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

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
• Share Link

In November, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Pottawattamie v. McGhee in order to resolve it. The facts of the case aren't in dispute. In 1978, a retired Iowa police captain was killed by a shotgun blast while working as a private security guard. Prosecutors Joseph Hrvol and David Richter then worked with local police to manufacture evidence against the two chief suspects, Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee, Jr. The two men were convicted of the murder in separate trials, and each was sentenced to life without parole. The Iowa Supreme Court set aside both convictions in 2003, citing exculpatory evidence pointing to another suspect that was withheld from defense counsel in both trials. Both men were eventually released from prison. Seeking damages for losing 25 years of their lives, they brought a civil rights suit against the police, prosecutors, and county that convicted them.

[Currently prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity, but , t]he Court has put one small dent in the absolute immunity shield enjoyed by prosecutors. In the 1993 case Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, it ruled that prosecutors who act as investigators in a case are subject to the more limited qualified immunity afforded to police officers with respect to the actions they take as investigators. Qualified immunity is still a high hurdle; it doesn't exactly open prosecutors up to a barrage of lawsuits. A claimant must show that a state actor violated his "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights," as those rights are understood by a "reasonable person" (as distinguished from a legal professional). Under Buckley, prosecutors who violate the clear constitutional rights of a defendant while serving an investigatory role can be sued, but once they assume the role of a prosecutor, they're immune.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link