Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit Defense Blog : Wrongful Conviction Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Andrew M. Hale Law Firm

 The battle between the Cook County State's Attorney's Office and Northwestern's Medill Innocence Project continues to brew. In a recent court hearing, defense attorneys for Anthony McKinney submitted an amended post-conviction petition, deleting references to certain controversial evidence. Judge Diane Cannon questioned the motive of the defense attorneys, asking if the controversial evidence was removed in an effort to quash the State's Attorney's pending subpoena. Stay tuned. . . 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Chicago Tribune is reporting: 

Anthony McKinney's attorneys filed a post-conviction petition yesterday that no longer includes affidavits and videotapes gathered by Medill Innocence Project students.  Northwestern hopes that the modified petition will end the states's attorneys efforts to force Northwestern to turn over their grades, grading criteria and notes. "My hope is that by taking out the most controversial evidence in the case that the state will agree" that their subpoenas seeking the information are moot, David Protess said.

As previously reported, McKinney's attorneys have been trying since November 2008 to win him a new day in court. Prosecutors have argued they need the students' material to prepare for the hearing and have filed documents containing accusations by witnesses that the students paid and flirted with them.

Apparently, McKinney believes his petition is strong without this "new evidence." If thats the case, we are not sure why the students had to go out and get it - and allegedly pay for it.  Either way, the students should comply with the subpoena and clear their names.  If Northwestern really wants McKinney out of prison, a simple subpoena shouldn't stand in the way.  If the students did nothing wrong, and there is nothing to hide, why the delay?

What's more important - the documents or McKinney?  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 The February 2010 issue of Chicago magazine contains an article "The Professor and the Prosecutor: Anita Alvarez's office turns up the heat on David Protess's Medill Innocence Project" that discusses the ongoing battle over the subpoena that the Cook County State's Attorney's Office has served on the Medill Innocence Project. The main issue in the dispute is whether the students in Protess's class were acting as reporters. The article quotes Alvarez stating: "These students wrote no newspaper story on this case, they wrote no magazine articles. . . What is the purpose of this particular class? . . .  The whole purpose of this was to gather information for court, to gather information that they believe is going to exonerate someone." The article also quotes DuPage County state's attorney Joseph Birkett: "If you are working on an investigation and are assembling evidence for a team of lawyers, I'm sorry, you may be a journalist, but in that scenario you are an investigator, and the journalistic privilege is not going to apply." A court hearing on the dispute will be heard later this month by circuit court judge Diane Gordon Cannon.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Chicago Tribune is Reporting:

The Cook County state's attorney's office today contended student investigators from Northwestern University's Innocence Project paid a witness in its investigation to exonerate a man convicted of murder in 1982.

"This evidence shows that Tony Drakes gave his video statement upon the understanding that he would receive cash if he gave the answers that inculpated himself and that Drakes promptly used the money to purchase crack cocaine," according to a filing made by prosecutors today. The filing argues the students acted as investigators, not reporters, and as such aren't protected by press rights.

Prosecutors allege that after conducting a 2004 interview with Drakes, a private investigator working with students paid a cab driver $60 to take from the interview site, a park in downstate Swansea, to a gas station two miles away. That amount was more than the fare and tip, and leftover cash -- $40 -- was given to Drakes; he used it to buy crack at a nearby crackhouse, the filing states.

According to today's filing, Drakes told the state's attorney's office that the students knew he was looking for money, and he knew they wanted help with McKinney's case. McKinney has been in prison for 31 years. Drakes told prosecutors that he had a 7 p.m. curfew the night of the interview, and that the Northwestern students initially said they wouldn't pay for his statement, but that one student later "flashed a wad of cash" at him, according to the filing.

After the student paid the cabbie, the driver recorded the transaction in his log, today's filing states. Apparently suspicious that it was a drug deal or a sting, he wrote: "detective gave me 60, told me to give him 40, gave me 60... gave him change." The "him" refers to Drakes. According to the filing, the driver's log notes the fare for the two-mile trip to the gas station -- normally about $6 -- was $20. "The driver did not claim his $14 tip, he was worried it was drug money," the filing states.

Here is Michael Lane's Interview - He also claims the students paid him cash. 

We hope this is not true  - but If this is true - shame on Northwestern and shame on the Innocence Project.  Instead of rushing to defend the students, Northwestern should open its own investigation into these allegations and turn over all the requested information to prosecutors.  What are they hiding? Clear your name.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the Cook County State's Attorney's Office has subpoenaed Northwestern "students' grades, notes and recordings of witness interviews, the class syllabus and even e-mails they sent to each other and to professor David Protess of the university's Medill School of Journalism." These students claim to have uncovered evidence which exonerates Anthony McKinney, a Harvey man, accused of killing a security guard with a shotgun blast in 1978.  

McKinney is seeking a new-trial based on the students evidence, but the Cook County State's Attorney is seeking to uncover how this "so-called" new evidence has surfaced. Northwestern is fighting back against the subpoena, claiming it is is harassing and irrelevant.   "I don't think it's any of the state's business to know the state of mind of my students," Protess said.

Why is Northwestern getting all defensive? What are they hiding? The State's Attorney is trying to figure out if there is any motivation on the students part to "uncover" exonerating evidence.  The Innocence Project has been quick to criticize the over-zealous prosecutor or police officer for "doing what ever it takes" to secure a conviction.  Well now the shoe is on the other foot.  Students on university campuses are motivated by "the cause" and frequently do whatever it takes - because in their minds the ends justify the means.  Its nice to finally see the State's Attorney's Office question the students motivations.  We don't know the details and truly hope that the students motivations and actions are legit. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks