Kathy Swedlow, Professor

Biography

Kathy Swedlow Professor  Co-Director, Cooley Innocence Project B.S., Carnegie Mellon University 1988  J.D., City University of New York Law School 1993 Contact by e-mail

Professor Swedlow joined the Cooley faculty in 2001, with a wealth of legal experience. After graduating from law school, Professor Swedlow clerked in the United States Courts of Appeal for the Second and Third Circuits.Thereafter, she represented death-sentenced prisoners from the state of Pennsylvania, winning new trials and penalty hearings for her clients in both the state and federal courts. An experienced post-conviction litigator, Professor Swedlow has also obtained numerous stays of execution, conducted guilt and penalty phase evidentiary hearings, and briefed a wide variety of complex mental health issues.

At Cooley, Professor Swedlow continues to work on post-conviction cases while serving as co-director of the Thomas M. Cooley Innocence Project. The Cooley Innocence Project, which began its operations in 2001, is responsible for the first DNA exoneration under Michigan's post-conviction DNA testing statute.

Professor Swedlow has taught Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Death Penalty Law, and Moot Court. She also serves as a contributing editor for the American Bar Association's Preview of United States Supreme Court Decisions.

Bibliography

• Articles
• Book Reviews and Other Short Works
• Presentations

Articles

Pleading Guilty and Being Guilty: A Case for Broader Access to Post - Conviction DNA Testing, 41 CRIMINAL LAW BULLETIN 575 (2005).

Forced Medication of Legally Incompetent Prisoners: A Primer, HUMAN RIGHTS, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring 2003).

A State by State Review of “Post-Conviction DNA Testing” Statutes, ONLINE JOURNAL OF JUSTICE STUDIES, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2003).

Don't Believe Everything You Read: A Review of Modern “Post-Conviction” DNA Testing Statutes, 38 CAL. W. L. REV. 2 (2002).

The Defendant Has Seemed to Live a Charmed Life: Hopt v. Utah, Territorial Justice, The United States Supreme Court, and Late Nineteenth Century Death Penalty Jurisprudence, 25 SUP. CT. REV. 1 (2000).

Suing for Tenure: Legal and Institutional Barriers, 13 TEX.REV.LITIG. 557 (1994).

[top of page]

Book Reviews and Other Short Works

Kathy Swedlow, When Does the Ex Post Facto Clause Preclude Prosecution Under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act?, 37 PREVIEW U.S. SUP. CT. CAS. 228 (2010).

Capital Punishment in the 2004 Term, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 8, p. 461 (Aug.15, 2005).

May a State Use Inconsistent Theories When Prosecuting Difference Defendants in Connection With the Same Crime?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 7, p. 435 (Apr. 18, 2005) (review of Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 125 S. Ct. 2398 (2005)).

When Is a Capital Case Final?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 7, p. 416 (Apr. 18, 2005) (review of Thompson v. Bell, No. 04-514).

When Should U.S. Courts Apply Rulings Issues by the International Court of Justice?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 6, p. 341 (Mar. 21, 2005) (review of Medellin v. Dretke, 125 S. Ct. 2088 (2005)).

Can a State Post-Conviction Petition Be "Properly Filed" Under the AEDPA Even if the State Court Finds It Untimely?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 5, p. 281 (Feb. 22, 2005) (review of Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 125 S. Ct. 1807 (2005)).

May the State Force a Defendant to Wear Leg Irons in View of His Capital Sentencing Jury?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 5, p. 286 (Feb. 22, 2005) (review of Deck v. Missouri, 125 S. Ct. 2007 (2005)).

When Must a Jury Be Told the Defendant Will Be Ineligible for Parole If Sentenced to Life?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 4, p. 218 (Jan. 10, 2005) (review of Rompilla v. Beard, 125 S. Ct. 2456 (2005)).

May a Federal Court Hold a Habeas Claim in Abeyance While the Petitioner Exhausts His State Law Claims?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 4, p. 213 (Jan. 10, 2005) (review of Rhines v. Weber, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005)).

When Must a Jury Be Allowed to Find a Defendant Guilty of a Lesser-Included Offense?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 3, p. 161 (Nov. 29, 2004) (review of Howell v. Mississippi, 125 S. Ct. 856 (2005)).

Does California’s Sentencing Scheme Limit a Jury’s Consideration of Post-Crime Mitigation?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 2, p. 107 (Nov. 1, 2004) (review of Brown v. Payton, 125 S. Ct. 1432 (2005)).

When Does Conceding a Client’s Guilt Amount to a Denial of the Right to Counsel?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 2, p. 102 (Nov. 1, 2004) (review of Florida v. Nixon, 125 S. Ct. 551 (2004)).

Can a State Execute Someone Who Was Under the Age of 18 When He Committed the Capital Crime?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 1, p. 17 (Oct. 4, 2004) (review of Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct 1138 (2004)).

Did Ring v. Arizona Merely Announce a Nonretroactive Procedural Rule?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 7, p. 408 (Apr. 12, 2004) (review of Schiro v. Summerlin, No. 542 U.S. 348 (2004)).

The Supreme Court Reviews the Fifth Circuit’s Application of Penry I and Penry II, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 6, p. 342 (Mar. 15, 2004) (review of Tennard v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 945 (2003) and Smith v. Dretke, 541 U.S. 913 (2004)).

Did Mills v. Maryland Announce a “New Rule” of Constitutional Criminal Procedure?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 5, p. 257 (Feb. 16, 2004) (review of Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406 (2004)).

When Is a Defendant Responsible for His Attorney’s Failure to Adequately Plead Trial Errors?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 3, p. 145 (Nov. 28, 2003) (review of Banks v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 1256 (2004)).

When Can Defense Counsel’s Decision Not to Present Mitigating Evidence Be Challenged as Ineffective Assistance, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 6, p. 328 (March 21, 2003) (review of Wiggins v. Smith, 123 S. Ct. 2527 (2003)).

What Triggers the AEDPA’s Standard of Deferential Review in Capital Cases?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 4, p. 219 (Jan. 6, 2003) (review of Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (2003)).

When Must a Rule 60(b) Motion Be Deemed a “Second or Successive” Habeas Petition?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 2, p. 68 (Oct. 28, 2003) (review of Abdur’Rahman v. Bell, 537 U.S. 1227 (2003)).

May Capital Sentencing Judges Consider Non-Jury Testimony in Capital Cases?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 7, p. 391 (Apr. 12, 2002) (review of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)).

Does the Eighth Amendment Bar Executing Mentally Retarded Prisoners Convicted of Capital Offenses?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 5, p. 279 (Feb. 13, 2002) (review of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)).

When Must a Jury Be Told That a Defendant Will Be Ineligible for Parole if Sentenced to Life?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 3, p. 141 (Nov. 19, 2001) (review of Kelly v. South Carolina, 534 U.S. 236 (2002)).

When Should a Trial Court Grant a Continuance in Order to Locate Missing Alibi Witnesses?, PREVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES, Issue No. 2, p. 106 (October 22, 2001) (review of Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (2002)).

[top of page]

Presentations

On the Docket 2005: The Death Penalty in the Supreme Court, 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association (August 2005; Chicago, IL.).

How an Innocence Project Works, Wayne State University Department of Criminal Justice (March 2005; Detroit, MI).

The Thomas M. Cooley Innocence Project, and Kenneth Wyniemko’s DNA Exoneration, NALS of Michigan Annual Meeting (June 2003; Lansing, MI).

A Review of ‘Modern’ Post-Conviction DNA Statutes, 2002 Meeting of the American Society of Criminology (November 2002; Chicago, IL).

Indigent Defense in Michigan and the Role of the Cooley Innocence Project, Annual Conference of the Michigan Council on Crime and Deliquency (November 2002; Lansing, MI).

Mental Illness and the Death Penalty: Can Capital Punishment for the Seriously Mentally Ill Be Justified?, 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association (August 2002; Washington D.C.).

Modern Post-Conviction DNA Statutes: A Square Peg Into a Round Hole?, 2002 National Innocence Project Meeting (April 2002; San Diego, CA).

[top of page]