Justice Quest: Innocence Project Detectives

Learning Goals & Products

Learning Goals

Students will be able to analyze redacted trial transcripts, police reports, and witness statements to determine whether a conviction should be reexamined and to explain how corroboration and reliability affect justice.

Students will be able to construct accurate case timelines from appeals documents and court records to explain sequence, cause, and possible procedural issues in a wrongful conviction claim.

Students will be able to evaluate the credibility of evidence sources by comparing police reports, testimony, transcripts, and appeals documents to determine which claims are most trustworthy.

Students will be able to interpret conflicting accounts in a case file to identify patterns of agreement, contradiction, and uncertainty that affect a recommendation for review.

Students will be able to justify a recommendation for further review using corroborated evidence from legal records and testimony to show how justice may or may not have been served fairly.

Students will be able to document and revise their investigation process through annotated evidence logs and source notes to improve the quality and honesty of their analysis.

Products

individual

Individual Case Investigation Notebook

Each student compiles a research-style notebook showing question development, source notes, evidence logs, a case timeline, and personal analysis of the redacted case file. The notebook demonstrates independent reasoning, source evaluation, and a defensible preliminary conclusion.

team

California Innocence Project Case Memo and Evidence Review Forum Presentation

Teams produce a formal memo and public presentation that synthesize each member’s evidence, explain methodology choices, visualize the case timeline, address conflicting findings, and recommend next steps for review. The product must show how the team weighed uncertainty and collaborated to reach a shared conclusion.

Rubric

Competency Progression Rubric Competency-first rubric

Category	Learning Goal	Stage 1	Stage 2	Stage 3	Stage 4
Deeper Learning Competencies	Critical Thinking & Problem Solving	I can identify and describe the key claims and facts in each document (police report, transcript, witness statement, appeal) and connect them to specific points on my team’s timeline I can note inconsistencies, missing details, or questions raised by the evidence without yet drawing a full conclusion.	I can compare multiple documents to explain how different sources support or contradict one another, and I can generate focused questions about what the records do or do not show I can use evidence from the case file to make a preliminary judgment about whether the conviction deserves further review.	I can evaluate the reliability and limits of evidence and testimony by analyzing context, wording, and credibility signals across documents I can justify my recommendation for further review using a clear line of reasoning that links specific facts to legal issues and alternative explanations.	I can independently synthesize patterns across the entire case (timeline, testimony, and appeals) to propose the most compelling next steps for evidence review I can test my reasoning by anticipating counterarguments, revising my conclusions when new connections appear, and articulating why my recommendation best addresses the case’s fairness questions.
Deeper Learning Competencies	Content Expertise	I can identify and accurately record key facts from each type of case document (police reports, witness statements, transcripts, and appeals) in my evidence log and timeline, using the text to support what I claim.	I can explain how specific evidence details connect to issues in the case by comparing accounts across documents and noting where evidence supports or conflicts with other testimony or trial/appeal statements.	I can evaluate the credibility and legal relevance of evidence by checking consistency, potential gaps, and how procedural/legal language in the record affects the meaning of what happened, then summarize my findings in a clear case-memo format.	I can synthesize evidence across the full set of documents to make a well-justified recommendation for further review, using precise citations, accurate legal-reasoning language, and targeted analysis to address alternative interpretations.
Deeper Learning Competencies	Effective Communication	I can communicate my understanding of a case by clearly summarizing what key documents say and citing specific excerpts from police reports, transcripts, or appeals to support my summary.	I can communicate my case analysis in a way that is organized and audience-aware by connecting multiple pieces of evidence to explain what they suggest about the conviction and by using accurate, direct quotations or references.	I can communicate with empathy and clarity by presenting a concise case briefing and explaining why I think evidence and testimony should (or should not) be reexamined, addressing likely questions and noting any limitations of the redacted record.	I can communicate persuasively and professionally by producing well-structured case memo sections and a public evidence analysis station that synthesize evidence across sources, check legal accuracy, anticipate visitor questions, and respond respectfully with evidence-based reasoning.
Deeper Learning Competencies	Collaboration	I can work with my team to complete shared roles during the Case Sprint by contributing evidence sorts, timeline entries, or notes when prompted and following agreed discussion norms.	I can collaborate with my team to co-construct a clear case timeline and evidence log by sharing reasoning, asking questions, and resolving small disagreements using evidence from the documents.	I can lead productive team collaboration by facilitating shared decision-making for what to include in our case memo packet, actively incorporating peer and partner feedback during the gallery walk and rehearsal roundtable.	I can independently coordinate collaborative work to strengthen our case memo packet by setting goals, mentoring peers on document analysis or legal accuracy checks, and ensuring our final recommendation reflects thoughtful consensus and respectful communication.
Deeper Learning Competencies	Self Directed Learning	I can use a checklist and specific guidance to complete case-sprint tasks on time (timeline sorting, evidence logging, and source notes) and I can state what I need help with using evidence from the documents.	I can independently set short goals for my case-memo revisions, track my progress during gallery-walk and rehearsal roundtables, and apply feedback by making clear, document-based changes to my timeline, credibility notes, or legal-accuracy checks.	I can monitor the quality of my own work against the project criteria, justify my next steps with reasons drawn from the case file and feedback, and revise my analysis and recommendation so they are more accurate, complete, and consistent across sections.	I can direct my own learning by seeking relevant clarification or resources when information is missing or conflicting, proactively testing alternative interpretations of the records, and iterating my case memo and briefing with minimal support while explaining how my choices improved fairness and evidence reliability.