The Jarvis Masters’ case is one in which it is sufficient to establish that unrequited innocence is a real and serious problem.
— Rob Warden, Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy article, 2019

Unrequited Innocence in U.S. Capital Cases:
Unintended Consequences of the Fourth Kind

Spring 2019

[LAW JOURNAL ARTICLE] A profile of Jarvis is included in the Spring 2019 issue of the Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy. The profile offers an in-depth legal summary of the circumstances surrounding Jarvis’ case, beginning on page 32.

This summary was originally published in Rob Warden and John Seasly, “Unrequited Innocence in U.S. Capital Cases: Unintended Consequences of the Fourth Kind,” 14 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 375 (2019).  Used with the permission of Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy.

Concise Summary of Evidentiary Hearings

January 2011

[LEGAL SUMMARY] This is a summary of Jarvis’ legal team’s response to the Supreme Court’s questions about how a case had been selectively and deceptively constructed against Jarvis in the initial trial. This summary was originally written by Alan Senauke on the Clear View blog.

“New Probe of ’85 Murder of San Quentin Guard”

April 10, 2008

[NEWS ARTICLE] The San Francisco Chronicle’s Bob Egelko describes the CA Supreme Court’s order for the evidentiary hearing and summarizes the issues to be addressed in the hearing.

State Told to Respond to Prisoner Complaints –
Court Takes Unusual Step Before Appeal in Death Penalty Case

March 10, 2007

[NEWS ARTICLE] The San Francisco Chronicle’s Bob Egelko discusses the Order to Show Cause (OSC) issued by the CA Supreme Court on February 14, 2007. The article notes the unprecedented nature of this action, summarizes the requirements of the order which spell out the claims of constitutional violation in Jarvis’ case, and sets the Order in the context of Jarvis’ case.

Text of California Supreme Court Order to Show Cause

February 14, 2007

[LEGAL DOCUMENT] The official court document outlining the claims of constitutional violations that the state of CA was ordered to respond to, including allegations of false evidence and secret deals with a prosecution witness.

Amicus Brief filed by Death Penalty Focus

March 2015

[LEGAL DOCUMENT] Death Penalty Focus submits an Amicus Brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Ernest Dewayne Jones which cites Jarvis’ case as an example of “outstanding delays in death penalty appeals.” In 2014, a federal judge held in the Jones case that the “dysfunctional administration of California’s death penalty system” rendered it “cruel and unusual” and therefore unconstitutional.

Synopsis of the Appeal Brief

November 28th, 2001

[LEGAL SUMMARY] This is a short and simplified synopsis of the 515-page page appeal brief written by Jarvis’ legal team. The appeal focuses on errors of the court that prevented a fair trial and denied Jarvis the opportunity to prove his innocence.

You can Help Jarvis' Case

From joining our mailing list, to sharing Jarvis' story, or mentoring an at-risk child, there are many ways you can help.

Learn How to Help