A PowerPoint presentation outlining the details of post-conviction relief in plea cases. 

Jones v. Cain Amended and Supplemental Application for Post-Conviction Relief

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. Sireci 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. Sireci has been discredited. Hair comparison evidence like that proffered against Mr. Sireci is false and has contributed to at least 75 wrongful convictions. The hair comparison evidence introduced through William Munroe and relied upon by the state was erroneous. The Court’s ruling in Duckett is not controlling. Mr. Sireci is entitled to post-conviction relief.

Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and The Innocence Network In Support of Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey Wogenstahl.

Argument: The terms of the microscopic hair comparison analysis (MHCA) review firmly establish the parameters of microscopic hair comparison. Testimony that exceeds those limits is false and erroneous testimony. The terms of the MHCA established the limits of the "science" of microscopic hair comparison for the first time. Juries are overly confident in subjective "sciences" such as microscopic hair comparison. The lower court improperly analyzed the significance of the MHCA review.

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.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant and Urging Reversal.

Argument: Plea agreement waivers prohibiting a defendant from seeking post-conviction relief from deprivation of the right to effective assistance of counsel should never be enforced. A defense attorney has an inherent and unwaivable conflict. Criminal defendants are entitled to conflict-free counsel. Prosecutors also violate rules of professional conduct when they insist on IAC waivers in pleas agreements. The majority of ethics authorities to consider this issue have ruled that defense attorneys are prohibited from advising clients to accept IAC waivers. Congress has required federal prosecutors to adhere to state ethics rules.