Search Results

Welcome to the complementary profession of need-response. Who watches the watchers? Executive Summary [TLDR] Need-response emerges as a new professional service to complement, or potentially compete with, the adversarial judicial system to serve the public’s justice needs. Only need-response emphasizes understanding the unresolved needs fueling conflicts, and how to more effectively respond to such needs. We invite everyone working within the judicial system to engage this fresh approach to serving one another’s underserved needs.   Thank you for your service Wherever you serve the public in helping us all to stay safe and orderly, we thank you for your service. We appreciate how challenging it can be to reach just outcomes amidst our human complexities. The Anankelogy Foundation  can provide you some helpful insight to unpack those complexities, with its new proposed professional service of need-response .   This visionary service seeks to support your efforts to address and resolve justice needs. We address the justice needs of the people based on this new social science of anankelogy , the disciplined study of need.   Every need persists as an objective fact Foundational to this new academic field is the empirically based assertion that core needs exist as objective fact . Need-response as applied anankelogy exists to serve such “ inflexible needs ”. Such needs can never bend to serve arbitrary laws  or the authorities that exist to address such needs.   Consider the implications of this vicious cycle. legalism cycle The more one suppresses their inflexible needs to appease authority, the less they can fully function. The less they can fully function, the less capable they can comply with every legal requirement. The less they comply with every legal code, the more easily targeted by law enforcement. The more targeted by law enforcement, the more prone to suppress their inflexible needs to appease that authority. Back to square one.   Trapping us in pain of our unresolved justice needs An ethical dilemma emerges. The more the impersonal approach of law enforcement elicits poor outcomes benefitting its practice, the more motivated reasoning can blind judicial officials from its own role in such poor outcomes. The more you benefit as an institution from the negative situations you arguably help to create, the less incentivized to produce just outcomes for the people.   We appreciate how police must take an adversarial stance when apprehending someone presenting a threat. After such a person gets placed in custody, we see less room to impose adversarial assumptions. But we recognize such adversarialism is built into the very structure of the judicial process. Need-response can complement law enforcement’s adversarialism, in ways not normally contemplated by ADR or arbitration options. It can illuminate the biases that adversarialism often impose. Moreover, it can potentially produce more just results by incentivizing those in a conflict to first exhaust all possible mutuality options.   We do not presume adjudicated individuals, either complainants or defendants, as oppositional. We first affirm their inflexible needs that cannot be changed. Then we address the improper ways they behaved to redress such needs.   We cast a broader net to explore both internal factors and external factors shaping their options. We stay clear of either extreme: victimhood (overemphasizing external factors) or hyper-responsibility (overemphasizing internal factors). We hold ourselves accountable to produce just outcomes, in ways rarely if ever seen in the judicial process.   No longer exclusive The high volume of unsolved crimes , along with underreported violence , countered by estimated high rates of wrongly convicted innocents ,  suggests you could use a fresh approach to serving our justice needs. One less tied to the imposing constraints of advers arialism , and less beholden to constructs of law not held accountable to empirically measurable outcomes. In other words, prioritizing substantive justice over procedural justice.   To serve this noble goal of resolving more justice needs, need-response asserts a radical claim:   Anyone in the adversarial judicial system has the   privilege and not the exclusive right to serve the justice needs of the people .     In the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Jefferson hints to this necessity for an alternative when a government slips into tyrannical tendencies, or worse.   "All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."   In other words, creeping normalcy  coerces us to adjust to institutions creeping from their mission  to serve the people in a just democratic society. Without any other option, the people acclimate to the mounting pain of their unresolved justice needs. Consider the evolved dependence upon plea deals to avoid overwhelming the court docket. Consider how this avoids guaranteeing every accused defendant of their constitutional right to a fair trial. Then consider this as mission creep on steroids. As the sole institution available to the public to address their justice needs, the adversarial justice system receives little incentive to improve outcomes. True to the American adventure of competition, need-response now presents itself as the incentivizing market force to improve just outcomes.   Opening a new path to resolve persisting needs In contrast to Jefferson’s rhetoric, need-response does not seek to abolish the current forms of the judiciary, but instead to complement it, and where necessary to compete with it, to identify, address and resolve justice needs.   We invite you  to learn with us how to utilize need-response to better fulfill your mission to serve justice needs. You can partner with us, as we extend a warm welcome to support a client’s noble wellness goal . One client at a time. Status quo institution Need-response alternative Justice means procedural; process focused substantive; results focused Approach adversarial; win-lose approach mutuality; win-win approach Service serve flexible laws & powers serve inflexible needs Offer relieve pain of survivors remove pain by resolving needs Responsibility focus risk objectify individuals psychosocial balance Legitimacy ascribed; coax public trust earned; earn public trust Aim maintain social order improve overall wellness Perspective myopic; reductive to what’s manageable holistic; attentive to all Manifest outcomes toxic legalism; poor need orientations social love ; improved need orientations Or you can drag your feet, delay your response, resist our intent, and even oppose our efforts. All under color of law. But we must address inflexible justice needs, with you or without you. And let the people democratically decide which they prefer. But the reality of inflexible needs is never legitimately up for any vote or court opinion.   Let us help you resolve justice needs Resisting inflexible needs is never an option. Those who do under color of law become professionally and personally complicit  in the rising number of poor wellness outcomes, like major depression, severe anxiety, recurring addictions, and deaths of despair. Need-response offers such officials an off-ramp from such damaging objectification.   Instead of always processing a mounting pile of troubling cases, need-response can potentially reduce that load as it cultivates greater responsiveness to the inflexible needs spilling into violent incidents. Need-response aims to get to the source of our problems, which points to our persisting unresolved needs. You can either be a part of this fresh alternative, or see how it helps others improve their lives and their careers.   Any injustice in the name of justice We start with viable claims of innocence that can be independently verified. We investigate the biases of judicial officials, starting with prosecutors, who delay justice more for their own purposes than the public interest for a just society. We methodically explore limitations within the adversarial legal process, but not in an adversarial way. We invite the wrongly convicted with a viable innocence claim to correlate their case with those already exonerated. We calculate the degree of their likely innocence instead of imposing a black-and-white guilt or innocence category. In other words, we aim to improve identifying the wrongly convicted innocent with a more scientifically valid process.   In case their estimated innocence fails to provide a timely, just outcome, we offer them the opportunity to demonstrate their responsiveness to all involved in a conflict. We incentivize all to fulfill the purpose of law, which is prosocial behavior toward each other. That includes incentivizing questionable authorities to be equally prosocial. Inviting you to help shape this pioneering approach We are testing a radically fresh approach. We link you with a sample of those you impact, so you can improve your effectiveness in enabling them to resolve their justice needs. This provides you the opportunity to improve your legitimacy  to serve a wary public.   By offering you sponsorship opportunities, we help you nurture the public’s trust by helping you respond more effectively to their underserved justice needs. Much better than currently possible by applying the law alone.   Learn more… For a more informed decision, learn more at AnankelogyFoundation.org . Follow us on the Need-Response podcast  to keep informed how this new professional field of need-response is taking root and growing.   Let’s grow a better society together by holding each other accountably responsive to each other’s inflexible needs . Let’s incentivize each other to move past adversarial acrimony and impersonal alienation to make room for our untapped potential for more platonic love .   If we don’t, who will?   Respectfully,   The Anankelogy Foundation

Love as honoring the needs of others as one's own Which do you think is best? We must regard laws as the highest standard for our behavior. OR Love serves as a higher standard for our behavior over mere law. Anankelogy puts our needs under the microscope. And examines how we address our needs. Need-response as applied anankelogy looks at the results. It finds the motive of love more powerful and legitimizing than the lesser power of law. How you address needs predicts wellness outcomes. Consider these seven options. The last unleashes our potential to love one another more, to honor the needs of others as our own. Improperly relieving pain of unmet needs Properly relieving pain of unmet needs Improperly easing need s Properly easing needs Improperly resolving needs Properly resolving needs Bronze standard Silver standard Gold standard Platinum standard Love as the highest standard 1. Improperly relieving pain of unmet needs You can address your painful needs by chiefly relieving your pain in ways that impose upon the needs of others. By "improperly", we mean antisocial. If I attempt to relieve the pain of feeling insulted by you by hitting you in return, then I am "improperly relieving my pain". You may hit me back, which ensures I suffer more pain. Besides, my need to feel respected will persist unresolved. 2. Properly relieving pain of unmet needs You can address your painful needs by chiefly relieving your pain in ways that avoid imposing upon others. By "properly", we mean prosocial. You could drink plenty of alcohol to numb your emotional pain, for example, but stay home alone instead of venturing out to drive. You "properly relieve your pain" by not risking the safety of others in the process. But your pain persists. Whether improperly or properly relieving your pain, your wellness outcomes likely results in a level of dysfunction . You find you must prioritize relieving your pain of your unmet needs. You risk becoming addicted to "substitutes" that can only numb your pain. They do little to nothing to improve your wellbeing. Your ability to function remains compromised, leaving you trapped in perpetual pain. At least until you can resolve those needs. 3. Improperly easing needs You can seek to ease your needs in ways that in some way impose something on others. You partially resolve your needs, but in a way that impedes others from resolving their need. Fully resolving your needs could be out of reach for you. You indulge in pornography, for example, to placate your burning desire for intimacy. You ignore the fact that the young women in the video were obviously coerced into performing acts for your viewing pleasure. 4. Properly easing needs You seek to ease your needs in ways that do not impose on others. You partially resolve your need, but in a way that only negatively impacts yourself. Avoiding any harm to others is noble, but can trick you into rationalizing your doing alright. You consume plenty of junk food, for example, when you cannot make enough time to prepare a healthy meal. You force yourself to fulfill all of your social commitments, despite your declining level of energy. Whether improperly or properly easing your needs, your wellness outcomes likely results in a level of symfunction . You find you must prioritize easing your unmet needs. The more you rely on "alternatives" that partially eases your needs, the more you risk slipping into a symfunction trap . Which becomes for many a gateway into dysfunction. 5. Improperly resolving needs You can try to resolve your needs fully in a way that hinders others from resolving their needs. You momentarily get to restore yourself to full functioning, but at the involuntary expense of others. If I fully quench my thirst by stealing a bottle of water from you, then I am "improperly resolving my need" for water. Sure, I can get back to fully functioning. But at the cost of your ability to restore full wellness. 6. Properly resolving needs You can attempt to resolve your needs fully in a way that does not hinder others from resolving their needs. This serves as the best approach, the best way to address your needs. If I fully resolve a need I am experiencing, and my actions or inactions does not harm you in any way, then I am "properly resolving my need". This can be broken down into four degrees, each characterized by a prized metal. A . The bronze standard - Your actions to resolve your needs fully mildly inconveniences others. E.g., while at a restaurant, you carefully select and purchase only the food your body requires, which forces some to wait a little longer in line. B . The silver standard - Your actions to resolve your needs fully has no impact upon others. E.g., you invest your personal time staying in shape with healthy physical exercise. C . The gold standard - Your actions to resolve your needs fully actually helps others. E.g., you promptly shovel snow from your sidewalk after a snow storm, which allows passersby to not risk slipping on ice as they must walk past your house. D . The platinum standard - Your actions to resolve your needs fully helps everyone. E.g., you fully resolve your need for meaning in life when sacrificing it to save all life on earth from an impending disaster only you can stop. 7.   Love as the highest standard Need-response asserts the higher standard of properly resolving needs. The more you can prioritize respecting the inflexible needs of others as your own, the more you can inspire others to respect your inflexible needs. Not always, of course. But with sufficient skill and grace, such " social love " takes us much farther than typical modes of privileged selfishness. Need-response encourages and incentivizes the development of such love in us all. Whether improperly or properly resolving your needs fully, your wellness outcomes likely results in a level of peakfunction . You prioritize promptly resolving your needs fully. You enjoy access to "primary" resources that evolved to restore you to full functioning capacity. You do not need to be wealthy to reliably access such primary resources. But economic security correlates with sustainability of a peakfunction level. Without such a love-centered commitment to honor the needs of others as our own, we easily fall back on reliance upon laws to tell us how to behave. Authority enforcing laws relies blindly on external motives. Love nurtures sustainable internal motives. The internal motive of love can outlast the external motivation by laws or authority. Need-response nurtures our underutilized potential to be more loving to each other. The power of love transcends the supposed supremacy of law. Need-response can complement efforts by law enforcement authorities to improve our responsiveness to each other's vulnerable needs. Or need-response can compete with legal authorities by outperforming their legalis m . The more we can properly resolve needs with the power of love, the less we fall prey to legalistic tyranny. Need-response holds us all accountable to honoring each other's inflexible needs, including legal authorities. Need-response asserts this as the higher standard of love . And dares to challenge the legitimacy of any authority whose imposing actions correlate with poor wellness outcomes, such as anxiety and depression. Wherever law seeks to reign supreme, need-response challenges the results. And dares to assert the supremacy of love as a standard higher than law. Anankelogy asserts that there is no greater authority than resolving needs with love . Need-response lets our untapped love reign supreme. back-to-top

Optimize your online innocence narrative with these helpful criteria Apply these standards mostly to your Summary . But these also apply to your Synopsis and other elements of your Innocence Profile . Use these criteria to get the most out of your publicly available innocence narrative. A. Entice your viewers Grab attention . Keep the viewer engaged. Speak directly to obvious pain points. Find a way to motivate the reader to say to themselves, “Oh, I’ve gotta read the rest of this!” Twists . Use this popular device in movies. You take the reader down one path, then abruptly switch up. For example, you called the police to report a crime, then the police showed up to arrest you! This prompts the viewer to keep reading, to find out how this could be. Write in the 3rd person . Instead of saying “I” or “me”, use your name. Let your descriptions seem like they are from a neutral, less partial observer. Write concisely . Consider the short attention spans of your readers. Avoid giving them any reason not to scan your whole profile. Clarity . Avoid any confusion. Cover the who, what, where, when, why and how in as few of words you can. Replace anything that sounds even a little confusing.   B. Keep your viewers Check spelling and grammar . Use a free service like Grammarly to ensure your writing is free from simple mistakes. Read it aloud . Listen for mistakes you hadn’t noticed. Does it sound engaging? Does it flow naturally? Try improving it to sound like more like a natural conversation. Rewrite . Don’t settle on your first draft. Edit the weak spots. Replace passive verbs with an active verb. For example, replace “I was accused by my mom” to “My mom accused me.” Use descriptive language, that can provoke imagery in the reader’s mind. Avoid too many “is” and “are”. Replace them with more descriptive verbs. Avoid jargon . Don’t assume viewers know the abbreviations or less common terms you use. Keep the language accessible for anyone.   C. Respect your viewers Nonjudgmental . No accusations about corrupt DA or judges, even if they are corrupt. Simply describe what occurred and trust the viewer to judge for themselves. No anger . No ALL CAPS shouting at the reader. Trust the viewer to empathize with your plight. Defy stereotypes . Write with a language that exemplifies your innocence. No cussing. No defensiveness. No condescending rhetoric. Give no reason for others to doubt your integrity. No doxxing . Leave out any personal information about others that could expose their privacy. Don’t publish their address, as you wouldn’t want them to publish your private address. Transparency . Admit your shortcomings. Everyone is imperfect. Cultivate trust with being humble and upfront about your mistakes. Be specific . Don’t exaggerate. Without getting too wordy, give the viewer the essential details.   D. Inspire your viewers Suspense . Tease their curiosity. Leave out less important stuff that you can always share later. Entice their interest to know more, which can motivate them to follow you online. Appreciate the viewer . Be thankful they invest their precious time taking interest in your story. You could even thank them as you wrap up your narrative. CTA . Close with a call-to-action. Suggest a simple thing the viewer can do to help support your innocence. For example, “You can show your support by signing my petition below.”   Improving your innocence profile together Use examples that have been posted for a while. Let them model how you can improve your own innocence narrative.   Ask a friend to read your first draft. And second. Invite their feedback. If you go onto a public exoneration campaign, they may be among your first passionate supporters.   Share these criteria with them. Then ask them to rate your innocence narrative on each of these points. Of course, thank them for their help.   Improve your innocence narrative until you’re satisfied it’s ready for public viewing. But don’t wait for perfection. Get your story out there so people can see the injustice you daily endure.   Together, we can improve not only your innocence narrative, but this platform. To ultimately improve our chances for exonerating the wrongly convicted innocent like you.

Dr. Carrie Leonetti identifies a list of 27 factors contributing to wrongly convicting the innocent. They complement the Estimated Innocence Form . IMAGE: Dr. Carrie Leonetti, Auckland University Since creating the Estimated Innocence Form  in 2019, Dr. Carrie Leonetti   of Aukland University (originally of the University of Oregon) independently identified a list of predictable contributors to wrongful convictions. If you can think of anything to add to such a checklist, comment below .   You can see her full 2021 article here  that publicized her innocence checklist.   Almost anyone in the innocence movement can identify the five most basic contributors. Official misconduct. Eyewitness misidentification. Incentivized (jail) informant. Junk science or improperly applied forensics science. False and often a coerced confession.   Inadequate legal defense can be added. Along with a host of other factors, like tunnel vision investigations , confirmation bias , noble cause corruption , prosecutorial misconduct like Brady violations , sunk value fallacy , political pressures , and more.   Leonetti’s list identifies no less than 27 factors correlating with wrongful convictions. She groups these factors into clusters for easier review.   When I can find time, I aim to craft a comparison chart that illustrates which of her identified factors leading to wrongly convicting the innocent fits closely with the Estimated Innocence Form. And which items she identifies is lacking in the EIF. Along with items in the EIF missing in her checklist.   Her “innocence checklist” supports my aim to develop an empirically sound basis for more quickly identifying viable innocence claims. Unlike Professor Leonetti, I am already putting my list into action, with the downloadable EIF .   Read the list for yourself below. Click on each listed item to explore it in more detail below. Clicking the header above each paragraph below returns you to this navigable list.   If you have downloaded the EIF and find any of her factors missing an important factor, share your observations in the comments below. If you can think of anything we have both missed, you can add it to the comments below. Keep us on our toes. You can do your part to help us improve how we all transparently identify and clear the wrongly convicted innocent. INNOCENCE CHECKLIST Cluster I: Government Misconduct (1)   Prosecutorial Disclosure (2)   False Evidence (3)   Coaching (4) Witness Hiding (5) Deficient Defense (6) Forensic Misconduct (7)   Police Misconduct Cluster II: Material New Evidence (8) Reasonable Doubt (9) Alternate Suspect (10) New Science (11) Presence (12) Diminished Mental Capacity (13)   Recantations (14)   Impeachment (15) Incentives (16) Changing Science (17) Biased or Unvalidated Scientific Evidence (18) Corroboration (19) Maintenance of Innocence Cluster III: Government Negligence and Other Forms of Misconduct (20)   Missing or Inadequate Corroboration (21) Unreliable Eyewitness Identification (22) Questionable Confessions (23) Inconsistent Theories (24) Police Corruption (25) Snitch Testimony (26) Inconsistent Witnesses (27) Pretrial Publicity   Explore each of these in a little more detail below, as found in pages 145 through 149 in her academic article .   Cluster I: Government Misconduct   (1) Prosecutorial Disclosure Failure of prosecutors to divulge favorable evidence, regardless of whether such failure meets the doctrinal test of Brady . If suppression is unintentional, it should count as a factor in favor of wrongful conviction when the withheld information is reasonably likely to relate to the accuracy of the trial. If suppression is intentional, it should count as a factor in favor of wrongful conviction irrelevant of the likelihood that the withheld information relates to the accuracy of the trial.   Stock image: Collecting evidence at a crime scene (2) False Evidence Prosecutorial presentation of materially false evidence, regardless of the state of mind of the prosecutor who examined the witness. (3) Coaching Inappropriate preparation of prosecutorial witnesses.   (4) Witness Hiding Intentionally securing the unavailability of defense witnesses.   (5) Deficient Defense Failure of defense counsel to investigate or develop potentially viable defenses, especially alibi claims, including failure to retain scientific experts to test, retest, or challenge questionable prosecution forensic-science evidence, regardless of whether such failure meets the doctrinal test of Strickland .   (6) Forensic Misconduct Intentional misconduct or gross negligence by forensic analysts or the crime laboratory that processed evidence during the time period that evidence relating to the defendant’s case was processed (e.g., “ dry labbing ” or undetected contamination), regardless of whether there is evidence that items specifically relating to the defendant’s case were contaminated or misprocessed, particularly if the misconduct was not discovered promptly through laboratory audit procedures. Stock image: Police misconduct gets felt the most by those most targeted by police. (7) Police Misconduct Police misconduct or gross negligence either during investigation of the defendant’s case or a pattern of misconduct across cases that could include the defendant’s, such as lost or destroyed evidence; material record-keeping omissions; coercing or inducing confessions, even if inducements do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation (e.g., lying to a suspect about evidence); inducing false testimony; or intentionally withholding information from prosecutors.   Cluster II: Material New Evidence   (8) Reasonable Doubt Discovery of evidence unknown at the time of trial (regardless of whether it could have been discovered through due diligence ), the presence of which now creates a plausible theory under which the defendant could be innocent or is reasonably likely to cause a reasonable, disinterested person to harbor a reasonable doubt about guilt.   (9) Alternate Suspect Evidence tending to inculpate a suspect other than the defendant, including a DNA match from crucial biological evidence to any individual other than the defendant from an item of material crime-scene evidence (even if such a match is not conclusively exculpatory); confessions or incriminating admissions by alternate suspects; video footage or other electronic surveillance records documenting the presence of an alternate suspect at the time of the crime; or identification by a witness of someone other than the defendant as the perpetrator.   (10) New Science The existence of scientific evidence that either was not available or was available but not performed prior to trial, the favorable results of which are likely to exculpate the defendant.   (11) Presence Evidence casting doubt on the defendant’s presence or ability to be present at the scene of the crime.   (12) Diminished Mental Capacity The presence of a serious mental illness or intellectual disability in the defendant prior to and/or during trial, including one that derived from youth, immaturity, and lack of formal education, regardless of whether such illness or disability was known to the court or defense counsel at trial or whether such illness or disability rendered the defendant incompetent to stand trial under Dusky v. United States .   (13) Recantations Recantation or subsequent statement(s) that is (are) materially inconsistent with trial testimony by significant prosecution witnesses.   (14) Impeachment New information discrediting a key prosecution witness’s ability to observe, recall, or recount the subject matter of their testimony accurately or truthfully, including physical or mental health issues. Stock image: Authorities risk exploiting the vulnerabilities in some populations, sowing division. (15) Incentives Benefits given or promises or threats made to significant prosecution witnesses, including leniency in their own criminal cases.   (16) Changing Science A significant change in the state of prosecutorial expert evidence , including a change in the consensus of experts in a field about the significance or interpretation of results. This factor should apply to any case in which the evidence, now known to be unreliable, was presented, including expert testimony that a fire was arson based on burn patterns, testimony that a hair taken from the defendant matched a hair taken from the crime scene based on microscopic comparison, testimony that bitemarks found on a victim or at a crime scene matched the defendant’s bite, hypnotically induced testimony, or testimony that a baby’s death was caused by violent shaking based on shaken-baby syndrome .   (17) Biased or Unvalidated Scientific Evidence Forensic analyses that were obtained in the context of unnecessary biasing information and forensic-science testimony that was inaccurate, misleading, or oversold, regardless of the good/bad faith of the analyst.   (18) Corroboration Material evidence significantly corroborating the defendant’s contested testimony or theory of the case.   (19) Maintenance of Innocence The defendant’s consistent, explicit, personal maintenance of innocence.   Cluster III: Government Negligence and Other Forms of Misconduct   (20) Missing or Inadequate Corroboration Absence of physical evidence to corroborate crucial witness testimony or a defendant’s confession under circumstances in which such corroborating evidence would reasonably be expected to exist and be obtainable. Stock image: Eyewitnesses do not always get a good look at the culprit's face (21) Unreliable Eyewitness Identification Introduction at trial of a stranger eye-witness identification of the defendant when that identification either (a) was obtained from procedures proven to be suggestive by social science evidence, regardless of whether such procedure has been deemed unnecessarily suggestive as a matter of constitutional or common law and regardless of whether evidence relating to the lack of reliability of the procedure was introduced at trial (defense expert testimony, cross-examination, or closing argument) or (b) was not significantly corroborated by other evidence, under circumstances in which such corroborating evidence would reasonably be expected to exist.   (22) Questionable Confessions Introduction at trial of the defendant’s confession or substantial inculpatory admissions that were obtained through coercive interrogation techniques like the Reid method of interrogation; confessions obtained from highly vulnerable suspects; confessions obtained after prolonged detention, isolation, when the suspect was sleep deprived, or in response to evidence ploys and other misrepresentations; and confessions obtained without video-taping or other recording.   (23) Inconsistent Theories Use by prosecutors of a theory of the defendant’s case inconsistent with the prosecution theory in another closely related case.   (24) Police Corruption Compelling evidence that law-enforcement agents who investigated the defendant’s case engaged in corrupt conduct during the course of another investigation (e.g., stealing or intentionally “misplacing” evidence, planting evidence, giving or accepting bribes, providing “protection” to criminal syndicates, frequenting sex workers, using illicit drugs, knowingly violating the constitutional rights of suspects, or “ testilying ”).   (25) Snitch Testimony Material testimony of an incentivized informant or wit-ness cooperating in exchange for a material benefit, regardless of whether any incentive for cooperation was disclosed to the defense prior to trial or introduced in evidence.   (26) Inconsistent Witnesses Prosecutorial introduction of testimony from two or more witnesses whose testimony is materially inconsistent with one another.   (27) Pretrial Publicity Sensationalized media coverage of the case prior to trial, particularly if it involved commentary by prosecutors or police officers about the defendant’s prior criminal record, character, credibility, reputation, or inculpatory statements; physical evidence; the testimony, criminal record, character, reputation, or credibility of witnesses, including the victim; or evidence that was ruled inadmissible at trial.   References: Carrie Leonetti, “The Innocence Checklist,” 58 American Criminal Law Review 97  (2021). Leonetti's Innocence Checklist Model, People's Commission for Integrity in Criminal Justice. Medword, D. (2005). The Zeal Deal: Prosecutorial Resistance to Post-Conviction Claims of Innocence, Law, Political Science 125 . DOI: 10.18574/nyu/9780814796245.003.0008

Jun 06 2023 Jamie Weissmann This replicates verbatim the news release posted at the California Innocence Project, which has since been renamed as the California Western Innocence and Justice Project . Click here  to see its source. With the rapid ascension of Chat-GPT and other AI programs, we are witnessing what may be the most significant technological development in history. Here at California Western, we are already on the forefront of an AI-powered paradigm shift in the way lawyering is done, embracing the possibilities this technology offers to vastly improve our justice system. In November 2022, CWSL’s California Innocence Project (CIP) became a beta tester for CoCounsel, the company CaseText’s AI legal assistance application. CoCounsel is a generative Large Language Model (LLM) system designed by OpenAI and can “read, write, and understand texts at a post-graduate level.” CoCounsel can do legal research in a fraction of the time that a lawyer can, combing through case files, reviewing and summarizing documents, drafting correspondence, and more. In this interview, CIP’s managing attorney Michael Semanchik explains how he is using CoCounsel and why he thinks embracing AI is the best course of action for lawyers. What does CoCounsel free you up to do? In the past, it would take 15 minutes to draft a letter to a client. CoCounsel made it possible to get a first draft done in under a minute. Similarly, I’ve asked CoCounsel to summarize five pages of transcript on a complicated forensic science topic. It provided a five-bullet summary in plain English. The time saved using skills like these can certainly allow me to do more on my cases. As for the future, I imagine dropping 2,000 pages of transcripts into a system and getting a perfectly drafted “Statement of Facts” on the other side. That same system might know how to identify all the legal issues in the transcripts and highlight them as possible issues to raise on appeal or in a post-conviction world. We’re definitely getting close, but I would say still a few months to a year off from homing in on exactly what an attorney wants and needs. Does it make for better lawyering? As far as analyzing and responding to opposing counsel’s briefs, there’s no question it can make for better lawyering. I would argue that in the long-term, failure to embrace and utilize AI may result in a lawyer not being the best and most competent advocate for their client. Has it allowed you to take on more clients? I would say it’s probably too early to tell but I could certainly see a situation where we take on more clients. It’s likely that we will be able to home in on the most viable cases, meaning we’re spending our limited resources most efficiently. Might it lead to more exonerations? This is a definite possibility. Relying on humans to sift through thousands of pages of police reports and transcripts looking for a needle in a stack of needles is incredibly challenging, resource intensive, and likely not without some missteps or faults. By “outsourcing” this portion of our process to AI, we should be able to move through cases quicker and locate evidence of innocence that will ultimately lead us to exonerations. Have you run into any issues with unreliable information? I have seen blatant errors on ChatGPT. With CoCounsel, I have seen errors, though less so. This may be because the system is relying on the information you provide. Are there any downsides to using AI in this way? The only downside is that AI is in its infancy. We still need more lawyers using it every day so the AI and engineers can better craft the responses from the system. And we need additional skills built into the platform to cover all areas of law. As AI gets more intelligent and efficient, how do you see the field of law– and particularly of innocence projects– evolving? I would hope to see that getting an innocent person out of prison goes from an average of 16 years down to three or four. Perhaps we get to a point where AI can start to identify wrongful convictions as soon as they happen. I know it sounds odd, but putting innocence organizations out of work is our goal.

You can use the Estimated Innocence Form to complement those forms required by innocence litigators. You can ask your local innocence project of conviction integrity unit if they’re open to utilizing this either in lieu of their own forms, or more likely in addition to their case forms. Or use it to set up our alternative process in case the adversarial legal process fails you again. You will need a working copy of Excel for this. This pilot version uses an Excel spreadsheet to test its viability. After filling out one those long paper forms to interest an innocence project in your case, you repeatedly get turned down. You know how they favor cases that they can more easily get a reversal in court. Yours simply was not one of those low hanging fruit they prefer. You’re understandably disillusioned with the innocence movement . You must already be disillusioned with the adversarial judicial process . And with lawyers . Perhaps you’ve met lawyers also disillusioned with lawyering . Welcome to this refreshing alternative. CONTENTS Click on an item to go instantly to it below. Click on that header below to return instantly to this table of contents. Click on "CONTENTS" to get to the EIF download button at the bottom. Prove your innocence without lawyers Let's showcase your innocence Helping the judicial system produce more just outcomes What if the claimant cannot freely access the Internet? Your spreadsheet tabs Page by page instructions General instructions <> NOVI - p1 COVI (sideways) - p2 Estimated Innocence Report - p3 to p7 A. Case information - p8 to p11 B. Documentation for verification - p12 to p16 C.1 Common factors in wrongful convictions - p17 to p19 C.2 Evidentiary factors - p20 to p21 C.3 Investigative factors - p22 to p23 C.4 Complicating factors - p24 to p25 C.5 Claimant's demonstrable innocence - p26 to p28 C.6 Claimant's innocence recognized by others - p29 to p30 C.7 Other - p31 C.8 Process - p32 D. Requests and responses for exoneration help - p33 E. Collateral consequences of wrongful conviction - p34 to p35 F. Claimant narrative - p36 to p37 G. Compensation - p38 H. You're not alone - p39 Using your estimated innocence Review your results Save this version To save as a PDF Need help completing this form, or how to use it? Give us your feedback Follow its development on our podcast This guide applies best on a desktop computer or laptop. Some of this may not work as well on a mobile device. You can enlarge each page image below by clicking on it. Prove your innocence without lawyers The more your case mirrors those already exonerated, the higher your viability score of actual innocence. You no longer have to wait for lawyers to appreciate the strength of your innocence claim.   As you fill in the items calculating how much your case matches those already exonerated, you see your viability score increase on the right. Weak claim : If you get a raw score of 19 or less, this alternative may not help you much. Poor claim : If your raw score sits from 20 to 39, validating your claim could raise it significantly. Fair claim : If your raw score is 40 to 59, validating your claim could help raise it enough to question the reliability of the conviction. Good claim : If your raw score is 60 to 79, you're already on your way to cast sufficient doubt upon the reliaility of the conviction. Strong claim : If your raw score is 80 to 99, great! No one gets a perfect score of 100%. While the formula to arrive at this estimate is not yet scientifically sound, it provides a reliable starting point. Mostly by comparing cases. Its early use can help improve it, and eventually ground it in more scientifically valid measures. Let's showcase your innocence If your innocence claim scores high, consider letting us publicize your viable case of actual innocence. When ready to upload your completed spreadsheet form, click this "Publicize my viable innocence" button. Check the upper right corner of that "Unexonerated" page. Click the “Publicize my innocence” button you see there. Fill out the form that pops up. By providing your email address, we can converse how you want your "innocence profile" to appear, in case I have any questions for you. Eventually, you will be able to post your innocence profile without my involvement. Your early involvement can help me to better understand how to create a user entry process benefici8al to all claimants. Estimated Innocence is always free. But if you can donate anything to help me establish this pioneering alternative, then I will be encouraged, and grateful. Helping the judicial system produce more just outcomes Estimating the viability of each innocence claims provides the adversarial judicial process opportunity to improve their legitimacy. That’s one of many aims for this tool. Its purpose can potentially fulfill these dozen aims. Aim #1. To provide innocence claimants with an instant estimation of the viability level of their innocence claim. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, you must wait for the courts to categorize you as still guilty or innocent. They coerce you into accepting the same overgeneralizing binary that led to these problems in the first place. How can we solve our specific problems from this level of generalizing that created them?   The EIF replaces this judiciary’s sledgehammer approach with the scalpel of nuance. And replaces self-serving legal arguments prioritizing institutional needs with the need-serving specifics prioritizing the justice needs the judiciary supposedly exists to serve. In short, the EIF raises the standard of justice. Aim #2. To provide claimants with independent verification of their acclaimed innocence. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, you’re left trusting the same institution that created the problem in the first place. With its devotion to conviction finality and fear of setting bad legal precedents to ensure its own positions of social power, it fails to serve the deeper interests of justice all people need.   Instead of relying on the adversarial judiciary with its many conflicts of interest, the EIF relies on the public’s impartial interest in validating your innocence claim. With your permission to access your case details and available documentation, select members of the public can determine likely innocence without fear of repercussions to their social status. Aim #3. To provide an alternative to the slow, resistant adversarial process weighed down with conflicts of interest. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, you typically must wait years and years. And repeated disappointments. You often slide into despair, and risk depression. You understandably can become disillusioned with the whole judicial process.   The EIF bypasses the snail-paced judiciary. By quickly ascertaining likely innocence, it either complements or competes with the judicial process. Where welcomed to support the interests of justice and public safety from a critical perspective, it can complement the judiciary. Where the judiciary resists critique and persists in error, it competes for legitimacy in serving justice needs. Starting with your affected justice needs. Aim #4. To springboard investigations into overlooked justice needs, such as identifying the actual perpetrator. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, criminal investigations occur mostly behind closed doors. Its opacity covers the frequent problem of investigative tunnel vision, confirmation bias, and untenable theories of guilt. Improper investigation resulting in wrongful convictions typically allows the actual violent perpetrator to violate others with impunity.   The EIF could potentially aid investigators in identifying patterns of crime resulting from locking up the wrong person. Sometimes the claimant has a better idea who the actual perpetrator than investigators trying to take shortcuts with people’s lives (both the accused and accuser). Such data provides better direction for solving crime than untested gut reactions of police and prosecutors who feel pressured to quickly close a case. Aim #5. To improve the efficiency of innocence projects, and others in the innocence movement, to process numerous innocence claims. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, each innocence project provides claimants with their own particular form. Some commonality exists between them. But these paper forms risk overlooking the nuances in your particular situation. They don’t know what they don’t know, and may never think to ask you critical bits of information that could make a world of difference.   The EIF proposes a uniformity of data collection. And to keep that information transparent to the public. It also incentivizes innocence projects to produce results more promptly, or risk being embarrassed by members of the public who outperform their investigations. The EIF empowers claimants and their supporters to competes with the inefficient legal-judicial approach of innocence projects, which still do not process enough claims to make a significant dent in the crisis of wrongful convictions. Aim #6. To increase the transparency of the process to identify and clear innocent prisoners and other wrongly convicted. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, you are generally kept in the dark. If fortunate enough to have a legal team working on your case, you still must wait weeks and months to hear if anything happened in the courts. And the news is not always pleasant.   The EIF keeps the process in the open. Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant. Once a claim is diligently verified with a degree of certainty, and the outcome affirms innocence, the slow legal process can either catch up or shut up. If this alternative exposes thousands and thousands of actually innocent prisoners, any many more in the general public stuck in second class citizenship, the social pressure can become immense. The innocence movement and courts could then finally “find” the resources it now claims it does not have to review every viable claim, and to clear wrongful convictions faster than they are produced. Aim #7. To raise the standard of justice from a failed win-lose binary to identifying degrees of certainty in adjudicated outcomes. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, you are forced to accept the institutional binary of guilt-or-innocence. You personally know reality is more nuanced than such oversimplified binaries. You know reality operates in matters of degrees, not in simple black-and-white generalizations.   The EIF raises the standard of justice by checking for the degree of certainty in each conviction. Imagine if the original investigation began with the discipline of verifying the degree of certainty in the original theory of guilt. You may not have been wrongly convicted if investigators were held to such a higher standard of justice. You may now demonstrate a higher justice standard in how you can be more responsive to the justice needs of the complainants than the police and prosecutors who objectified them for their own judiciary process ends. Aim #8. To identify and address all affected needs impacted by the adversarial criminal judicial process. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, the courts impose a win-lose outcome on each case. Is it really justice when one side gains the resources to win a court battle with better persuasion over a jury? Or do we settle for this barbaric slugfest because we cannot envision the higher justice of something like the EIF?   The EIF rises above such adversarial justice to identify and respond to all the affected needs in an adjudicated case. It does not rest until all the personal justice needs are met. And it doesn’t accept the institutional needs of the judiciary to be more important than the justice needs the judiciary exists to serve. For example, the institutional need for ‘conviction finality’ cannot be accepted as higher than actually impacted justice needs. That’s unacceptably backwards.Aim #9. To identify the scope of the unexonerated problem to improve funding revenues for those still not keep pace in addressing the full problem. Aim #9. To identify the scope of the unexonerated problem to improve funding revenues for those still not keep pace in addressing the full problem. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, innocence movements and conviction integrity units tend to wander in the political dark. Without the data the EIF could make public, many political leaders (both Democrat and Republican) remain in denial to the scope of this problem.   The EIF-produced data can illuminate the scope of the need. Funding sources could then catch up with this immense need. Once they realize the amount necessary to compensate each potential exoneree, well, let’s say this has gotta scare the bejeezus out of them. Better to resolve this sooner than later.   By the way, claimants own their own data. Unlike all the popular social media platforms, claimants are to receive direct compensation for any use of their private case data. If this gets challenged in the courts where laws prohibit profiting from one’s alleged crime, this process has another tool called “legitimacy quality” that compels them to link each law and its interpretation to each resolved need. This process asserts how resolved needs sits at a higher authority than arbitrary law enforcement, and backs this with empirical data. There are more options after that, but I digress. Aim #10. To collect data to identify patterns contributing to wrongful convictions, that can then be used to inform relevant policies. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, researchers struggle to find data to identify wrongful conviction contributors. Sample sizes typically remain small. Statistically, any sample under 200 cannot create reliable conclusions. So we soldier on with bad policies on the books. The history of wrongful convictions then continues to repeat itself again and again.   The EIF-produce data can help researchers identify specific trends in specific jurisdictions, then address these locally. For example, a high volume of Brady violations in one DA could receive a specific correction than another DA relying on a corrupted state forensic science lab.   This can offer a sense of meaning for innocence claimants who had to grieve many losses because of the wrongful conviction. Knowing their case data can help others avoid a similar tragedy, they can more easily adjust to the painful losses caused by the miscarriage of justice. Of course, this can never excuse the wrongdoing among DAs and others contributing to wrongful convictions. Aim #11. To enforce accountability for public safety outcomes and impacts with a more rigorously disciplined process. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, or something like it, the judiciary and law enforcement rely heavily on oversimplified generalizations. For example, police rely on their “good-guy/bad-guy” binary to make snap decisions in the field when their lives could be at risk. But this binary risks distorting their perception of us. Without the level discipline enforced in other fields, these unchecked generalizations actually risk undermining public safety.   The EIF is based on a process called ‘need-response’ that rigorously identifies and addresses each impacted need. It exists independent of the judiciary and law enforcement, so remains removed from its conflicts of interest. It recognizes that no one sits above the law, but insists that no law sits above the needs for which the law exists to serve. With scientific vigor, it dares to hold all institutions (like law enforcement and the judiciary) accountable to the needs they exist to serve. Aim #12. To correct overemphasis upon individuals by balancing focus between violent individuals and systems of violence. Without the Estimated Innocence Form, it’s easy to assume ‘justice’ is basically holding violent individuals in custody to prevent them from acting out violently against others. This tradition stems largely from the Western value of individualism. Culturally, we impose a different standard against vulnerable individuals than we do against better resourced entities. This inherent injustice in the name of justice is arguably no justice at all.   Progressives counter with greater focus on social justice and racial justice. Conservatives demand safer streets. Political leaders collude with judicial leaders to exploit the holes in each side’s generalizations. Over-adjudication and wrongful convictions easily occur from this bipartisan pact. Liberals insisting on an expanded government role collude with conservatives insisting on individual responsibility for personal choices. While two wrongs don’t make a right, sometimes they make a law.   The EIF balances both sides with relevant specifics, to resolve justice needs and not simply serve judicial institutions trying to ease pain on one side by imposing pain on the other side. Justice is more than faulting deeds; there can be no justice without resolving underlying needs. I go into further detail about this in a book I am writing called “You NEED This: Introducing anankelogy as the study of need.” I expect it to have it published later this year. We brace ourselves for possible resistance to this new way of addressing justice needs. We can send our open letter to all judicial officials inviting their adoption of this more effective alternative to their black-and-white myopic approach. And we can send our open letter to all innocence litigators serving innocence projects and conviction integrity units. We then assess their responsiveness to this proposed improvement. They can either engage us to improve just outcomes, or risk being left behind. What if the claimant cannot freely access the Internet? Designated proxy . Any innocence claimant still under state custody, and unable to access the Internet, will have to assign someone they can trust to serve as their proxy. You can think of this as granting someone the power of attorney. Download this "Proxy Designation Form - innocence profiles" Word document. Upload the completed and signed when uploading the completed EIF on the Unexonerated page. Paper form of the EIF . What if the innocence claimant remains under state custody and denied adequate access to the Internet? Then have someone they trust who does have access to this online form to first send them this paper form. Have the claimant fill out as much as they can, then mail the paper form back to you. Then you or someone the claimant trusts can transcribe the info into the spreadsheet form.  Your spreadsheet tabs The spreadsheet pilot includes six tabs. The instructions below apply to the first tab, which opens by default. EIF draft E01 : the full Estimated Innocence Form, plus the Using your Estimated Innocence section. EIF E01 sample : the full Estimated Innocence Form filled in by the tool’s creator, to demonstrate how it can be used. EIF E01 NOVI : Notification of Verifiable Innocence to summarize the findings in one page. EIF E01 COVI : Certificate of Verifiable Innocence, more easily viewed and to print. EIF E01 EIR : Estimated Innocence Report, more easily shared with others. EIF E01 CQR : Conviction Quality Report, to send to innocent litigators as a helpful summary of what they may need to find. Page by page instructions Click on any page images below to zoom in and see it in detail. The form spans from page 8 to page 39. The portions for calculating the viability of innocence span from page 12 through page 32. Click on the headers highlighted in green to go to the table of contents above. Click on the page number or pages range to return here. General Instructions <> NOVI - p1 When first opening the document, you see its GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. After filling out the form below, this changes to a Notification of Veerifiable Innocence, or NOVI for short. This is also available as a separate tab. The NOVI tab. COVI (sideways) - p2 This also changes after you complete the form. Find the horizontal version in the COVI tab. You can use either version Estimated Innocence Report - p3 to p7 Before using this form, you should see a raw score and an adjusted score at the top, both at zero. You don't fill in any of the blanks here. Scroll down to page six to start using this form. After you finish filling in the data below, these first five pages become your summary report of viable innocence. Navigation The seventh page provides you a navigation menu. Click on the letter in the left column to instantly go to that page. For example, click on "C.2" to go immediately to "Evidentiary factors" below. Return to this menu line by clicking the "C.2" in that page's header. Clicking on any page header's title returns you to top of the document. Other navigation links are availble. Look for arrows to take you quickly back and forth between these display pages and the entry fields below. This is how this first first section appears before you start filling in the form. SAMPLE "EIR" pp 3 - 7 A. Case information - p8 to p11 Here is where you spill the beans. Fill in the fields to showcase the basic material of your case. Provide as much detail as you can.   You likely have not thought about these details in a while. Some of this stuff likely brings up a lot of pain, which you may prefer to just forget. But your pain is not the problem  as much as this persisting threat your pain keeps warning you about.   We suggest you process these details with a little help from a friend. Perhaps a family member. Or a counselor. Once we credential need-responders , we could potentially serve you as a source of emotional support.   If filling out the paper form  while sitting in a prison cell, you understandably cannot process each point with your loved one in the free world. Do what you can and jot down some of your painful feelings coursing through you.   “Disturbing. Frustrating. WTF? Should never have happened that way!” Then find some way to debrief these emotions. Perhaps during your next visit. Or in a letter.   If transcribing this info from your incarcerated loved one, you too may find this emotionally taxing. You may feel shocked by some of it. Or remember some details differently.   Need-response can help build your resilience to endure emotional pain. Let’s work together to turn these challenges into opportunities for growth and redemption, on our way toward exoneration. SAMPLE Case Information pp 8 - 11 Now onto helping to prove your innocence believability. B. Documentation for verification - p12 to p16 This section helps you improve the veracity of your innocence claim with available documentation of 14 relevant items. Respond only to the elements relevant to this innocence claim. For each of these 14 items, select from the dropdown list the level of availability for that item. By URL [entered into the field] below, searchable text (best) By URL below, audio/visual (great) By URL below, image only (good) By email below (fair) Not at this time (poor) Not applicable (okay)   You will immediately see a percentage number to the right. This number will steadily climb as you add relevant elements as you go do down the form.   The single-line white field is for adding any URL links for others to check the available document. The larger white field serves as optional space for including any contextual information. Simply skip it if you don’t need to explain anything to those who may later help verify your innocence claim.   After selecting a dropdown list level of verification availability, you will see added text below in purple: “SUPPORTER REVIEW: Prepare for Independent Verifier”.   If you know the number of pages for the document, please include that count in the “How many pages?” field on the left. The page count helps to estimate how long it may take to go through it to verify the innocence claim, which you see at the right.   If the availability level includes a URL, select if that URL works from the dropdown listed provided in the middle. link does not work link works poorly link works, item(s) not found link works, all item(s) found other (describe in box above)   Simply skip each item not relevant to your case. Hopefully you can support your innocence claim with available documents. This raises your “adjusted score”. Think of the raw score as your own assertion. And the adjusted score verifying your assertions.   If you do not have access to your trial transcripts or case documents, that could undermine improving your adjusted score . We will then lean into your raw score .   Page 12 1. Trial transcripts . If you can provide access to your trial transcripts, this goes a long way to independently validate your asserted innocence. Even if no one invests the time to go through them, simply making them transparently available boosts your credibility. 2. Discovery documents . Like the search warrant, officer notes, and lab reports.Include as many as you have available. Especially if covering your innocence claim. For example, lab reports if improper forensics is one of your relevant elements selected in the next section. 3. Other trial related documents . Like trial motions.  Page 13 4. Police interrogation . If relevant, include any transcript of any interrogation. If not recorded, or if no transcript is available and such an interrogation occurred, mention this in the large white field. 5. Any new trial motion . If your defense counsel filed a motion for a new trial, or any kind of similar motion (e.g., motion to suppress inadmissible evidence), include these as well. 6. Presentence Investigation Report . Your PSI could help give a summary of your case through the lens of the PSI writer. Especially if sympathetic to your innocence claim.  Page 14 7. Appellate brief . Include your appellate brief, assuming you have one. 8. Appellate opinion . Include the appellate court’s ruling. Whether published or not. 9. Post-appellate remedies sought . Include any other attempts to appeal the conviction in the appellate process. For example, a 1983 motion or habeas corpus.  Page 15 10. Innocence project communication . Include any letters of correspondence with any innocence projects, conviction integrity unit, journalism students, activist organizations, and the like. 11. Professional supporters . Include any documentation you have of cultural and civic leaders expressing belief in your innocence. For example, a letter from the judge, or from a local reporter or media personality. 12. Media interest and coverage . Include any correspondence you received showing some interest in your case from any CIU or CRU. Whether or not they agreed to review your case. Page 16 13. Other documentation . Include any document supporting your innocence not mentioned above. For example, letters of support recommending leniency by the sentencing judge. 14. Other supportive material (e.g., alibi affidavit ). This one tries to cover anything overlooked, and turn over every stone left unturned. To squeeze every opportunity to demonstrate your innocence. Prep to-do list . To the left of “verification step”, select from the dropdown list the most relevant option. Need help scanning my case documents Need help counting pages of case documents Need help uploading case documents Need help checking if URL works Need help identifying support in case documents Need help hiring independent verifiers Need help verifying claim using case documents Need help accreditation on claim verification   You will then see just above it a percentage identifying your progress verifying your claim. Try not to worry now if that number is low. This can all be addressed later, if detractors insist you back up your innocence claim. For now, you can leave all three Prep to-do list  items at their default setting of “ not started ” yet.   The idea for this section is to give your supporters something they can actively do to support your innocence claim, and help you get closer to being exonerated. SAMPLE Documentation for verification pp 12 - 16 Now onto identifying wrongful conviction factors. C.1 Common factors in wrongful convictions - p17 to p19   Page 17 15. Eyewitness Misidentification . Include if your among the 70% of cases exonerated with DNA, where eyewitness misidentification played a key role. Was there a Rashomon effect , where multiple witnesses provided contradictory details of the same event? 16. False Confessions or Admissions . Were you coerced into implicating yourself, or pressured to agree to a plea deal under threat of a long prison sentence? Were you subjected to the Reid technique  where the “good cop” works off the angry “bad cop?” during an interrogation, to coax you into admitting guilt.  Page 18 17. Government Misconduct . Did any police officer or law enforcement official take any illegal shortcuts? Did they seem to intentionally alter evidence? Did the prosecutor withhold any potentially exculpatory evidence during discovery (i.e., a Brady violation)? 18. Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science . Was your wrongful conviction based on any discredited forensic science? Did the expert testimony misrepresent the data, in a way favoring the prosecutor’s theory of guilt? Did the trial judge allow expert testimony that failed either the Frye  standard or Daubert standard , especially if never raised in a motion motion or included in an appellate brief?   Page 19 19. Jail Informant . Did some from your jail cell come forward claiming you implicated yourself? Was that informant apparently granted an easier sentence? Did the authorities incentivize your codefendant(s) to testify against you? 20. Inadequate Defense . Were you assigned a court appointed attorney who did not believe in your innocence? Or didn’t seem to care? Was that defense council overburdened with too many cases to adequately represent yours?   With each of these, remember to select from the dropdown list how much it applies to your innocence claim. SAMPLE Common factors in wrongful convictions pp 17 - 19 C.2 Evidentiary factors - p20 to p21   Page 20 21. Evidence yet to be DNA tested . Mention any evidence that was never tested for DNA. You could include here if you have approached an innocence project about untested DNA in your case, and they declined to pursue it. If so, explain why. 22. Non-DNA evidence yet to be considered . Include any possible evidence apart from DNA that could point to your innocence, but was not addressed prior to your wrongful conviction. 23. Exculpatory evidence exists . Include anything that could point to your innocence. You could mention why this wasn’t addressed at trial, or by your defense counsel.  Page 21 24. Conviction not corroborated by evidence . Include if your conviction was based primarily or exclusively on belief? Such as the testimony of an unreliable eyewitness. Include the use of their forensic evidence which failed to support their claims. 25. Conviction based on irrational theory of guilt . Include if the conviction is based on an implausible chain of events. Point out any absurdities, any contradictions, and any scientifically invalid assumptions built into the prosecution of your case. 26. No actual crime . Include if no actual crime occurred. For example, a fire that was not arson as they believed. Or “shaken baby syndrome” for a child who died from an undiagnosed medical condition. Again, state the degree each applicable element applied, using the dropdown list of options. SAMPLE Evidentiary factors pp 20 - 21 C.3 Investigative factors - p22 to p23   Page 22 27. Law enforcement tunnel vision . Include if law enforcement investigators zeroed in a narrow theory of guilt, then appeared to find evidence for it. Include any apparent confirmation bias by the prosecutor and/or police investigators. 28. Law enforcement noble cause corruption . Include any law enforcement shortcuts they rationalize as essential. Document any expressions heard or read where law enforcement officials rationalized their questionable behavior as necessary. 29. Complainant retraction . Include if any of the accusers retracted their accusation, either in whole or in part. Mention if characterized by law enforcement as less believable than the initial allegation, which can expose their confirmation bias.  Page 23 30. Confession from actual perpetrator . Include if anyone came forward to admit being the actual offender. When did they come forward? How was their admission treated by law enforcement? 31. Another person implicated in the crime . Include if anyone was independently identified as the actual perpetrator. Was this identification before or after the wrongful conviction? How did law enforcement treat this finding? 32. Conviction based upon outmoded law/beliefs . Include if law enforcement or the prosecutor’s office acted upon unfounded assumptions about you. Such as you identification with a marginalized group. Contrast how such views were more widely accepted than now. Identify its degree of relevance in the dropdown list for each item. SAMPLE Investigative factors pp 22 - 23 C.4 Complicating factors - p24 to p25   Page 24 33. Presenting conflict of interest . Identify any apparent conflicts of interest presented by anyone in law enforcement. Was the judge up for reelection? Did the prosecutor go out of their way to appear tough on crime? Was any negative coverage by a reporter apparently trying to provoke audience fears primarily to gain views? 34. Perjured testimony or false accusation . Include if any of the prosecutor’s witnesses appear to be coached. Or incentivized. Or if any witness could be involved in the crime, and whose testimony tried to distract attention away from them. 35. Moral panic . Include if your arrest, detention and trial occurred in the context of a moral panic . For example, mention if caught up on the Satanic panic  of the past few decades. Or if accused as a child molester because you worked as a daycare center in the late 1980s or 90s .  Page 25 36. Disparate impact . Mention if you are in a population frequently targeted by law enforcement. Include how many times you were stopped and perhaps frisked by police without cause. 37. Law enforcement prejudice . Did law enforcement convey any sentiment that you must be guilty of something solely on their perceptions? Did law enforcement use your natural defensiveness to their aggressive tactics as grounds to believe you must be a violent person? 38. Trial by media . Any sensational coverage of the case? Was news media present during the trial? Did their coverage favor the prosecution? Did sympathy for any victim overshadow reasonable doubts about you as the actual perpetrator?   Reminder: Include the degree of relevance in the dropdown list for each relevant factor. SAMPLE Complicating factors pp 24 - 25 Now onto idenifying the claimant's demonstrable innocence. C.5 Claimant's demonstrable innocence - p26 to p28 Page 26 39. Pled not guilty . Include if you pled not guilty and committed yourself to never taking any plea agreement. Mention any pressures to admit guilt that you consistently resisted. 40. Alford plea . Include if you took an Alford plea , or pled no contest. Explain why. Mention any pressures you were under, such as from family members desperate for you to come home as early as possible. 41. Duration of innocence claim . Mention how long you have maintained your innocence. Especially if you have always claimed to be innocent after many years while incarcerated, even at the risk of being denied parole.  Page 27 42. Respect for crime victim(s) . Identify how you positively regard the complainant(s). Mention how you never presented any threat to them, or ever had any motive to do them any harm. 43. Positive institutional record . Use your behavioral record under custody to challenge their mischaracterization of you. 44. No criminal history . Include if you remained free of any criminal activity before and/or after.  Page 28 45. Parole denial from maintaining innocence . Include how many times you were denied parole for “lack of remorse”.   Again, reminding you to check how much each of these applied to your case. SAMPLE Claimant's demonstrable innocence pp 26 - 28 Now onto recognizing the claimant's socially affirmed innocence. C.6 Claimant's innocence recognized by others - p29 to p30   Page 29 46. Any relief on appeal . Add any favorable relief you received from the Appellate Panel or any other step in the appellate process. Was your sentence reduced? Was any charge thrown out? 47. Supporters . Start creating a list of anyone who conveyed any support for your innocence. The more names you can list, along with current contact info, the better prepared you will be to build growing support for your innocence. 48. Affidavits . Include any signed affidavits vouching for your alibi. Or for anything pointing to your innocence, whether mentioned in your trial or not.  Page 30 49. Judge support . Add any judge’s name who either expressed some doubt in an eyewitness or complaint’s claims, or who later expressed vehement support of your obvious innocence. 50. Prosecutor support . Include if any prosecutor came forward to assert your innocence, or at least expressed doubt in your alleged guilt. 51. Defense counsel support . Mention how much your defense counsel believed in your innocence. Add if they went out of their way to persuade the jury or bench trial judge of your innocence. 52. Influential support . Include any cultural leaders who backed up your innocence. This could include political leaders, faith leaders, company owners or nonprofit leaders. SAMPLE Claimant's innocence recognized by others pp 29 - 30 If this form missed anything, now is the time to mention it. C.7 Other - p 31   Page 31 53. Any other relevant items . This form may have overlooked a critical factor. Here is where you include anything this form neglected to consider. For ideas what you could include not mentioned above, go to the last page and check out the “ Innocence Checklist ” by Dr. Carrie Leonetti. You help improve this tool by adding your own unique contributing factor here. You’re still checking the relevance level and how a relevant element can be verified, right? SAMPLE Other p 31 C.8 Process - p32   Page 32 54. Indictment changed . Mention if the prosecutor adjusted the original charges or indictment for apparent lack of evidence, or for any other reason. 55. Plea deal turned down . Mention how many times you were offered a deal from the prosecutor, and turned it down to insist on your full innocence. 56. Asserted right to trial . Mention of you asserted your right to challenge all the charges in a trial. Include any pressures from the prosecutor to take a plea bargain to avoid a trial. 57. Discovery with exculpatory evidence . Include any evidence declared in discovery that you identify as exculpatory, even if the prosecutor or others did not recognize it as such. 58. Exculpatory evidence not provided in discovery .Also include any evidence you may be aware of that could point to your innocence, but was not included in any discovery document. This concludes entries used for calculating the viability of your innocence. That covers the “what” of your overlooked innocence. Next, you declare “why” your exoneration is so vital. SAMPLE Process p 32 Now you rate the innocence options who seem to be serving the law more than serving you. Need-response features this skill to realistically assess the responsiveness of those we come to vulnerably depend upon. We must assess those who serve as the last or only option to address our affected inflexible needs. Such as your need for public recognition of your innocence, with or without an exoneration from the adversarial system that created it. D. Requests and responses for exoneration help - p3 3 For items 59, 60 and 61, you assess how satisfied you are with each innocence entity that you have encountered. You then asses how much you still trust that innocence entity. Like reviewing a business on Yelp, you assess their level of legitimacy.   Click in the white field to the right of “Satisfaction level:”. Then click on the arrow pointing down at the right end of this field. A list of options appears. Select your satisfaction level using one of those option from this dropdown list. Do the same with the “Trust level:” field.   Item 62 has you assessing the innocence movement as a whole. The dropdown list provides you a different set of options to rate their satisfaction and trust levels. Your critique of the innocence movement here can demonstrate the need for our need-responsive alternative.   Next, identify what you specifically need from the innocence movement. With the dropdown list, you indicate if that need for you is a low priority or a very high priority. This can improve your rapport with them, and improve their rapport with you and other innocence claimants.   Finally, report how this continuing wrongful conviction impacts you and your loved ones. Each of these eight items includes its own dropdown list of options. (NOTE: The updated version of this tool will report these in a new section after the CQR below.)   Page 33 59. Innocence Project . This gives you the option to select a specific innocence project in your state, assuming you did not seek help from one outside of your state. Click on “Innocence Project” to see the list of innocence projects in your state. The select the one that applies. All may apply, but select the one you prefer to rate right now. 60. District attorney . This also may list the prosecutors in your state. You can simple leave the “District attorney” default to keep it simple. This item speaks to their conviction integrity unit. Rate your satisfaction level and trust level, as you did above. 61. Other sources of legal assistance . Use this if you hired your own lawyer, or relied on journalism students, or reached out to a nonprofit organization offering legal services. If applicable, rate their satisfaction and trust levels. 62. Innocence movement . Assess the legitimacy of the current innocence movement as a whole. How content are you with the movement? Do you still trust the movement as the only show in town, or are you open to trying an alternative not focused on adversarial law?   Now let’s get to specifics. What do you seek from the innocence movement? Using the dropdown list, rate how importance that item is to you right now. This may help prioritize resources to work toward what you need the most. >  exoneration >  financial support for legal costs >  expunged record >  removal of all collateral consequences >  compensation >  apology >  OTHER: ______________ 63. Impact on claimant   (legitimacy of exclusionary legal-judicial process) . What are some specific impacts on the claimant after trusting the adversarial judicial process? 1.  reason for being denied review in the past 2.  revisiting case risks retraumatization 3.  depression level from legal-judicial process as only option 4.  anxiety from relying on same process creating error 5.  anxiety from slowness of legal-judicial process 6.  anxiety from prosecutor's power to reinforce error 7.  anxiety from having little to no control over process 8.  disillusionment with legal-judicial process   If the adversarial judicial process repeatedly fails to serve your inflexible need for justice, then consider the nonadversarial alternative of need-response. Consider if Exoneration Services can deliver to you the exoneration your life requires. SAMPLE Requests and responses for exoneration help p 33 How has this wrongful conviction damaged your life, and the life of your innocent loved ones? Next, we explore the continuing consequences you suffer from the state neglecting your innocence. E. Collateral consequences of wrongful conviction - p34 to p35   Page 34 Each map image takes you to an online site that lists various consequences of a conviction. National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction National maps on expungement, pardoning, and voting rights restoration Once at the site, click on their map to look at your state’s specific statues limiting your rights. This adds reasons for the innocence movement to address your affected needs. 64. Collateral consequences impacting claimant . Using the provided dropdown list, select in the left column how each items applies. Then using the provided dropdown list, mark on the right the time of its impact—before, during, or after incarceration. 1 ) Conviction posted online 2 ) Custody reimbursement 3 ) Education discrimination 4 ) Employment discrimination 5 ) Exempt from public assistance 6 ) Exempt from student financial aid 7 ) Health care discrimination 8 ) Housing discrimination 9 ) Loss of government benefits 10 ) Loss of gun rights 11 ) Loss of parental rights 12 ) Loss of vote 13 ) Loss or denial of professional license 14 ) Prevented from seeing family 15 ) Prevented from visiting prisoners 16 ) Restitution to alleged victims 17 ) Restricted movement 18 ) Sex offender registry 19 ) Workplace discrimination 20 ) Other (details in box below)   Use the large white field at the bottom of page 35 to include any consequence not listed above.  Page 35 65. Collateral consequence impacting others in claimant's life . Using the provided dropdown list, select in the left column if it applies and how.       >  not applicable       >  temporary       >  lasting       >  permanent  Then using the provided dropdown lists on the right, mark who is most impacted by that consequence of the wrongful conviction. impacting everyone I know impacting close friend(s) impacting close friends & family impacting only family members impacting only my (then) partner impacting (then) partner & kids impacting only my child(ren) impacting only my grandchild(ren)   Select who is impacted for each relevant item listed here. 1 ) anxiety 2 ) costs to contact while in prison 3 ) depression 4 ) divorce 5 ) housing instability 6 ) loss of companionship 7 ) loss of parent during upbringing 8 ) loss of stable income 9 ) loss of emotional support 10 ) poverty 11 ) stigma 12 ) targeted by bullies   Use the white field below item 65 to include any impacts not listed above.   66. Current neglected needs due to these collateral consequences . Identify how challenging the wrongful conviction has been to each of the first six items. Then identify how much you aspire to improve these listed areas impacted by the wrongful conviction.   Challenging 1 ) economic 2 ) physical health 3 ) mental health 4 ) relationships 5 ) will-to-live 6 ) OTHER: ______________________________________   Aspiring 7 ) income independence 8 ) maintaining healthy lifestyle 9 ) overcoming depression & anxiety 10 ) restoring family ties 11 ) helping others similarly situated 12 ) OTHER: ______________________________________   These lists likely overlooked something impacted in your life. Use the white field at the bottom of page 35 to add any other wrongful conviction challenge or aspiration.   As more claimants use this form, the more data we can present to the innocence movement and to the criminal judicial system to spotlight our neglected needs. SAMPLE Collateral consequences of wrongful conviction pp 34 - 35 F. Claimant narrative - p36 to p3 7 Here is where the claimant puts in their own words what they claim happened. Provide helpful context for the wrongful conviction. This appears in what others see first, so give it your best.   This section wraps up the form. The remainder is for helping you, the claimant (and proxy), to find the support you need to overcome this injustice. Keep going, you're almost there!   Page 36 67. Claim Synopsis . In two sentences or less, grab the reader’s attention with a tearjerking synopsis of the innocence claim. This text appears in the executive summary at the top. 68. Claim highlights . List eye grabbing highlights of claim, with as few words as possible. Replace each example with something from your own case. Up to ten highlights. 69. Flipside . For a balanced view, acknowledge what could be seen as the worst in the case. Nullify criticism by getting it out of the way. Demonstrate your integrity, your honest and humility. Defy the stereotypes about those claiming to be innocent. Because we are.   Think of this like the job interview question: “Tell me your greatest weakness.” That question builds trust by humbly admitting human imperfection. But the quicker the answer segues into the positivity of progress in that area, the better. Apply that to your prison experience.   So conclude your admitted weak spot on a positive note. For example, you could admit that you were obnoxious back when you were arrested. But then took the opportunity to face the worst of what life could throw at you to improve your moral character. How many guilty felons can express such honesty and demonstrate growth from the harshest of experiences?  Page 37 70. Claim Summary . Summarize the innocence claim—with an eye for short attention spans. Add some context to the synopsis above. Provoke the reader's curiosity and interest to discover more.   Invite your closest supporter(s) to give you helpful feedback. Keep it engaging. Leave out any tone of blame. Describe what occurred without suggesting what anyone should do about it. Except close with a call-to-action. What can those moved by your words do to support you?   Follow this format to standardize your summary. The more the reader can follow your words, the more likely they will read it to the end. The more engaging your narrative, the more support your bound to attract by sticking with this simple formula.   On [INCIDENT DATE], [CLAIMANT] [HOW INCIDENT OCCURRED]. [CONTEXT]. Do your best to describe the facts without vilifying anyone. Let the reader decide. Close with a call-to-action [CTA], what you are asking the engaged reader to do. Look through the example to get some ideas. 2,500-character limit .   Be free to rewrite and rewrite your early drafts. Polish this narrative as best as you can. Or get another to write it for you. Let your innocence shine for all to see! SAMPLE Claimant narrative pp 36 - 37 G. Compensation - p38   Page 38 Since creating this tool, more states have passed legislation to compensate those exonerated. And the statute may not indicate how difficult it can actually be to receive just compensation.   For more current information about your relevant state, use a search engine online.   One reason for including this section is to appreciate the stakes involved when recognizing your innocence. When considering the estimates on the next page for how many could potentially be eligible for compensation, you might better appreciate the politics of stalling. SAMPLE Compensation p 38 H. You're not alone - p39 A growing list of academic articles tries to estimate just how many of us are wrongly convicted. The exact number is not knowable by current methods. Various researchers use various methods to give us a rough idea. First, the researcher must define who is, and who is not, wrongly convicted. More recent estimates narrow that definition to actual innocence and not merely on a legal technicality . Which refers to those who played no role in the identified crime. Researchers using a broad definition tend to come up with larger percentage rates of wrongful convictions than those using a narrower definition. The research methods used by those working withing the judicial system tend to come up with much smaller rates. They understandably are more invested in avoiding the opposite risk of wrongful acquittals.   Page 39 This optional form allows you to see where you fit into the scope of this problem.   First, go to the National Registry of Exonerations (which recently migrated to a new website ). Find their latest total of exonerations (top left of most of their pages). Enter that figure in the first field.   In the next field, select the relevant population from the dropdown list. Felony population Ex-prisoner population Custody population (includes all those on parole and probation) Prison population (both state and federal) Registered sex offenders   Then check the results for each estimated rate below. Remember, these are merely estimates. For a more thorough exploration of these wrongful conviction rate, click the image to the right. In this document, I unpack each of these estimated rates.   I identify the professional role of the researcher. Then give their definition of a wrongful conviction. I also summarize their research methods. Academics working within the judicial system understandably estimate lower rates. Criminologists and others outside of the judicial system and peering tend to find higher rates.   Higher rates also stem from a broader definition of wrongful conviction. Such as a legal technicality, which can include those guilty of lesser offenses.   More recent research narrows the definition of a wrongful conviction to “ actual innocence ” or “factual innocence.” This effectively excludes the wrongly convicted of one charge while admittedly guilty of a different or lesser offense.   More research has emerged since its publication in 2021. You can search online to get an update, if you prefer. Enter in your search engine of choice: academic research estimating   rates of wrongful conviction . While the exact number eludes us, the scope of the problem of wrongly convicted innocence becomes clear. Starting with Zalman (#4), you get a number into the tens of thousands. The widely accepted rate of 5% results in 100,000 innocent persons in prison!   Now you do the math: estimated total# — the registry total# = holy crapola!!!   You can quickly appreciate why we need something like the Estimated Innocence Form, to shine a light upon this underserved problem. You can quickly draw the same conclusion as Samuel Gross of the National Exoneration Registry, back in 2015: “We know without doubt that the vast majority of innocent defendants who are convicted of crimes are never identified and cleared.” - Samuel Gross, editor of the National Registry of Exonerations , as reported in 2015 in the Washington Post . At need-response, we find this unacceptable! SAMPLE You're not alone p 39 With your estimated viability of actual innocence, you can now hold the adversarial legal process to a higher degree of accountability for your underserved justice needs. “Accountability—the sense that one’s actions are personally identifiable and subject to the evaluation of others—often acts as a constraint on unchecked power. Individuals in power who know they will be held accountable are more likely to consider social consequences and take others’ interests into account.” ( Keltner, et al., 2003 ) end of page by page instructions That concludes the instructions for filling out the form. Using your Estimated Innocence This sums up the standard half of the Estimated Innocence Form. The remaining pages provide a starting point for those requiring options to go beyond adversarial legalism . They could be used if you upgrade to the Responsive Innocence option.   The above instructions provide you with minimal guidance for how you might want to apply your resulting raw score. Its broader application is still evolving. We’re exploring how to use it during each step of what we call the re-adjudication process . Think of your viable innocence score as the opening for a fresh approach toward serving the needs of justice. Three avenues now open up to you. You’re likely familiar with the strictly adversarial judicial process. Consider two other paths we can carve out for you. 1. Estimated Innocence . You keep relying on the adversarial judicial process to someday lead you to an official exoneration. You keep going it alone. After all, until need-response  takes off as a viable alternative, official court exoneration is the only game in town. 2. Responsive Innocence . You parallel whatever is left of your reliance upon the adversarial process with our pioneering mutuality process . This introduces you to our “ public exoneration ” alternative, which taps into the public’s disillusionment with many of our institutions. [STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU CAN HELP TEST IT] 3. Honored Innocence . You prioritize our mutuality alternative to properly resolve needs, challenging the adversarial system to be as responsive. This option features “public exoneration” that invites the public to scrutinize the adversarial legalism also harming them. [STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU CAN HELP TEST IT]   All three fall under the umbrella of our Exoneration Services , still in development.   Now let's review the results. Review your results After filling in each relevant field and seeing your viability score climb, go back to the top. Notification of Verifiable Innocence (NOVI) Scroll back to the top, and find the GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS have converted to your Notice of Verifiable Innocence. You find a printable copy of this at the NOVI tab. Certificate of Verifiable Innocence (COVI) The second page becomes your very own Certificate of Verifiable Innocence. Sideways, of course. Go to the COVI tab for a lateral version, which you can now save as a PDF, and print out as needed.   In the future, we may put your account number on this printable certificate. That way, anyone can look up your vouched for innocence. Estimated Innocence Report (EIR) The next five pages, page three through seven, becomes your updated Estimated Innocence Report (or EIR for short). You will notice how much of it displays whatever you entered in section F.   Use the downward pointing green arrows to quickly return to section F, like if you need to edit it or correct any misspelling. Once at section F, click on the upward pointing yellow review  arrows to instantly get back to the EIR.   Go to the EIR tab to more easily save your EIR as a PDF. You can also easily print this out from there. Send the PDF or printed copy to someone who supports your innocence. Have them review it and offer any helpful improvements.   Thank them for their constructive feedback. Then improve your EIF with their input. And with your own recognized room for improving it.   Remember, this portion distills your Estimated Innocence into an easily digestible report. It likely will be the only aspects of your acclaimed innocence most people will ever see. Conviction Quality Report (CQR) This organizes all of your identified factors contributing to the wrongful conviction, and displays it for easy processing for innocence litigators. Go to the CQR tab to easily save this as a PDF. And to print it out, if needed.   Look for similar reports to be included in the next updated version of the EIF. Save this version   After you fill out all the relevant white fields and have fixed any errors, click save. You can save your changes in one of thee ways. Pick the method you’re most comfortable using.   Method 1: While holding down the shift key, press the ‘S’ key. Or… Method 2: Click on the diskette icon on the top bar to the left in Excel. Or… Method 3: Point your mouse arrow of the File menu. Click it. Then go down to Save, and click that. Next, click on Save as  (under the File menu) to create a copy of this version. If this is still in your downloads folder, pick a location to save this copy on your device. Edit the file name by adding who you plan to send it to.   For example, “EIF E01 - Innocence Project”. You can now easily save a PDF copy from this version of your work. To save as a PDF Instead of sending the Excel file, you may prefer to send either the whole file or one of the tabs as a PDF. If unfamiliar how to do this, simply follow these steps. Click on the step listed below to quickly go down to the detailed instructions for it further below. You can click on that step below to quickly return to this list of steps. 1. Go to File. 2. Go to Save as. 3. Click browse. Pick a location on your device. 4. Click on Excel Workback after Save as type: 5. Select PDF. 6. Click save. These steps apply specifically to Excel 2021 while using Windows 11. Yours may look a little different. These images above are for a different spreadsheet tool, but illustrate the same steps. 1.   Go to File. From within Excel, point your mouse to the first menu option: File. This opens you to your list of saved Excel files. 2. Go to Save as. Move your mouse arrow down over the Save As option. Click "Save As" to get ready to save a version of this file. 3. Click browse. Pick a location on your device. Move your arrow over Browse, to the right of the folder icon. Click on "Browse" to open the Save As dialogue box. 4. Click on Excel Workback after Save as type: While the standard copy of the file name is highlighted in blue, now is a good time to edit the file name. Click after the file name and add the recipient's name. E.g., "EIF - Innocence Project 1". We recommend adding a number in case you later need to create updated versions. Next, click in the "Save as type:" field below the file name. Click on " Excel Workbook " to open the list of available file types. 5. Select PDF. Move your arrow down to PDF (near the bottom of the list). Select it. Be sure this the location you want to save this PDF version of your EIF. If not, now is the time to change the folder. You will need to remember this file location when ready to send it to the recipient. 6. Click save. Move the mouse arrow down the lower right of the dialogue box. Click on the S ave  button. Once saved, your PDF should open the program you have defaulted to open PDFs. For most of us, that would be Adobe Reader . Need help completing this form, or how to use it? As the professionally responsive  sender, you can use this tool just once or many times. If used repeatedly, you have further options. 1. Do It Yourself option. You can opt to download this tool, fill it out according to these instructions, and send the results directly to each recipient you contact. No cost to us or to you. No hassles. No kidding. 2. Free peer support option. If you have a question about the EIF not covered by these instructions, you can seek answers from others more familiar more with it. Free, but you will have to sign up to use the forum. “If you have any question how to use the Estimated Innocence Form, go ahead and ask them here.” You just have to sign up to become a member of Anankelogy Foundation.org. Simply follow the forum’s guidelines. Much like the group rules you see in almost any Facebook group.   Post your questions and concerns. Answer the posted questions from others. Help each other optimize this free tool for publicizing your innocence. To enter, click the button below.    3. Free expert support option. If you get stuck, consider receiving one-on-one support from the person who created this tool. While offered free up front, I ask you for a donation afterwards. Your gift for using this Estimated Innocence Support service can help me faithfully provide it. 1. Click the ‘Book Now’ button above . This takes you to the booking process. You do not have to log in for this process, but that can make it go smoother. You will see how these sessions last 25 minutes on Zoom. While each session is provided to you without cost, it does cost me to provide it. So after the session, I will invite you to donate what you can afford. 2. Click the ‘Request to Book’ button . The "Appointment Summary" appears. “Estimated Innocence Support online With Steph Turner • 23 min • Donate afterward”. Click the “Schedule Appointment” button below this text. 3. Schedule your appointment. You will see a calendar on the next page. I am available to provide sessions during the evenings of Sunday through Thursday. After you pick a day and time right for you, click the ‘Request to Book’ button at the right on that page. 4. Client details . Provide the information we will need to properly serve you. Add an optional message, if you like. Post any question you may have so I can be prepared to promptly answer it. 5. Review and place order . Confirm your name and email is correct. If all looks okay, click the “Request to Book” button at the right. 6. Confirmation . You’re set! I will confirm your order as soon as I can. Check your email for a confirmation of this scheduled online session. If you do not see it promptly, then check your spam folder. You can optionally add this to your Google Calendar . See you then. Give us your feedback 1. Help spot our mistakes. As I write this, this tool's potential has yet to be tested in real life situations. Your feedback to this tool could help improve it for the lives of countless others. Please report any problems you encounter. Thank you. identify any misspelling report any broken links here or in the spreadsheet report any problem with page breaks in the spreasdsheet form suggest improvements propose a wrongful conviction factor overlooked here (click here for ideas) 2. Take a very short survey. Please take a moment for this three-question survey. 1) Agree or disagree that you found the Estimated Innocence Form to be useful. 2) Agree or disagree that you found the Estimated Innocence Form to be difficult to use. 3) What is one thing about it you would change if you could? 3. Take a slightly longer survey. To give us more of your feedback, consider filling out our longer survey. If you could make this better, what would you change? This 16-item survey consists mostly of multiple choice answers. Your answers can help shape this tool to fit the underserved needs of the unexonerated wrongly convicted. If wrongly convicted yourself, or you represent someone who is wrongly convicted, and not yet exonerated, this tool and survey is especially for you. How can Estimated Innocence better serve you as the innocence claimant or their rep? How can Estimated Innocence better serve you as the innocence litigator or their org? Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. Click on the button for you to start. For innocence claimants For innocence litigators Follow its development on our podcast   I , Steph Turner, will be the first to try these pioneering alternatives. Before inviting you to test the untried, I aim to build rapport with the judicial system. I will first serve their need to process innocence claims more efficiently and effectively.   Then I hope to come back to you with some good news. You can follow how this all works out at our Need-Response podcast . We solve problems by resolving needs, one person at a time. That could include you, soon enough.   Listen each Wednesday as we test this fresh approach to resolving needs. Subscribe at Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. We may even invite you on the show one day, to share how this new experience works for you.   Click on the Need-Response podcast show image to learn more.

Need-response uses this downloadable tool to measure impacted wellness outcomes Need-response holds all accountable to positive wellness outcomes. Armed with the knowledge that organic needs are inflexible , need-response prioritizes wellness outcomes over social norms. Anankelogy recognizes how solving problems depends upon resolving needs. The less your needs can resolve, the greater your problem of diminished wellness. The more your needs resolve, the greater your wellness. Wellness efforts like Public Exoneration aims to improve wellness by solving stubborn problems. The closer the wrongly convicted innocent draws towards exoneration, the more well they measurably become. Need-response provides this free tool to gage wellness impacts on its wellness improving efforts. Click the button at the bottom to download your own copy. Using thorough and brief measures This tool utilizes thoroughly tested psychometric tests at the start and finish. But uses a simple test in between. This keeps it relatively easier to use. Such measures lack full reliability. Self-reporting tends to lack accuracy because of inherent biases. But this tool adequately serves its purpose to hold wellness efforts accountable to measurable results. The first page serves to display the results tracked in the pages below. The next three pages (in light green), along with the last three pages, check wellness using multi-item self-assessments. The middle pages (in light purple) simple asked how to self-assess the three measures. Three measures Many items could be assessed. Such as including one's sense of helplessness. Or the level of anger felt when wronged. But this tool aims to stay simple, for relatively easier use. At the risk of becoming too reductive, this tool seeks to capture how one is doing by assessing three simple wellness markers. Anxiety level . Self-assesses how anxious one is at the time of response. A persisting problem forces you to handle more than you're likely prepared to take on. And this can turn overwhelming. Depression level . Self-assesses how depressed one is at the time of response. Any persisting problem likely robs you of energy. Solving such a problem can help you get back on your feet. Addictiveness level . Self-assesses how addictive one is at the time of response. This moves beyond addiction itself. You could be repressing your addiction for junk food, and outward appear to be doing fine, but still be struggling with internal turmoil. Holistic wellness Need-response appreciate how the term "mental illness" serves as a kind of synecdoche. Which is a figure of speech that refers to something by referencing a part of it. For example, "boots on the ground" or a "hired hand". What we call "mental illness" involves cognition. But thinking is only a part of wellness. If offered only bad options, your wellness inevitably declines now matter how good your mental processes. Need-response involves more than the thinking you can control by addressing areas your thinking cannot control. It uniquely looks at the whole of a situation that reinforces a problem you face. It aims to address a problem at all of its levels . Page by page The image on the left shows you the empty tool. It includes a sample tab, which you can see here on the right. Page 1 The initial page is completely for show. No white fields to enter any data. The table and chart evolves as the data gets entered in the pages below. Page 2 The tool captures a baseline of your anxiety level. It uses the well established " GAD-7 " psychometric tool. That stands for General Anxiety Disorder - Seven. That means it only has seven items to answer. After filling in all the white fields, using the dropdown lists, it kicks out a number, which gets posted in the table on the first page. And moves the red line on the chart. It's okay if that number is relatively high. The higher that first number, the more significant the improvement you will see as we proceed into the program. The text below the Wellness update  heading also changes. This includes a line that states how your self-reported anxiety can be characterized in mental health terms. For example, if your number is significantly high at this point, then you present yourself with "severe anxiety". NOTE: This data qualifies as personal health information protected by law. We are prohibited from sharing it without your permission. However, you agree by your participation in this program to allow us to share it publicly without any links to your identity, as permitted by law, to enable us to demonstrate the program's effectiveness. Page 3 The tool also captures a baseline of your level of depression. It uses the well established " PHQ-9 " psychometric tool. That stands for Patient Depression Questionnaire - Nine. In addition to its nine items is a tenth item to consider if this amounts to major depression. After filling in all the white fields, using the dropdown lists, it kicks out a number, which gets posted in the table on the first page. And moves the blue line on the chart. The text below the Wellness update  heading also changes. Page 4 Finally, the tool captures a baseline of your addictiveness. I could not find a freely available psychometric test for this one. Using my academic skills, I crafted my own, based on key symptoms of addictiveness. The text below Wellness update explains how "addictiveness" is distinct from addiction itself. You can suppress your addictions and still present addictiveness. For example, you can stop indulging in viewing porn but remain obsessed with the imagery in your imagination. Gaging your level of cravings points to how you struggle to cope while burdened with an unsolved problem. As need-response helps you solve that problem, we anticipate your obsessive cravings will naturally decrease. Page 5 After the baseline measures at the start of the program, you wait until directed to move onto these purple page simple measures. You will be informed when you hit a program milestone and when it is time to check how your wellness has improved or not. Once the need-responsive program proceeds, you simply respond to a single item for each of these three wellness markers. You rate how much each affects your life at the moment. It's overwhelming my life It's consuming my focus It's a concerning problem It's at a manageable level I don't feel it all We expect these to improve significantly after the program helps you develop your need-response orientations . After responding to all three items, you get a percentage number that gets reproduced in the table and chart on the first page. And the text below informs you how the current levels compare to your last self-reported levels for each. Page 6 Each of these purple pages covers two milestone measures. When informed you hit the next milestone, simply answer in the same way. After responding to all three items, the same kind of results appear as before. Scroll to top page to see how the graph moves. Page 7 When indicated, you continue to assess your level of anxiety, depression, and addictiveness. When you scroll back to the chart on the first page, you may find midway through the program that your wellness seems to regress. No need for alarm. This is natural. A few steps forward often includes a momentary step back. Page 8 As you wrap up the program, we anticipate your wellness significantly improves. As you draw closer to solving the problem, you naturally have less reason to feel intensely anxious or depressed. As you suffer less emotional pain, your addictiveness can decrease. You may continue to still suffer some anxiety, depression and addictiveness for other causes. But your overall levels drop as this major problem finally gets properly addressed. Page 9 When drawing the program to a close, you return to answering the same items as given in the baseline measures. The text below, under Addressing your wellness needs , speaks to how solving your problem should improve your wellness. For example, as we increase your chances for exoneration from a wrongful conviction, you would naturally feel less anxious, less depressed, and less addictive. Page 10 Just as you did with the baseline measures, you answer these ten items the same time you rate your anxiety. This time, the score you get after selecting the last dropdown list level should be significantly lower than your number from the baseline score. If not, the program may not be working for you. Or you are burdened with other problems that require your attention. Page 11 You wrap up your self-assessment by answering these same five items as before. If you can honestly self-report a significant drop in your addictiveness, then the program can be rated as a success! Below the header Addressing your wellness needs , the text changes to a final report. You see your baseline scores compared to your final self-abasement for these psychometric tests. Scroll back to the top and see how this gets illustrated in the chart. If the program helped you to solve your problem, all three wellness levels should steadily decline. Not necessarily in a direct linear path. Some ups and downs can be expected. For example, if you are a wrongly convicted innocent and now receive broad support to be exonerated, or you are now exonerated officially, you naturally feel euphoric. Little if any anxiety or depression remains. Your addictiveness fades away. Life is now much better! Sharing the credit As you improve, you share the credit with your sponsors. They demonstrably helped you to solve your problem. They earned legitimacy through demonstrably helping to improve your wellness levels. You helped your team gain more meaning in their lives. They developed new skills and new understanding. They improved their need-response orientations to help you, which ultimately helps themselves and their other relations. Most importantly for you, you are now better off than you were when the program started. If not, then perhaps another program is needed to address whatever problem hinders your full wellness. Download your own well check tool Need-response honors the widespread belief that individuals should be able to improve their wellness on their own. But sometimes that is not enough. We all face problems beyond our individual control. Some of those problems involve people in positions of authority. And you can find yourself trapped in social norms that get in the way of solving your problem. That is what need-response is for. If you are in a need-response program now to solve a problem to improve your wellness, then you can download a copy of the well check right here. If you need a paper copy to send to someone without free access to a computer, such as an incarcerated wrongly convicted innocent, then you can download this PDF version, print it out, and send it to them. When working in unison with a need-response program, like Public Exoneration , we continue to mutually resolve needs to solve problems. Then trust our wellness levels to measurably improve as a result. This tool helps keep us all accountable, including those in powerful positions. Together, let us improve everyone's wellness by supporting everyone to resolve their needs. In other words, let's honor the needs of others as our own. Let's accountably love one another into greater wellbeing.

A helpful glimpse into the GOAL phase Not much to see yet The Public Exoneration program continues to be fleshed out. As we develop it, content will begin to emerge here. Until then, you can follow developments on the NR podcast . Check out more on the Public Exoneration  page. Learn more from the Exoneration Services  page.

A helpful glimpse into the GROW phase Not much to see yet The Public Exoneration program continues to be fleshed out. As we develop it, content will begin to emerge here. Until then, you can follow developments on the NR podcast . Check out more on the Public Exoneration  page. Learn more from the Exoneration Services  page.

A helpful glimpse into the TEAM phase Not much to see yet The Public Exoneration program continues to be fleshed out. As we develop it, content will begin to emerge here. Until then, you can follow developments on the NR podcast . Check out more on the Public Exoneration  page. Learn more from the Exoneration Services  page.

A helpful glimpse into the BASE phase Not much to see yet The Public Exoneration program continues to be fleshed out. As we develop it, content will begin to emerge here. Until then, you can follow developments on the NR podcast . Check out more on the Public Exoneration  page. Learn more from the Exoneration Services  page.

A helpful glimpse into the FIT preliminary phase Not much to see yet The Public Exoneration program continues to be fleshed out. As we develop it, content will begin to emerge here. Until then, you can follow developments on the NR podcast . Check out more on the Public Exoneration page. Learn more from the Exoneration Services page.