Witness Misidentification in Criminal Trials

Witness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the United States. Among former death-row inmates proven innocent by post-trial DNA evidence, more than half of their cases involved a mistaken eyewitness identification. And the problem is not limited to death-row inmates: a comprehensive 2012 study by Marvin Zalman, a professor of criminal procedure, concludes that up to 2,000 individuals are wrongfully convicted of felonies each year. Combating witness misidentification is perhaps the biggest step we can take to fight his injustice. This book discusses the problems of witness identification, shows how identification procedures contribute to faulty convictions, and suggests reforms that would drastically reduce the potential for misidentification.

"Accidental misidentifications are not only the leading cause of faulty convictions but also the cause of more faulty convictions than all other causes combined."

Fighting Federal Writs of Habeas Corpus

Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase that roughly translates to "bring a body before the court." A writ, in general, is an order from a higher court to a lower court, government agency, or government official. A writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, an order from the court to the government official who is acting on behalf of the state to incarcerate the defendant. Writs of habeas corpus have complex and detailed procedural rules. Writs of habeas corpus also have complex requirements for the types of arguments that can be made and the types of arguments that cannot be made. This book serves to organize and simplify the rules for the benefit of the lay person and for the benefit of other attorneys, and it can essentially be viewed as the “dos and don’ts” of a federal writ of habeas corpus.

"To maximize the odds of a successful writ of habeas corpus, a defendant should focus on three areas: (1) complying with the procedural rules, (2) making the strongest legal arguments possible, and (3) appealing to the judge’s sense of justice and fair play."

Padilla and the End of the Collateral-Consequences Rule

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that “constitutionally competent counsel” must inform a defendant if a guilty plea will result in automatic deportation. In so holding, the Court relied on deportation’s harsh penal nature and ignored other courts’ blanket classification of immigration status as “collateral” to the criminal process. By refusing to take up the distinction lower courts make between collateral and direct consequences, Padilla shields deportation from what has been called an “unprincipled” and “outdated” test. However, in not rejecting the distinction outright, the majority and concurrence fail to go as far as their own logic would take them. This article argues that the Court should abolish the collateral-direct distinction entirely, an argument which is supported by the Court’s Padilla analysis, current case law on the right to counsel, and public policy considerations.