This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted on 1 June 2014 by reviewer Timtrent (talk · contribs). California This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Another success: http://californiainnocenceproject.org/read-their-stories/michael-hanline/ I don't know how this should be incorporated if the rest of the "12" aren't free yet. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit. This is probably obvious, but the level of detail is almost farcical. These sections rely far too much on WP:PRIMARY sources, such as listings and press release (and Facebook posts!) from CIP. There is also a redundancy problem, as some of these incidents have their own articles.

I also think it's very likely that this article, and the biographies of several people associated with this group, have been edited for pay without disclosure, which is a violation of Wikipedia's terms of service (WP:PAID). That issue is discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#QuisLex (perm).

Since these details were adding by the same editor, these issues are closely related. The way to resolve this is for an impartial editor to review these sources and trim excess details, or details which are poorly sourced. Grayfell (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's relevant to this item, but I see that several of the cases took 10 years plus before an exoneration took place. Should there be a mention that Prop 66 was passed and therefore sets a maximum time limit of ten years from time of sentencing, after which there can be no more appeals.2A02:8084:26E0:AA00:11CC:F70B:115A:2012 (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]