Conviction Integrity Units Revisited

“Conviction Integrity Unit” has become a brand name that has good public relations value for an elected official. But what does it really mean? Is it just a fashion accessory, a flashy but empty appellation intended to convey the idea that the office is extremely serious about correcting wrongful convictions and holding its own members accountable for errors or acts of misconduct, but really is not? Is conviction integrity nothing more than a passing fad, a nebulous slogan without real meaning that is good for propaganda purposes, but will not bring about any serious change in the way business is done in American criminal justice system? Or does the interest in “conviction integrity” signal something qualitatively different: a movement toward a post-conviction non-adversarial process for reinvestigating potential miscarriages of justice, which involves prosecutors, innocence organizations, and defense lawyers working together in a joint search for the truth; a recognition of ethical and ultimately constitutional obligations to disclose material evidence of innocence post-conviction; and an adoption of procedures, such as “root cause analysis” and “sentinel review,” that are hallmarks of a “just culture” approach to organizational management? The jury is plainly out on those questions. This article provides a history explaining how CIUs evolved, sets forth best practices for putting together a CIU in a granular fashion relying on both practical observations and learning from cognitive science. It is written from the point of view of a participant observer since the author has been involved in the development of many CIUs and worked with them on cases that resulted in exoneration\u27s

DNA Evidence and the Saving of Human Lives

The Fourteenth Jacoby-Lunin Humanitarian Lecture underwritten by the Frank Jacoby Foundation in collaboration with the Carl and Dorothy Bennett Center for Judaic Studies and Open VISIONS Forum… Attorney Barry C. Scheck, Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Co-founder and co-director of The Innocence Project.https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/bennettcenter-posters/1289/thumbnail.jp

Feigned Consensus: Usurping the Law in Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Prosecutions

Few medico-legal matters have generated as much controversy--both in the medical literature and in the courtroom--as Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), now known more broadly as Abusive Head Trauma (AHT). The controversies are of enormous significance in the law because child abuse pediatricians claim, on the basis of a few non-specific medical findings supported by a weak and methodologically flawed research base, to be able to “diagnose” child abuse, and thereby to provide all of the evidence necessary to satisfy all of the legal elements for criminal prosecution (or removal of children from their parents). It is a matter, therefore, in which medical opinion claims to fully occupy the legal field. As controversies flare up increasingly in the legal arena, child abuse pediatricians and prosecutors now respond by claiming both that there is actually no real controversy about SBS/AHT, and that it is a purely medical “diagnosis” and not a legal conclusion, so testimony in support of the SBS hypothesis should not be challenged in court. This article, coauthored by four law professors, two physicians, and a physicist, demonstrates that there is very much a live controversy about the SBS/AHT hypothesis and maintains that, under traditional principles of evidence law, physicians should not be permitted to “diagnose” abuse in court (as opposed to identifying specific symptoms or medical findings)