Bigstock®

Chester Hollman III—25 years, John Miller—22 years and Willie Veasy—27 years.

These are the names of three innocent Philadelphians represented by the Pennsylvania Innocence Project who were freed from wrongful incarcerations for murder in 2019. Each man served over two decades in prison, living with life without parole sentences. Why were they wrongfully imprisoned in the first place?

Studies of wrongful convictions have shown that certain factors consistently appear in the cases of the convicted innocent. These include:

• Mistaken eyewitness identifications, present in 28% of exonerations overall and 25% of exonerations in homicide cases;
• Perjury or false accusations, present in 58% of exonerations overall and a shocking 70% of exonerations in homicide cases;
• False confessions, present in 12% of exonerations overall and a much higher rate of 23% of exonerations in homicide cases;
• False or misleading forensic evidence, present in 23% of exonerations overall and in 24% of exonerations in homicide cases; and
• Official misconduct, present in 54% of exonerations overall and a much higher rate of 71% of exonerations in homicide cases.

See "% Exonerations by Contributing Factor and Type of Crime," National Registry of Exonerations, (last accessed Oct. 12).

Hollman's, Miller's and Veasy's cases each had one or more of these factors present. In Hollman's case, a witness gave false testimony, and the commonwealth suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Hollman's due process rights. In Miller's case, a witness gave false information to police, and the commonwealth suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of his due process rights. In Veasy's case, Veasy gave a false "confession," there was a problematic eyewitness identification, and, as with the others, the commonwealth suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Veasy's due process rights. A common theme emerges—the repeated suppression of evidence favorable to the defense. This theme is, unfortunately, consistent with the statistics cited above—that a staggering 71% of wrongful convictions in homicide cases are caused, at least in part, by official misconduct.

The question then becomes, what can be done to remedy this problem?

Conviction Integrity Units

For those already wrongly convicted like Hollman, Miller and Veasy, one step toward justice is the establishment of divisions within district attorney's offices that work to prevent, identify, and correct wrongful convictions. The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office has such a unit—the Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU) led by Patricia Cummings. The CIU has contributed to 10 exonerations of innocent Philadelphians since 2018 and recommended relief in these three cases after significant review and investigation.

It was the CIU that finally made available to these men long-withheld police investigation files containing exculpatory evidence, that had never before been produced. Without that information, it is possible that these men never would have obtained relief from their wrongful incarcerations, as one of the limited ways that a Pennsylvania defendant can attack his conviction is by showing the availability of evidence previously withheld due to governmental interference.

The importance of divisions like the CIU in district attorney's offices is not unique to Philadelphia. Rather, it is part of a nationwide trend. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 58 of the 151 exonerations that occurred in 2018 had CIU involvement. Innocence organizations like the Pennsylvania Innocence Project partnered with local CIUs to secure a record 45 exonerations in that year. Nationwide, there were 44 conviction integrity units in existence in 2018, with three more set to open in 2019. Unfortunately, in Pennsylvania, the only CIU that currently exists is the one in Philadelphia; that leaves the wrongfully convicted whose cases arise in the other 66 counties in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania without a clear path to request reinvestigation of their cases by prosecutors.

Discovery Reforms

Another important step toward justice both for those already wrongfully convicted who are attempting to secure their freedom and also for those who are facing trial is the adopting of "open-file" discovery policies by prosecutors' offices. Open-file discovery gives defendants access to all nonprivileged information possessed by the commonwealth about a case—whether that information be in prosecutors' files, police files, or with other state entities. This would ensure that defendants have full information about the case and would reduce the problems created by the current system that requires prosecutors to exercise discretion in determining on an item-by-item basis which items are material and must be disclosed to the defense.

In Texas, the state legislature has mandated this by statute, passing the "Michael Morton Act" that requires disclosure of all evidence regardless of its materiality to guilt or punishment. This statute passed largely in response to the exoneration of Michael Morton, which revealed that significant evidence of innocence had been withheld from the defense before trial. A rule like this in Pennsylvania would give defendants facing trial fair access to information that, if it pointed toward innocence, would allow them to seek dismissal of their charges or to present full information to the jury.

The American Bar Association has recognized the importance of also providing discovery of exculpatory information to those already convicted. It promulgated Model Rules of Professional Responsibility 3.8(g) and (h). Model Rule 3.8(g) requires that: "When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall: promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority; and if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor's jurisdiction, promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit." Model Rule 3.8(h) requires that: "When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor's jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction."

As of Dec. 31, 2018, 18 jurisdictions had adopted these model rules in full or in a modified way. Pennsylvania is not among them, even though adopting such rules is vitally important here given the significant restrictions on discovery under the Post Conviction Relief Act.

Ultimately, the provision of open-file discovery by the Philadelphia CIU is what opened the door for Hollman, Miller and Veasy to come home. Establishment of similar units in other counties and statewide policies regarding discovery would be consistent with nationwide trends and important steps to allow other wrongfully convicted Pennsylvanians an avenue to seek relief in their cases.

Nilam A. Sanghvi is the legal director at the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, where she started as a staff attorney in 2013. She directs the project's identification, investigation and litigation of claims of innocence by wrongfully convicted Pennsylvanians. Sanghvi worked on the cases discussed in this article.