NACDL is providing resources regarding the Criminalization of Pregnancy and Reproductive Health to the criminal defense community. Resources are provided without warranty or guarantee. Please consult the laws and rules of your state and local authorities. Please log in to access them. Membership is NOT required.

In 1988, Arkansas passed Constitutional Amendment 68, which provides that “[t]he policy of Arkansas is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth, to the extent permitted by the Federal Constitution.” Ark. Const. amend. LXVIII, § 2. Since that time, Arkansas has passed numerous laws affecting the ability of women to obtain an abortion within the State.

Policies and rulings on lengthy imprisonment terms in Arkansas.

Information on the policy and history of recording custodial interrogations in Arkansas.

Attorney-client communications federal caselaw and state-specific anecdotal data in Arkansas

In The Circuit Court of Clay County, Arkansas Western District on Change of Venue From Circuit Court of Crittenden County, Arkansas: Misskelley v. State of Arkansas

Transcript: Dr. Werner Spitz, Forensic Pathologist
Transcript: Dr. Janice Ophoven, Forensic Pathologist 

In The Circuit Court of Craighead County, Arkansas Western District 

Transcript: Dr. Michael Baden, MD Forensic Pathologist 

Amicus curiae brief of the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of appellant.

Argument: Due to the potent nature of confession evidence, the Misskelley confession strongly influenced the jury’s verdict, even though it was not admitted at trial. Standard police interrogation tactics have been shown to induce false confessions, particularly in juveniles and the mentally impaired. Even while the Misskelley confession strongly influenced the jury’s decision to convict, it bears all the hallmarks of a false confession.

Brief of Amicus Curiae The Innocence Network and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant.

Argument: Flawed forensic evidence like that used to convict Mr. Pitts is scientifically invalid. Faulty forensic evidence and related false testimony have contributed to the convictions of innocent people. Forensic evidence plays a key role in wrongful convictions because such evidence is generally perceived as infallible. The hair comparison evidence used to convict Mr. Pitts has been discredited. Hair comparison evidence like that proffered against Mr. Pitts is false and has contributed to at least 74 wrongful convictions. The hair comparison evidence introduced through former special agent Malone was erroneous. Mr. Pitts is entitled to relief based on the state's reliance on now discredited microscopic hair comparison evidence.