Rare Confrontation Clause Winner

Vasquez v. Jones, No. 04-2274
Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition where: 1) petitioner established that the state court violated his Confrontation Clause right to impeach a witness' credibility with his criminal record; 2) the state court's resolution of this claim represents an unreasonable application of Supreme Court Confrontation Clause jurisprudence; and 3) the error was not harmless under the Brecht standard

amended ineffective assistance claim was included only in an unverified memorandum

US v. Guerrero, No. 05-3299
Dismissal of defendant's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255 is vacated and remanded where: 1) a timely, amended ineffective assistance claim was included only in an unverified memorandum, and thus failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 2255 Rule 2(b); but 2) defendant should have an opportunity to conform his motion to Rule 2(b)'s procedural requirements.

DNA Winner

In McKithen v. Brown, Judge Calabresi opens his decision as follows:"Eighty-four years ago, Judge Learned Hand observed that '[o]ur procedure has been always haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted,' but posited, optimistically, that '[i]t is an unreal dream.' United States v. Garrison, 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1923). Today, with the advance of forensic DNA technology, our desire to join Learned Hand's optimism has given way to the reality of wrongful convictions -- a reality which challenges us to reaffirm our commitment to the principle that the innocent should be freed."The case involves an attempt by a prisoner to a post-conviction constitutional right to access to DNA testing, which, he asserts, might exonerate him. The District Court dismissed the action, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but the Second Circuit reversed. The decision can be found here.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, HABEAS CORPUS

Howard v. US Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-3315
In an inmate's pro se habeas corpus proceedings claiming that, during two disciplinary proceedings against him for assaulting another prisoner and possessing drug paraphernalia, federal penitentiary officials violated his due process rights, dismissal of the habeas petition is affirmed in part, but vacated in part where petitioner was denied the opportunity to present potentially exculpatory evidence at one of his hearings

dna

In McKithen v. Brown, Judge Calabresi opens his decision as follows:"Eighty-four years ago, Judge Learned Hand observed that '[o]ur procedure has been always haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted,' but posited, optimistically, that '[i]t is an unreal dream.' United States v. Garrison, 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1923). Today, with the advance of forensic DNA technology, our desire to join Learned Hand's optimism has given way to the reality of wrongful convictions -- a reality which challenges us to reaffirm our commitment to the principle that the innocent should be freed."The case involves an attempt by a prisoner to a post-conviction constitutional right to access to DNA testing, which, he asserts, might exonerate him. The District Court dismissed the action, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but the Second Circuit reversed.The decision can be found here.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court, for it to consider whether there exists a constitutional right on the basis of which Plaintiff-Appellant might be able to obtain the relief he requests, and if there is such a right, whether, once the district court defines the contours of that right, Plaintiff- Appellant’s claim is collaterally-estopped by the earlier state court decisions.