References1 The Innocence Project, http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/ (last visited Jan. 19, 2011).
3 Department of Justice Oversight: Funding Forensics Sciences – DNA and Beyond: Hearing Before the S. Subcomm. on Admin. Oversight and the Courts, 108th Cong. (2003) (statement of Michael M. Baden, M.D., Director of the Medicological Investigations Unit of the New York State Police) ( “In less than 10 percent of murders the criminal leaves DNA evidence behind. About 5 percent of a crime lab’s workload involves DNA analysis.”); Kelly M. Pyrek, editor of Forensic Nurse Mag. (Sept. 2005) (quoting a chair of a consortium of four major crime laboratory associations: requests for DNA analysis is “only 5 percent of what comes in the door.”); Cara Garretson, Cybercrime Conference Highlights RFID Security, Mar. 6, 2007 (quoting Jim Christy, Director of the Future Explorations unit of the Department of Defense’s Cyber Crime Center: “Only about 1 percent of criminal cases introduce DNA evidence -- contrary to what typically is portrayed on television crime dramas -- because most of the time it’s not relevant”).
4 Unvalidated and improperly applied forensic science also numbers among the documented factors of wrongful convictions, contributing to approximately half of the nation’s 265 DNA exonerations. See generally, Forensic Science Reform, Smart on Crime (2011).
5 These recommendations are formalized in National Institute of Justice manuals. See U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Nat’l Inst. of Justice, Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement (1999), available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf; U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Nat’l Inst. of Justice, Eyewitness Evidence: A Trainer’s Manual for Law Enforcement (2003), available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/eyewitness/188678.pdf.
6 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.83 (2010).
7 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-284.52 (2009).
8 Memorandum from John J. Farmer, Jr., N.J. Attorney General, on Attorney General Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures (Apr. 18, 2001) available at http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/photoid.pdf.
9 W. Va. Code, § 62-1E-1, et seq. (West, Westlaw through 2010 2nd Extraordinary Sess.).
10 H.R. Res. 352, 149th Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2007).
11 Md. Code Ann. Pub. Safety § 3-506 (2005).
12 Vt. Act No. 154 of 2010 (Adj. Sess.) § 238e.
13 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 175.50 (West, Westlaw through 2009 Act 406).
14 Dallas Police Department General Order 304.01 Eyewitness Identification.
15 Denver Police Department, Operations Manual, Line-Up Procedure, § 104.44, available at http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/326/documents/104.pdf.
16 Northampton Administration & Operations Manual, Eyewitness Identification Procedure ch. 0-408.
17 Amy Klobuchar et al., Improving Eyewitness Identifications: Hennepin County’s Blind Sequential Lineup Pilot Project, 4 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J. 381 (2006).
18 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, 5th Edition Change Notices (2010), available at: http://www.iaclea.org/visitors/professionaldevelopment/accreditation/5thEditionChangeNotices.pdf.
19 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/103-2.1 (West, Westlaw through P.A. 96-1482 of the 2010 Reg. Sess.); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 25, § 2803-B (West, Westlaw through the 2009 2nd Reg. Sess. of the 124th Leg.); MD. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 2-402(West, Westlaw through 2010 Reg. Sess. of Gen. Assem.); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 590.700 (West, Westlaw through 2010 1st Extraordinary Sess. of the 95th Gen. Assem.); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-4-401, et seq. (1999); Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-4501, et seq. (West, Westlaw through the 101st Leg. 2nd Reg. Sess. 2010); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 15A-211 (West, Westlaw through 2010 Sess.); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.81 (West, Westlaw through 2010 File 58 of the 128th GA); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 133.400 (West, Westlaw through 2010 Spec. Sess.); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 972.115 (West, Westlaw through 2009 Act 406); D.C. Code § 5-116.01 (2005).
20 H.R. 3027, 110th Cong. (2007), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr3027ih/pdf/BILLS-110hr3027ih.pdf.
21 H.R. 3027, 110th Cong. (2007).
22 H.R. 6245; 111th Cong. (2010).
23 National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Electronic Recordation of Custodial Interrogations Act, available at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/erci/2010final.htm.
24 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann 5/115-21 (West, Westlaw through P.A. 96-1482 of the 2010 Reg. Sess.)
25 California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, Report and Recommendations Regarding Informant Testimony, available at http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/jailhouse/official/Official%20Report.pdf; New York State Bar Association, Task Force on Wrongful Convictions, Final Report (2009), at 114-20, available at http://www.nysba.org/Content/ContentFolders/TaskForceonWrongfulConvictions/
26 Innocence Project, State Laws Requiring Preservation of Evidence, http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/LawView4.php (last visited Jan. 10, 2011)
27 Innocence Project, Preservation of Evidence (last visited Jan. 20, 2011), available at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Preservation_Of_Evidence.php.
28 See Miles Moffiet, Evidence: Case, Kin in Limbo, Denver Post, Sept. 24, 2007; Press Release, Office of Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson to hold panel discussions on wrongful incarcerations and DNA exonerations (July 17, 2008), available at http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/07/conyers-in-dallas-for-panel-on-wrongful.html.
29 Interview with Rebecca Brown, Policy Advocate and Member of the NIST/NIJ Technical Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation, Innocence Project in New York, N.Y. (Jan. 3, 2011).
30 The Innocence Project, Eyewitness Misidentification, http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php (last visited Jan. 20, 2011).
31 See Stephen Saloom, Improving Eyewitness Identification Procedures (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., October 2009), available at: http://www.calea.org/calea-update-magazine/issue-101/improving-eyewitness-identification-procedures.
32 Innocence Project, Understand the Causes: False Confessions,
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php (last visited Jan. 10, 2011).
33 Justice for All Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-405 (codified in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C. and 42 U.S.C.).
34 42 U.S.C. 14136 (corresponds to the Justice for All Act of 2004, § 303).
35 42 U.S.C. 14136(b) (corresponds to the Justice for All Act of 2004, § 305).
36 42 U.S.C. 14136(d) (corresponds to the Justice for All Act of 2004, § 308).
37 42 U.S.C. 14136(e) (corresponds to the Justice for All Act of 2004, § 412).
38 Innocence Project, Understand the Causes: Informants / Snitches, http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Snitches-Informants.php (last visited Jan. 10. 2011).
39 See generally, Alexandra Napatoff, Snitching: Criminal Informants and the Erosion of American Justice (NYU Press 2009).
40 Interview with Dr. Emily West, Research Director, Innocence Project in New York, N.Y. (Jan. 3, 2011). Among the first 255 exonerations, 94 real perpetrators have been identified (affecting 111 exonerees), among which nearly half were convicted of additional violent crimes. Id.
41 The 44 real perpetrators who went on to commit additional violent crimes, including 61 sexual assaults, 21 murders and 9 other violent crimes. Id.
42 For example, Jeff Deskovic, an exoneree from New York, sought a comparison of crime scene evidence to the New York DNA database. It was only after a “hit” to the database that inculpated a convicted murderer that he was able to be exonerated. See Innocence Project, Know the Cases, Jeff Deskovic, http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Jeff_Deskovic.php (last visited Jan. 10, 2011).