2017 POLICY RESOURCE THUMB DRIVE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION REFORM

A. Support Materials

  • ‘Blinding’ the Administrator
  • IP Eyewitness Identification Reform Fact Sheet
  • IP Eyewitness Identification Resource Guide
  • 2018 IP Model Bill- Prescriptive Eyewitness Identification bill
  • Responses to Common Opposition to Eyewitness Reform

B. Law Enforcement & Other Support for Eyewitness Reform

  • Law enforcement documents:
  • IACP Training Key on Eyewitness Identification Procedures
  • IACP Model Policy on Eyewitness Identification Procedures
  • IACP Eyewitness Identification Roll Call Videos
  • PERF Survey on Eyewitness Identification
  • CALEA Eyewitness Identification Standards
  • Reports:
  • NAS Report: “Identifying the Culprit—Assessing Eyewitness Identification” (2014)
  • IACP Wrongful Conviction Summit Report
  • Resolutions:
  • ABA Resolution Regarding Eyewitness Identification Evidence (2004)
  • NAACP Resolution (2014)
  • MA Major City Chiefs Association Resolution (2010)
  • NACOLE Resolution: “Improving Police Legitimacy and Community-Police Relations
  • Press on law enforcement support for reform:
  • “Perspectives from the Bench and the Beat: The Implementation of Eyewitness Identification Reform in the State of Connecticut,” Police Chief Magazine (June 2016)
  • “That’s Him, I Think; The Role of the Police in Eyewitness Identification Reform,” Chief William Brooks, Harvard Law and Policy Review (1/5/16)

C. Jurisdictions’ Reform Protocols

  • Nebraska Law (2016)
  • Georgia Prescriptive Law (2016)
  • Colorado Prescriptive Law (2015)
  • New Jersey Protocols (2001)
  • North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission on Eyewitness Recommendations
  • North Carolina Prescriptive Law (2008, amend. 2015)
  • Rhode Island Task Force Report on Eyewitness Identification (2010)
  • Santa Clara County, CA protocol
  • Texas Prescriptive Law (2011)
  • LEMIT model policy referenced in Texas Prescriptive Law
  • Wisconsin Best Practices (2005)
  • Wisconsin Prescriptive Law (2010)

D. Litigation Strategy

  • State of NJ v. Henderson Amicus Brief
  • Henderson Exhibits by Topic (non-exhaustive list of sources)
  • Henderson Eyewitness Identification National Response Memo
  • Henderson Memo on Courts’ Responses
  • Henderson Meta-Analytic Review List
  • Lawson decision

E. Police Toolkit Training Materials

  • Patrol Guide Insert (Including Sequential Presentation)
  • Patrol Guide Insert (Including Simultaneous Administration)
  • State Bar of Michigan Policywriting Guide for Law Enforcement Agencies
  • Norwood Police Department – Conducting a Live Lineup with a Blind Administrator
  • Norwood Police Department – Conducting a Photo Array with a Blind Administrator
  • Wellesly Police Department – Conducting a “Blinded” Lineup Through the Folder Shuffle Method
  • Chief’s Checklist for Implementation of Best Practices
  • Law Enforcement Lesson Plan from the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association

F. Media

  • “Double Blind: Preventing Eyewitness Error,” Christopher Moraff (The Crime Report, April 2017)
  • “Justice Department Issues New Guidance on Securing Eyewitness IDs,” Carrie Johnson (NPR, January 2017)
  • “Minnesota cops weak on photo lineup procedures, critics say,” Andy Mannix (Star Tribune, June 2017)

II. FORENSIC SCIENCE

A. National Academy of Science Materials

  • Background on NAS’s “Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community” and its report, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward”
  • NAS Position Statements
  • NAS Committee Info and Report
  • Congressional Hearings
  • Statements of Judge Harry Edwards

B. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Materials

  • White House Press Release on PCAST Report (Sept 2016)
  • PCAST Final Report (September 2016)
  • PCAST Responses to Request for Information in the course of Committee’s examination of forensic science (Sept 2016)
  • PCAST Final Report references (Sept 2016)
  • Stakeholder Responses
  • Arizona County Attorney
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • International Association for Identification (IAI)
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)
  • National District Attorneys Association (NDAA)
  • American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS)
  • American Congress of Forensic Science Laboratories (ACFSL)
  • Association of Firearm and Tool mark Examiners (AFTE)
  • Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations (CFSO)
  • Select Media
  • “Rejecting Voodoo Science in the Courtoom,” Judge Alex Kozinski (Wall Street Journa,l Sept. 2016)
  • “A wake-up call on the junk science infesting our courtrooms,” Harry Edwards & Jennifer Mnookin (Washington Post, Sept. 2016)
  • “Q&A with Jennifer Mnookin: Raising the bar for scientific evidence in court” (UCLA, Sept. 2016)
  • “White House science advisers urge Justice Dept., judges to raise forensic standards,” Spencer Hsu (Washington Post, Sept. 2016)
  • “The Justice Department Won’t Stop Going to Bat for Bad Science,” C.J. Ciaramella (Reason, Sept. 2016)
  • PCAST Report Addendum (January 2017)

C. The Coverdell Program

  • 42 USC 3797(k)(4)
  • Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants Program 2016
  • IP Coverdell Report
  • DOJ OIG Reports
  • 12/05 Report
  • 1/08 Report
  • Coverdell Investigations
  • Massachusetts
  • New York
  • Texas
  • Washington

D. FBI Hair Review

  • Washington Post articles
  • “Justice Dept., FBI to review use of forensic evidence in thousands of cases,” Spencer Hsu (2015)
  • “After FBI admits overstating forensic hair matches, focus turns to cases, “ Spencer Hsu (2015)
  • “Justice Department frames expanded review of FBI forensic testimony,” Spencer Hsu (2015)
  • NACDL: “ Champion-- The Hair Microscopy Review Project: An Historic Breakthrough for Law Enforcement and A Daunting Challenge for the Defense Bar”
  • Innocence Network webinar on Conducting State Hair Reviews
  • Review Materials
  • ASCLD/LAB Notification regarding hair reviews
  • FBI Director James Comey letter to State Governor s on Hair Review
  • FBI Request for Information to Conduct a Root Cause Analysis of FBI Lab
  • IP, NACDL & FBI Press Release
  • FBI consensus statement on types of error in hair comparison testimony
  • FBI Internal Review Criteria

E. National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS)

  • Judge Rakoff Controversy
  • “U.S. judge quits commission to protest Justice Department forensic science policy,” The Washington Post (
  • “Judge Rakoff returns to forensic panel after Justice Department backs off decision,” The Washington Post (1/29/15)
  • NCFS Charter (2013)
  • Memorandum of Understanding between NIST and DOJ creating the NCFS and OSAC
  • NCFS Closure
  • “Sessions orders Justice Dept. to end forensic science commission, suspend review policy,” Spencer Hsu, The Washington Post (4/10/17)
  • “Salk professor criticizes disbanding of federal forensics committee that included scientists,” The San Diego Union-Tribune (4/10/17)
  • “Why the Trump administration is taking science out of forensics,” Chelsea Whyte, New Scientist(4/13/17)
  • “Jeff Sessions and the Odds of Imprisoning Innocents,” Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic(4/11/17)
  • “Attorney general will replace independent forensic science commission with in-house advisers,” Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA(4/10/17)
  • “Sessions Is Wrong to Take Science Out of Forensic Science,” Erin Murphy, The New York Times (4/11/17)
  • “Another Reprieve for Expert Testimony That Is Anything But,” Jim Dwyer, The New York Times (4/11/17)

F. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)/National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

  • NIJ Report: “The Impact of Forensic Science Research and Development” (2015)
  • “Fighting Crime With Science,” Jim Dawson (2015)
  • “Social Science Research on Forensic Science: The Story Behind One of NIJ’s Newest Research Portfolios,” Katharine Browning (2015)

G. Forensic Science Bills

  • Senate Commerce Committee Bill
  • Senate Judiciary Committee Bill

H. Evolving Science Statutes

  • 2018 Innocence Project Model Bill
  • ALEC Model Bill
  • Change in Science Support Materials
  • VA campaign materials
  • VA habeas talking points
  • letter from Mike Ware, Innocence Project of Texas
  • Texas Statute (2015)
  • California Statute (2014)

I. Duty to Correct

  • Annie Dookhan
  • ACLU on Bridgemean v. DA
  • January 2017 Bridgeman v. DA SJC Decision
  • U.S. GAO “Yellow Book” – Government Auditing Standards (2011)
  • TX FSC and CJIU Defendant Notification White Paper (2013)

J. State Forensic Science Commissions

  • S1285 – MA
  • NIJ-RTI State Forensic Science Commissions (2016)
  • California Statute

K. Additional Media

  • Crime Lab Reviews
  • “Prosecutors will drop thousands of cases in Dookhan scandal,” Shawn Musgrave (Boston Globe, April 2017)
  • “Tarr, Republicans want regular crime lab audits,” Mike Springer (Salem News, April 2017)
  • “Lawyers raised doubts about Austin DNA lab work as early as 2009,” Andrea Bail & Tony Plohetski (Austin American-Statesman, Jan. 2017)
  • “Questions about ex-BCI scientist may cast doubt on convictions,” The Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 2016
  • “Approximately 2,000 Closed Cases Could Be Reopened Due to BSO Crime Lab Flaws,” Antonia Farzan (New Times, Sept. 2016)
  • Evolving Science Cases
  • “Scientific evidence prompts judge to vacate Naperville man’s murder conviction,” Clifford Ward (Naperville Sun, April 2017)
  • “Judge orders new trial in 30-year-old rape case, finds testimony on hair evidence exceeded scientific limits,” Ed Treleven (Wisconsin State Journal, June 2017)
  • “Incredibly, prosecutors are still defending bite mark evidence,” Radley Balko (The Washington Post, Jan. 2017)
  • “The Fire on Harvard Avenue: How Junk Arson Science Convicted a Mother of Killing Her Own Daughers,” Liliana Segura (The Intercept, March 2017)
  • Field Drug Testing
  • “How a $2 Roadside Drug Test Sends Innocent People to Jail,” Ryan Gabrielson & Topher Sanders (The New York Times & Pro Publcia, July 2016)
  • “How Harris County Deputies Mistook a Sock Full of Cat Litter for a Half Pound of Meth,” Meagan Flynn (Houston Press, Jan. 2017)

III. COMPENSATING THE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED

A. Support Materials

  • IP Compensation Fact Sheet
  • 2018 IP Model Bill- Compensation
  • Federal Tax Relief Bill
  • ABA Resolution Regarding Compensation (2005)
  • Why 1983 or Civil Claims Are an Insufficient Framework to Compensate the Wrongfully Convicted
  • IP Immediate Services Package: How States Can Plug Into Existing Social Services
  • Chart Comparing Existing State Laws
  • Snapshot of Existing State Laws

B. Scholarship on reentry

  • “Experiencing Wrongful and Unlawful Conviction,” Wildeman, Costelloe, & Schehr (2011)
  • “Release from Prison—A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates,” Binswanger, Stern, Deyo, Heagerty, Cheadle, Elmore, & Koepsell (2007)

C. Media

  • “What Do States Owe People Who Are Wrongfully Convicted?” Scott Rodd (Stateline, March 2017)
  • “Wrongly convicted in Mass.? Good luck getting compensation,” Jenifer McKim (Boston Globe, Dec. 2016)
  • “States Can’t Keep Criminal Fines of Exonerated, Supreme Court Rules,” Adam Liptak (The New York Times, April 2017)
  • “A Gary man was found innocent after 24 years in prison. Indiana didn’t help him.” Madeline Buckley (Indy Star, Jan. 2017)
  • “What does Mississippi owe a 13-year-old who falsely confessed to murder?” Raldey Balko (The Washington Post, May 2017)

IV. POST-CONVICTION ACCESS TO DNA TESTING

A. Support Materials

  • IP Post-Conviction DNA Testing Fact Sheet
  • 2018IP Model Legislation—bill creating statutory access to post-conviction DNA testing
  • Addressing Flood of Litigation Arguments – Memo Based on Innocence Network Survey (2017)
  • Reauthorized Justice For All Act’s Revised Federal Post-Conviction DNA Access Law

B. Enabling Relief for People Who Plead

  • MD materials
  • MD post-conviction DNA Fact Sheet
  • MD House Committee Testimony
  • Pennsylvania Post-Conviction DNA briefing materials
  • Anthony Wright testimony
  • Marissa Bluestine testimony
  • Michelle Feldman testimony
  • PA post-conviction DNA fact sheet

C. Supreme Court: No Federal Right to DNA Testing

  • Osborne Brief
  • Transcript from Supreme Court Proceedings- Osborne
  • District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne Supreme Court Decision
  • Skinner Petition for Certiorari
  • “DNA and Due Process,” Brandon Garrett (2010)

D. Media

  • “Justice demands fair access to DNA testing,” Stewart Greenleaaf & Tedd Nesbit (The Inquirer, April 2017)
  • “Ohio Supreme Court rules in favor of death-row inmate Tyrone Noling; restrictions on DNA testing appeals unconstitutional,” (The Plain Dealer, Dec. 2016)
  • “Death row inmates granted direct DNA testing through Ohio Supreme Court under new rule,” Jim Provance (The Blade, May 2017)
  • “’Very important’ bill on post-conviction DNA testing passes through House committee,” (KSL, March 2017)

V. HITS TO CLOSED CASES

2018IP Model Bill- Hits to Closed Cases bill

VI. PRESERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

A. Support Materials

  • IP Position Statement on the Preservation of Biological Evidence
  • IP Preservation of Biological Evidence Fact Sheet
  • IP Model Legislation
  • 2018IP Model Bill- Preservation Prescriptive Bill
  • NIST Preservation Model Bill

B. Federal Law and Regulations

  • Justice For All Act Section 3600 (Post-conviction Access to Testing)
  • Justice For All Act Section 3600A (Preservation of Evidence)
  • Federal Regulations Guiding Section 3600A

C. NIST/DOJ TWG Reports

  • Best Practices for Evidence Handlers
  • Considerations for Policymakers

D. Media

  • Denver Post “Trashing the Truth” series (2007)
  • “Not enough room in new $555 million courthouse to store evidence in criminal cases,” Dana Littlefield (The San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 2017)
  • “Locked Away,” Willoughby Mariano (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2015)
  • “Drowning in DNA: State’s backlog of rape kits grows,” Rhonda Cook (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 2017)

VII. ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS

A. Support Materials

  • IP Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations Fact Sheet
  • 2018IP Model Legislation—Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations
  • Cost Estimates
  • IP Primer on Recording of Custodial Interrogations
  • NACDL information on current jurisdictions that are recording (2016)
  • Law and Human Behavior Articles on Custodial Interrogations
  • “Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations,” Kassin, Drizin, Grisso, Gudjonsson, Leo & Redlich (2010)
  • “Why Confessions Trump Innocence,” Saul Kassin (2012)
  • “Confessions That Corrupt: Evidence From the DNA Exoneration Case Files,” Kassin, Bogart & Kerner (2012)

B. Law Enforcement Support

  • “Report: Police Experiences Recording Custodial Interrogations,” Thomas Sullivan (2004)
  • “The Case for Videotaping Interrogations,”LA Times op-ed by Det. James Trainum (2008)
  • Chief of Police Magazine (2005)
  • “Tale of the Tape: Recorded Interrogations Level the Playing Field, Despite Initial Fears,” Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (2007)
  • International Association of Chiefs of Police Training Key

C. Statements from National Organizations

  • ABA Resolution on False Confessions (2004)
  • American Psychological Association Press Release on Amicus Re: False Confessions
  • NAACP Resolution (2014)
  • Major City Chiefs Assn Resolution (2015)
  • NACOLE Resolution (2015)
  • IACP Wrongful Conviction Summit Report

D. Laws and Court Action from other Jurisdictions

  • North Carolina Law (2008)
  • Oregon Law (2010)
  • Indiana Court Rule (2011)
  • New Jersey Court Rule (2006)
  • Utah Court Rule (2015)
  • Colorado Law (2016)
  • New York Law (2017)

E. Media

  • “The Seismic Change in Police Interrogations,” Eli Hager (The Marshall Project, March 2017)
  • “For 50 Years, You’ve Had ‘The Right to Remain Silent’,” Samuel Gross & Maurice Possley (The Marshall Project, June 2016)
  • “Kansas needs a law to record interrogations,” Floyd Bledsoe & Eddie James Lowery (Leavenworth Times, Dec. 2016)
  • “Police and prosecutors back Kansas bill requiring recorded interrogations,” Justin Wingerter (The Topeka Capital-Journal, Feb. 2017)
  • “Commission: Recording interrogations key to criminal justice reform,” Bobby Cervantes (Houston Chronicle, Jan. 2017)
  • “Let’s change old laws that harm young Californians,” Ricardo Lara & Holly Mitchell (LA Daily News, June 2017)

VIII. INCENTIVIZED TESTIMONY

A. Support Materials

  • IP Fact Sheet on Incentivized Witnesses
  • ABA Resolution Regarding Incentivized Testimony (2005)
  • 2018IPModel Legislation—In-Custody Informant Bill
  • Alexandra Natapoff’s Model Legislation
  • “Jailhouse Snitch Testimony: A Policy Review,” The Justice Project report
  • Informant Regulation: Recommendations & National Overview

B. Different Frameworks for Informant Reform

  • National landscape: In-custody informant regulation
  • 2017 In-Custody Informant Legislation Summary
  • Illinois Informant Materials
  • Illinois Statute Regulating the Use of Incentivized Informants (2003)
  • SB 1830 (amends original law)
  • SB 1830 Fact Sheet
  • Letter to House members to co-sponsor bill
  • Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 (2014)
  • California Law Requiring Corroboration (2012)
  • Washington State legislative proposal from 2016 Session
  • HB 2654
  • HB 2654 bill analysis
  • Fiscal Note
  • Written opposition by the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
  • Letter of support by Washington State defense attorney Kevin Curtis
  • Letter of support by Alexandra Natapoff

C. Scholarship

  • Alexandra Natapoff scholarship resources (link to blog and book)
  • “Beyond Unreliable: How Snitches Contribute to Wrongful Convictions,” Alexandra Natapoff (2010)
  • Northwestern Center on Wrongful Convictions: “The Snitch System” (2004)
  • “Abolishing Jailhouse Snitch Testimony,” Russell D. Covery (2015)

D. Media

  • California (Orange County)
  • “2 jailhouse snitches, who were paid $335,000 over 4 years, spark new legislation,” Tony Saavedra (Orange County Register, March 2017)
  • “Informant Says He Was Planted in Orange County Jail to Snitch,” Sharyn Alfonsi (60 Minutes, May 2017)
  • “There’s a Jail Snitch Program In Orange County, And Here Are The Inside Memos That Detail It,” Matt Ferner (The Huffington Post, April 2017)
  • “OC Prosecutor Who Defended DA’s Office Over Snitch Scandal Is Accused Of Covering Up Jail Informant Use,” Matt Ferner (The Huffington Post, May 2017)
  • “Key Witnesses In A California Jailhouse Snitch Scandal Refuse to Testify,” Matt Ferner (The Huffington Post, June 2017)
  • Texas (Harris County)
  • “Harris County Prosecutor Lied About Deals With Jailhouse Snitches,” Meagan Flynn (Houston Press, Nov. 2016)
  • “The Problem With Jailhouse Snitches,” Meagan Flyn (Houston Press, Nov. 2016)
  • “How an alleged snitch scheme led Detroit police to wrongly land dozens behind bars,” Ryan Felton (Detroit Metro Times, May 2017)
  • “Bill would require prosecutors to fess up to confidential informant deals,” Mitch Ryals (Inlander, Jan. 2017)
  • “Justice can be tainted by use of informants’ testimony,” Barry Scheck (The Seattle Times, May 2017)
  • “McClendon found not guilty in New Haven slaying, robbery trial,” Randall Beach (New Haven Register, March 2017)

IX. STATE PLANS

A. Nevada State Plan (MERI)

B. New Hampshire State Plan

C. Media in Support of State Campaigns

  • “Central Park 5 calls on NY to keep innocent people out of prison,” New York Daily News (2017)
  • “The moral imperative of preventing wrongful convictions in N.Y.,” New York Daily News (2017)
  • “Central Park Five push for law to prevent wrongful convictions, but time’s running out,” PIX 11 (2017)

X. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS

A. NAACP Resolution: “Preventing Wrongful Convictions by Improving Accuracy in Eyewitness Interrogation Techniques and Access to DNA Testing” (2014)

B. Massachusetts Major City Chiefs Resolution: “Best Practices in Eyewitness Identification and the Recording of Suspect Interviews” (2010)