Jason payne criminal record texas louisiana

Advocates 4 Wrongfully Convicted. On December 11, in the town of Quitman, Texas two people were shot to death. The lead detective in the case Lt. Noel Martin, a Criminologist with the Smith County Sheriff's Office to come out to the crime scene and perform a crime scene reconstruction. Tucker who likely felt that Martin, a fellow police officer and prosecution expert witness would issue a finding that would support his theory of a Double Homicide. The prosecution was able to gain a conviction by misleading the jury based on fraudulent forensic testimony and weak circumstantial evidence of nothing more than inferences piled upon inferences.

Supreme Court of Virginia Opinions

This case demonstrates when police, affected by "tunnel vision" target a suspect and refuse to look at all the evidence and consider other possibilities, a person like Jason Payne can be wrongfully convicted. A terrible injustice was done in this case and to Jason Payne and his family. It is time to correct this wrong and set it right. Bannister, James v. Supreme Court Issues Informant Testimony Case Number Position Informant testimony is inherently unreliable and the use of consistency provisions clauses in plea agreements in which cooperators or informants agree to testify to a specific version of events satisfactory to the prosecutor, in exchange for certain preferential treatment exacerbate the risks of cooperator testimony.

Decision Bannister v. Illinois, S. Petition for writ of certiorari denied.

Password is Nearing Expiration

Statler, Paul v. Decision Defendant was not entitled to new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Wallace, Herman v. State of Washington v. There is limited scientific evidence that the diagnostic triad and therefore its components can be associated with traumatic shaking and there is insufficient scientific evidence on which to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the triad in identifying traumatic shaking. Allowing defendants to rely on this new scientific evidence as it develops to set aside possibly flawed convictions—and not precluding them from doing so merely because earlier, incomplete, or less nuanced research may have existed at the time of their trial—is essential to ensuring a fair and just determination of the facts in science dependent cases.

Decision Pending State of Washington v. Heidi Charlene Fero. Bailey, Rene v. The People of the State of New York. Nash, Donald v. Now is the time for the Court to intervene and resolve this division of authority so that claims of actual innocence are treated the same throughout our nation. Russell, Terry. Krause, Jason Derek v. Grissom, James E. Decision We hold that impeachment evidence may be grounds for a new trial if it satisfies the four-part test set forth in People v Cress.

We further hold that a material, exculpatory connection must exist between the newly discovered evidence and significantly important evidence presented at trial. It may be of a general character and need not contradict specific testimony at trial. Also, the evidence must make a different result probable on retrial. Jenkins, Eric v.

Suspect Arrested in Double Homicide

Johnson, Erskine v. Decision Trial court abused its discretion by concluding that newly discovered evidence of close relationship between prosecution witness and gang prostitute failed to show that jury would have reached a different verdict. Reversed, vacated, and remanded. Fry, John F. Supreme Court Issues New Evidence of Innocence Case Number Position Federal courts must apply the Chapman harmless error standard, which imposes the burden on the state to prove errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, in any case in which the state courts erroneously found no error and hence undertook no Chapman analysis.

Find that Brecht subsumed the Chapman test, the Court determined that the 9th Circuit correctly applied Brecht. Armstrong, Ralph, State v. The Court focused on the fact that newly obtained DNA evidence proved that the biological specimens found on the victim semen and hair strands did not belong to the defendant, whereas in the original trial, the State argued, based on DNA testing at the time, that the semen and hair likely belonged to the defendant. House v.

Delo actual Innocence gateway standard for permitting habeas review of otherwise procedurally defaulted claims. Slaughter, Jimmie Ray v. Krivak, Andrew v. Decision Pending Krivak, Andrew v. Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct. Sanders, Amy v. Jones, Lamar. Decision The case is still pending. Keith, Kevin v. Decision Petition for certiorari denied. Thompson, John v. Cooper, Kevin v. Goldstein v. Supreme Court Issues Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct Case Number Position Arguing that absolute immunity should not be extended to cover a District Attorney who, in a purely administrative and managerial capacity, intentionally or with deliberate indifference declines to establish any internal system or procedures to ensure that prosecutors have access to impeachment information concerning informants, in disregard of the mandate of Brady v.

Maryland and Giglio v. United States, and despite knowing of prior repeated Brady and Giglio violations that resulted from not having such a system or procedure. Decision The Supreme Court held that the defendants, a district attorney and his chief deputy, were entitled to absolute immunity from the suit. Goldstein, Thomas Lee v. Maryland, since alleged failures were administrative, not prosecutorial in function. Reversed and remanded by Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, U. Martin, Harold v. Decision The D. The court decided that it did not have to address whether a defendant may use FOIA to access that may contain Brady material because in the present case, the defendant was collaterally stopped from requesting one set of documents, and another court had already determined that the second set of documents did not contain Brady material.

Decision The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that preponderance of evidence supported conclusion that mother and grandmother abused child, who, while in their care, suffered traumatic brain injury from which she died. Jackson v. Bakeer, Renne. HH, Christopher v. Pitts, Eugene Isaac v. Decision Petition granted. State of Arkansas Hardin, Jeffrey v.

Those drafting autopsy reports are particularly susceptible to cognitive bias and suggestion by law enforcement officers. Further, forensic pathology is subject to human error, incompetence, and even fraud. Decision Cert petition denied. John, Sean v. People of the State of New York. Norton, Harold Albert v.

Term Court of Appeals Position The prosecution should not be permitted to introduce prior testimony of an interested witness who would not be available for cross-examination at trial. Washington, and hence forensic science test results may be introduced only through live testimony, and not just through written lab reports. State of Maryland. Griep, Michael R. The Decision of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.

  1. (17 Videos).
  2. Latest News Releases.
  3. identity theft children social security numbers.
  4. sex offender registration act and canada.

Medina, Efran, Arizona v. Supreme Court Issues Unreliable Forensic Science Case Number 13A Position Position: Authors of autopsy reports should be subject to the constitutionally prescribed method of testing accuracy: confrontation. Recognizing that autopsy reports are testimonial and that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to confront the authors of those reports will help to avoid wrongful convictions and strengthen the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Decision Court denied certiorari Medina-Efran-Arizona-v. Richards, William v. Williams, Sandy v. Decision The admission of expert testimony about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Bullcoming, Donald v. Decision Bullcoming v. New Mexico, S. Defendant had the right to confront the analyst who certified the blood-alcohol analysis report, and the report was testimonial within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause. Jones, Christopher D. State of Wisconsin Counsel Jerome F. Decision Court denied relief.

Bunch, Kristine v. Glenn, Roosevelt v. Decision Review denied. Glover, Laurese v. Decision Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying new trial.

The Wrongful Conviction of Jason Payne

Siller, Thomas v. Decision The trial court abused its discretion in holding that the newly discovered evidence was merely cumulative and hence insufficient to command a new trial. Wheat, Derrick v.

https://www.hiphopenation.com/mu-plugins/rooks/retail-matchmaking-event-2020.php Decision Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial. Wyatt, Thomas Anthony v. Decision FBI letters were newly discovered evidence, but did not warrant a new trial. Melendez-Diaz, Luis v. Washington, and hence inadmissible unless presented by live testimony of the author subject to cross-examination under the confrontation clause. Ford, Glenn v. Decision Conviction vacated in March Powers, David M.

Decision The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the district court denying discovery of the investigative reports and order the reports disclosed to Powers under appropriate conditions determined by the district court. State of Iowa Schmidt, Jacob Lee v. Decision The Iowa Constitution allows freestanding claims of actual innocence.

State of Iowa. Information about alternative perpetrators is classic exculpatory evidence absent strong inculpatory physical evidence. Decision The evidence withheld by the government was not material for Brady purposes. Yarborough v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. To leave a prisoner in prison who can allege and prove a right to relief as a result of the automatic application of presumption is fundamentally unjust.


Burton, Shawn Lamar Biggs, Jay, State v. Evidence that was made available to trial counsel or would have been made available to trial counsel had they so requested, should be similarly available to counsel or post-conviction counsel for review. Decision Court declined jurisdiction. Decision Decision Pending Wade-Robert-v. Avery, Brian K. Arthur, Thomas v. Gonzalez, Rafael H.

Cepero, F. Kemna, F. Davis, Roland T. White, Melvin L. Kennedy, Patrick v. Supreme Court Issues Other Issues Case Number Position Arguing that the death penalty should not be permitted for non-homicide child sexual assault cases because child witnesses are especially susceptible to suggestion and are unreliable, so that the risk of wrongful conviction and wrongful execution are unacceptably high in such cases. Decision The Eighth Amendment prohibits the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in death of the victim. Schaefer, Ronald v.

The Supreme Court, in Wisconsin 25, affirmed the lower court, holding that a criminal defendant does not have the right to compel production of police investigation reports and non-privileged materials by subpoena duces tecum prior to a preliminary examination. McDowell v. Nix v. In such circumstances, defense counsel may allow a defendant to testify in the narrative. In the present case, the Court found that defense counsel impermissibly used narrative questioning despite believing that his client would testify truthfully because no prejudice resulted, however, the Court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief.

Ohio Supreme Court. Meaningful access to public records is essential to identifying meritorious claims of actual innocence, analyzing the criminal justice system and advocating for reform. Caster had a clear legal right to the requested records and the respondents had a clear legal duty to provide the records. Louisiana Court of Appeals. Prosecutors should be obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence at a preliminary hearing; defendants should have discovery rights, including access to police reports, prior to the preliminary hearing.

Fishman Haygood. California Supreme Court. Proposition 66 violates the Equal Protection Clauses of our Constitutions by singling out capital defendants. West Virginia Innocence Project. DNA testing statute requires testing when all statutory conditions are met and does not prohibit testing under any circumstances. Axley Brynelson, LLP. Wisconsin Supreme Court. Illinois Court of Appeals. Third-party confessions should be considered, rather than dismissed out of hand, especially when they contain hallmarks of reliability as compared to the confession evidence presented by the State at trial.

The trial court erred in denying Horton leave to file a successive post-conviction petition alleging that the State violated its discovery obligations pursuant to Brady v. Supreme Judicial Court. Defendant seeking postconviction DNA testing are required to prove the evidence sought to be tested exists and the requested analysis has the potential to yield evidence material to the identity of the perpetrator.

Trial court erred in determining Clark was required to establish the existence of biological material on the evidence he sought to have tested and its order denying testing is reversed. Pennsylvania Superior Court. Proskauer Rose LLP. Hampden County Superior Court, Massachusetts. Flawed forensics, and microscopic hair comparisons in particular, erode confidence in past convictions. Florida Supreme Court. In short, this newly discovered evidence raises substantial doubt as to the accuracy and fairness of Mr.

Supreme Judicial Court Massachusetts. To obtain post-conviction DNA testing, defendants should not have to prove the exact reason that DNA testing was not previously performed in their case. Washington Supreme Court. When considering a post-conviction motion for DNA testing, the trial court must presume that the test results would be favorable to the convicted felon.

A trial court should presume that DNA results would be favorable to the defendant when determining whether a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction DNA testing. Pepper Hamilton LLP. The weight of inculpatory evidence used to convict an individual should not be relevant to a determination of his right to access potentially exculpatory evidence under Chapter A revised Massachusetts DNA-Access Law.

Access to DNA testing should be granted in cases where DNA could potentially identify the real perpetrator, despite the existence of trial evidence that appeared overwhelming at the time. Smith and Stephens, P. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Prisoners have a right to post-conviction DNA testing in every case where favorable test results might create a reasonable probability of a different outcome. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. While the court ruled that R. Graham and Dunn, PC. Confessions should not bar post-conviction DNA testing, which can often demonstrate innocence of the accused.

Anna M. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Rooker- Feldman doctrine applied; freestanding substantive due process right did not exist for DNA testing; and Michigan law governing procedures for DNA testing in criminal case did not violate due process. Missouri Supreme Court. NOTE: Brief not filed because relief granted. Wisconsin Innocence Project. Tennessee Supreme Court. Abrogated by Powers v. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a Wisconsin Statute gave the defendant the right to perform DNA tests on certain materials, assuming the defendant could prove three statutory prerequisites: 1 the evidence is relevant; 2 the evidence is in the possession of a government agency; and 3 the evidence has not been previously subject to DNA testing.

The Innocence Project. Supreme Ct. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Exculpatory evidence withheld by the state undermines confidence in a verdict based on evidence of known unreliability incentivized witnesses, flawed forensics and eyewitness identification and on false corroboration. Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Confessions can be coerced and unreliable and therefore should not always be dispositive, particularly in the SB S context , when contemporary research reveals that SBS theory is, and always has been, merely an unsupported hypothesis.

Logan Circuit Court. The undeniable advances in fire investigation science since Mr. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Supreme Court. There is no basis, objective or subjective, to categorically exempt statements made by young children to a mandated reporter from the protections of the Confrontation Clause. Tucker Ellis LLP. Louisiana Supreme Court. Washington Court of Appeals.

Wrongful conviction compensation statutes should be broadly construed in favor of exonerated individuals, with reasonable burdens of proof required. North Carolina Court of Appeals. Evidence of actual innocence is sufficient in this case to overcome procedural bars and warrants an evidentiary hearing.

Indiana Court of Appeals. Cooley LLP. Supreme Court of South Carolina. South Carolina Supreme Court. False confession evidence is not inherently reliable and yet it has a strong biasing effect; thus there is a critical need for the defense to be able to mount a powerful third party guilt defense that relies not only on scientific evidence but also on traditional third party guilt evidence. Michigan Supreme Court. Under both the Michigan constitution and the U. Post-conviction petitioners, who can establish their actual innocence through newly-discovered evidence of any type, are entitled to seek relief.

The Schlup actual innocence exception recognized for successive petitions applies to the one-year statute of limitation for filing an original petition for habeas corpus relief. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the execution of actually innocent people and the petitioner exercised due diligence in bringing forward new evidence of innocence.

New Evidence of Innocence Actual Innocence. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether new fire testing methods could have been discovered earlier through due diligence citing Innocence Network brief , but holding that there is no actual innocence gateway to the AEDPA statute of limitations.

The attorney-client privilege should not prevent an attorney from revealing, once his or her client has died, that the client told counsel that he alone committed a crime for which another person was wrongly convicted. The North Carolina Court of Appeals refused to review the decision of the district court.

Minnesota Supreme Court. United States Supreme Court. New York Court of Appeals. The interrogation tactics used produced a coerced and unreliable confession; When a disputed confession is admitted into evidence, expert testimony on false confessions must be allowed as a necessary safeguard to prevent wrongful convictions; and The court should require videotaping of complete interrogations.

People v. Rhode Island Supreme Court. Courts should require that custodial interrogations be recorded in full to minimize the risk of convicting innocent defendants. State v. Thomas P. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Arguing that the court should mandate electronic recording of interrogations. Issues: Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations. Custodial interrogations of all suspects must be electronically recorded in their entirety.

Petitioner should not have been charged with a lack of due diligence and newly discovered evidence submitted by petitioner warranted a new trial. Center on Wrongful Convictions. Supreme Court of Arkansas. Suffolk Lawyers for Justice, Inc. Wisconsin Innocence Project and numerous other Projects and individuals. New Jersey Supreme Court. State of Connecticut Supreme Court. The trial court erred in excluding the expert on eyewitness identification, in a case that turned on eyewitness identification evidence and involved factors that are not commonly understood by jurors.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The court should adopt reforms to its legal framework for handling eyewitness identification— including enhanced, science-based jury instructions; strict limits on in-court identifications; and more robust judicial gatekeeping of challenged identification evidence. The court adopted provisional, science-based jury instructions Gomes. The court should revisit, reaffirm, and expand upon Commonwealth v. Illinois Supreme Court. Illinois should revisit the decision in People v.

Oregon Supreme Court. The test for the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence in State v. Mistaken eyewitness identification thwarts justice by imprisoning innocents and allowing the guilty to escape punishment. Mississippi Supreme Court. The due process touchstone regarding the admissibility of eyewitness identification should remain reliability and not whether police wrongdoing has occurred before trial.

The due process check on the admission of eyewitness identification is applicable only when the police have arranged suggestive circumstances leading the witness to identify a particular person as the perpetrator of a crime. Innocence Project New Orleans. Court should overturn per se ban on the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness expert identification. Dickstein Shapiro, LLP. Appellate Court of Illinois. Reviewers should have full access to study protocols and underlying raw data related to field studies purporting to measure the effectiveness of eyewitness identification reforms.

Colleen D. Arguing that eyewitness identification evidence and disputed confession evidence both are fallible, and therefore should not alone be the basis for denying a new trial based on other new evidence of Innocence. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Eyewitness Identification ; New Evidence of Innocence.

Recent exonerations of defendants convicted on the basis of unreliable eyewitness identification evidence compel conducted a hearing and the Georgia Supreme Court unconstitutionally denied a hearing to test evidence of actual innocence in a capital case. Newly-discovered evidence requirement was not met for evidence submitted in support of initial petition; affidavit of one trial witness satisfied newly-discovered evidence requirement; affidavit did not establish actual innocence; Court of Appeals had no authority to grant petitioner leave to file a second or successive habeas petition on equitable grounds; and even if Court of Appeals had authority to grant petitioner leave to file successive petition on equitable grounds, petitioner failed to establish a compelling claim of actual innocence that would permit the filing of the successive petition.

Sheryl Gordon McCloud. Georgia Supreme Court. Supporting extraordinary writ for new trial, since Davis was convicted on the basis of unreliable eyewitness identification. Evidence was sufficient to support convictions and summary denial of motion without hearing was warranted. Expert testimony on eyewitness identifications should be per se admissible in any case in which disputed eyewitness evidence is presented.

Showup evidence should be inadmissible in all cases unless state can prove that a showup was truly necessary. The case was reversed an remanded. In a case where the primary evidence against the defendant is the identification of an eyewitness, a defendant should be permitted to present expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification, whether or not there is additional corroborative evidence that could weigh in favor of guilt. The trial judge erred in disallowing expert testimony on eyewitness identification and a new trial should be granted.

Courts should adopt a rule that failure to caution a witness that the culprit might not be present at an identification procedure renders that procedure unnecessarily suggestive, requiring, at the very least, a curative jury instruction. They found that, under the totality of the circumstances in the present case, the identification was not necessarily suggestive. However, in future cases where the administrator of an identification procedure failed to instruct a witness that the culprit might or might not be present in a lineup, a jury instruction on eyewitness reliability would be required.

Superior Court. We respectfully ask the Supreme Court of Japan to grant Masaru Okunishi to reconsider the voluntariness and reliability of his confession and the strength of all other evidence against him to ensure beyond a reasonable doubt that Japan will not execute or continue the wrongful imprisonment of a potentially innocent man. Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Search Type

Intentional misrepresentations of law or fact by police during an interrogation can lead to false confessions so they should be viewed with skepticism. Carney Badley Spellman, P. The Court of Appeals denied review and stated that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to order a new trial based on new medical testimony regarding shaken baby syndrome. The trial court erred by refusing to allow expert witness testimony on the issue of false confessions. Supreme Court of Japan. Oklahoma Innocence Project. District Court of Tulsa County. The District Court refused to allow the testimony of Richard Leo on the issue of false confessions.

Supreme Court of Ohio. Massachusetts Supreme Court. Ballard Spahr LLP. Failure of the government to adequately fund public defender offices amounts to a systemic denial of effective representation by counsel. Failure to investigate and present alibi witnesses is objectively unreasonable and results in substantial prejudice, and thus constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Supreme Court of Kentucky. Ineffective assistance of counsel is a leading contributor to wrongful convictions and first-tier review of counsel is critical to the identification and development of claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Michigan Innocence Clinic. The statute of limitations on civil claims against trial counsel for ineffective assistance of counsel should begin to run when exoneree is officially exonerated, not when he or she first discovers grounds to believe counsel was ineffective. Without addressing whether Wisconsin would adopt an exoneration or two-track rule in determining when a criminal malpractice action accrues, the Court affirmed the order of the circuit court ruling that the cause of action was time-barred based on the application of Pennsylvania law.

Baker, Kevin v. A conviction based solely on the unreliable hearsay testimony from an incentivized informant who was himself a suspect in the case as to an violates due process. ACLU of Ohio. A death sentence should not be imposed solely on the basis of unreliable incentivized testimony. Informant testimony is inherently unreliable and the use of consistency provisions clauses in plea agreements in which cooperators or informants agree to testify to a specific version of events satisfactory to the prosecutor, in exchange for certain preferential treatment exacerbate the risks of cooperator testimony.

Informant testimony is inherently unreliable and the use of such testimony can have dangerous consequences. Supreme Court of Louisiana. Arguing that failure to disclose information about benefits conferred on jailhouse snitch constitutes a Brady violation that necessitates a new trial. New York Supreme Court. New medical and scientific research, relative to the existence and characteristics of Shaken Baby Syndrome, has undermined the reliability of the verdict.

Supreme Court of the United States. Whether a habeas petitioner may have his claim of actual innocence heard must not be left to where he happens to be imprisoned. Arizona Court of Appeals. Courts should grant a new trial in cases where the conviction rests on discredited Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis CBLA and where presentation of this flawed forensic evidence so corrupted the truth-seeking function of the jury that there can be no confidence in the conviction. Michigan Court of Appeals. Trial courts have discretion to grant a new trial where newly discovered impeachment evidence calls the credibility of a critical witness into doubt.

We hold that impeachment evidence may be grounds for a new trial if it satisfies the four-part test set forth in People v Cress. Incentivized testimony is inherently unreliable and petitioner deserves a new trial because of the existence of newly discovered recantation evidence and because of Brady material.

Tennessee Court of Appeals. Suppression of Brady evidence pointing to evidence in the form of third-party guilt warrants a new trial. Trial court abused its discretion by concluding that newly discovered evidence of close relationship between prosecution witness and gang prostitute failed to show that jury would have reached a different verdict. New Evidence of Innocence ; Actual Innocence. Federal courts must apply the Chapman harmless error standard, which imposes the burden on the state to prove errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, in any case in which the state courts erroneously found no error and hence undertook no Chapman analysis.

The Supreme Court held that federal courts hearing habeas corpus petitions must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional errors that took place in the state court criminal trial under Brecht whether there was a substantial and injurious effect regardless of whether the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it under Chapman harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.