normal behavior was. We are all very hopeful for a positive outcome in this case.
Dave and Bonnie Sanders, PI Board members, attended the appeal of Temujin Kensu’s habeas hearing. It was hear by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Friday, March 3rd. Hearing the case were Judges Caldwell, Martin, and McTeague. McTeague had two other cases before him involving Kensu when he was District Judge in Michigan. Michigan Attorney General's assistant prosecutor B. Eric Restuccia appeared for the state while David Moran, co-director of the Michigan Innocence Clinic (MIC) along with J.P. Nogues, one of his students, represented Temujin.
This hearing was an appeal of the decision of United States District Judge Denise Page Hood granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. About 1% of all habeas corpus requests are granted each year, which in itself says boat loads about the weakness of the original trial. The state essentially argued that there was no new evidence of any substance that would call for an evidentiary hearing. It argued that if the court ruled that a new hearing was justified it would be establishing a new precedent and setting a very low threshold for evidence justifying an evidentiary hearing. He repeatedly made that point, emphasizing that such a ruling would open the "floodgates" for other appeals.
Ray Gray's 5 year review was scheduled for September, but after the initial interview, Ray received a letter from the Parole Board that they are taking a pass on Ray. They will look at his case in another 5 years from now. This gentle man who has been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for 40 years is going to have to wait another 5 years before the Parole Board will even consider him again.
It is our hope that by that time, Ray will have been freed based on evidence that he was not the killer.
Michigan needs to adopt a Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act. 27 states have already done so.
We encourage you to read the actual wording of the bill, both House and Senate versions.
Michigan needs a Compensation Act. When you call your State representative, we encourage you to be supportive of the bill, but do not hesitate to educate your representative about some of its weaknesses. Some of these weaknesses are:
This bill disqualifies anyone who made a confession or took a plea. But the data is overwhelming, that false confessions are a regular ingredient in wrongful convictions, especially when the person is a youth or mentally challenged person, easily manipulated and bullied by an overzealous official. And they should be disqualified when their actions were the result of one of the very problems that lead to wrongful convictions?
One qualification is that "DNA or other evidence of similar importance..." is used in the exoneration. And who decides whether this "other evidence" is "of similar importance"? The wrongful conviction movement is not about legal technicalities; it is about justice - they've got the wrong person! This qualification provides an occasion to dismiss an exoneree's claim on the technicality that it is not DNA or evidence of similar importance.
Any other recovered damages received by the exoneree from a related law suit are to offset the State's liability. This type of game reflects an attitude that the state is merely interested in "paying off" the offended party; not interested in justice. The state should be responsible for its actions and should not benefit or be released of its responsibility because of a separate law suit.
To understand these and other concerns, you can listen to Ken Wyniemko's views in the fourth radio broadcast of Fighting for Justice.
Also, watch Ken Wyniemko's 2008 testimony before the Michigan House Judiciary Committee - 6/25/2008 - 9 minutes.
Proving Innocence, a charitable 501(c)(3) organization, has four major thrusts to its mission: (1) providing experienced investigators to work with those wrongfully convicted to substantiate claims of actual innocence; (2) producing video documentaries of unjust convictions to educate the public and policy makers on how they occur and the need for redress; (3) supporting procedural, structural, and legal reforms in the criminal justice system to reduce or prevent wrongful convictions; and (4) helping exonerees connect with post-release services to facilitate a successful return to society.
The Lorinda Swain case is of a child making unfounded accusations toward his mother of sexual abuse, only later to recant that testimony as totally fabricated. Lorinda server 8 years in prison and has been out on tether bond for the last three during an appeal process having to do with a retrial based on the prosecution not having turned over to the defense evidence of her innocence. For a fuller explanation, see the 
Ray Gray's 5 year review was scheduled for September, but after the initial interview, Ray received a letter from the Parole Board that they are taking a pass on Ray. They will look at his case in another 5 years from now. This gentle man who has been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for 40 years is going to have to wait another 5 years before the Parole Board will even consider him again.
Michigan needs a Compensation Act. When you call your State representative, we encourage you to be supportive of the bill, but do not hesitate to educate your representative about some of its weaknesses. Some of these weaknesses are:
Please wait...
Bring Updates Direct to Your Browser, Outlook, etc. 