Defense organizations lobby Supreme Court in support of Cooper
Saturday, November 21, 2009
- Organization: www.dailybulletin.com
Three criminal-defense organizations have filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Kevin Cooper's petition for the court to intervene in his case.
The organizations argue that Cooper has been at a disadvantage in appealing his case because appeals such as Cooper's - alleging that prosecutors withheld or destroyed evidence - must meet too high a standard in order to succeed.
On an initial federal petition, an inmate presenting an innocence claim must show that if undisclosed evidence had been presented to a jury, there would be a "reasonable probability of a different result," according to the "friend-of-the-court" briefs filed Oct. 28.
But if an inmate has already unsuccessfully appealed his case and mounts a new appeal with previously undisclosed evidence, the inmate must show that with the new evidence factored in, "no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense."
The higher standard is applied by some federal courts, but not all, according to the briefs from the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the California Public Defender's Association,
and the Innocence Network.
Citing "significant confusion" in lower courts, the Innocence Network urges the Supreme Court to hear Cooper's case in order to clarify what legal standard applies in cases such as Cooper's.
In its brief, the Innocence Network identifies three pieces of evidence known to prosecutors that weren't presented to Cooper prior to his trial:
A prison warden told prosecutors that bloody footprints at the crime scene were from shoes that could be purchased in retail stores, rather than shoes that are only issued to prisoners.
A supervisor gave approval for a sheriff's deputy to destroy bloody coveralls belonging to a different potential suspect.
Investigators recovered a bloody shirt at the crime scene, corroborating witness testimony that there was more than one killer.
"Had this critical evidence been provided to the defense, a jury could have easily found Cooper innocent," the Innocence Network states.





