The work of many Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism students, under the direction of investigative journalism professor David Protess as part of the Medill Innocence Project, has helped lead to the release of 11 wrongfully convicted inmates, and when former Illinois Gov. George Ryan dropped sentences of everyone on Death Row before he left office, he acknowledged that it was partly because of the wrongful convictions resulting from the research done by Protess and his students.

Northwestern undergraduate journalism students continue to gain firsthand experience in investigating wrongful convictions under Protess as part of the Innocence Project, but the investigation into one case - of Anthony McKinney, who was convicted of shooting and killing a security guard in 1978 and whose murder conviction is being reviewed — has stirred recent controversy.

That's because staffers in the Cook County state's attorney's office have demanded that they need students' grades, grading criteria, syllabus and e-mail messages related to the students' investigation. Northwestern University and Protess, though, argue in court documents that turning over so many materials is burdensome and not relevant to deciding whether McKinney should be exonerated. A court date to address these matters is set for early November.

The state's attorney's office also has argued that students may get better grades if they developed evidence that could lead to McKinney's exoneration. Also, the state's attorney's office contends that Protess and his students are not real journalists.

Protess moved to quash the state's attorney's subpoena demanding students' grades, grading criteria, syllabus and e-mail messages. He said the state's attorney's office is asking for unnecessary materials that don't address McKinney's case.

"Prosecutors can get all the answers they want from the witnesses in the McKinney case without harassing my students," Protess said. "The subpoena, if enforced, actually would set a dangerous precedent for law enforcement. Does State's Attorney Anita Alvarez really want defense attorneys to be subpoenaing the performance reviews of its investigators and prosecutors to determine if they were rewarded for finding evidence or guilt and punished for finding evidence of innocence? I doubt it."

Sally Daly, spokesperson for the state's attorney's office, declined to be interviewed. In court documents, though, the state's attorney's office contends that the office is interested in seeking truth and justice.

Donald Craven, interim executive director of the Illinois Press Association, said, "I think the subpoena is a little broad. I think the subpoena is issued in violation of the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Statute for seeking information that the state's attorney is not entitled to have."

As for the state's attorney's office suggesting that students are not real journalists, Craven said, "They are doing prototypical journalism."

Attempts last week to seek comment from Medill Dean John Lavine were unsuccessful. Also, this week, a secretary in the dean's office said Lavine is out all week and is unavailable for comment.

Protess and his journalism classes began investigating McKinney's case after McKinney's brother Michael contacted the Innocence Project, which Protess created in 1999. Nine teams of student reporters spent three years researching the case, starting back in fall 2003. The students concluded that McKinney had been wrongly convicted of killing security guard Donald Lundahl in September 1978 in Harvey, a south suburb of Chicago.

The Innocence Project's Web site reads, "The actual perpetrators were widely known at the time of the crime, yet law enforcement officials arrested, prosecuted and sought the death penalty for an innocent teenager who happened to be near the crime scene because he was being chased and needed their help."

Students interviewed two men who recanted their eyewitness testimony and claimed that police beat them until they made up a story against McKinney. Also, students interviewed two men who allegedly chased McKinney the night of the crime. The men admitted pursuing him after a chance encounter because they were angry that McKinnney had recently damaged their car. They also said they had stopped chasing McKinney when they saw him running toward police vehicles parked at the murder scene. In addition, one of the chasers, Darnell Fearence, has corroborated McKinney's version of the chase and claimed other men were responsible for the murder. And another man, Anthony Drake, said he was "present" when the murder occurred and that McKinney was innocent.

In 2006, Protess and students shared their research with Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful Convictions at the law school's Bluhm Legal Clinic. Last year, the clinic filed a post-conviction petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County, seeking to vacate McKinney's conviction or get a new trial, and the Chicago Sun-Times ran a story and editorial concerning the case. Although students provided videotaped interviews with many witnesses, the state's attorney's office subpoenaed students' grades, e-mail messages and grade criteria.

When Northwestern University and Protess made a motion to quash the state's attorney's subpoena for those documents, they wrote that collecting such wide-ranging records would be "overly burdensome, particularly where the responsive records bear little-to-no relevance to the central question of McKinney's post-conviction proceedings - that is, whether McKinney's conviction should be overturned." Also, they wrote that the court "must balance the needs of truth and excessive burden."

Protess and his students have turned over all audio and videotapes created as a result of the McKinney investigation. The remainder of the documents and testimony sought amount to "a fishing expedition," the university and Protess contend in court materials.

In addition, the university and Protess argue in court documents that "the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act was created to protect First Amendment interests in preserving both the press's ability to gather and disseminate information and its independence and protects persons from being compelled 'to disclose the source of any information obtained by a reporter' with very limited exceptions." The act, they contend, assures a better informed public, for "it allows reporters to seek the truth wherever it is to be found."

Also, protecting information gathered by Protess and student reporters helps to encourage "the free flow of information"and helps them and the Innocence Project to keep serving the public by "acting as an effective check on the criminal justice system," they argue.

As for the state attorney's argument that students are not real journalists, Protess and the university contend that the state "gives lip service to an argument that the work respondents did on the McKinney case does not amount to journalism." They also argue that the act defines a reporter as "any person regularly engaged in the business of collecting, writing or editing news for publication through a news medium on a full-time or part-time basis." Also, they contend that under Protess's direction, information collected by the Innocence Project has resulted in media coverage by the Sun-Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek and CBS News.

In addition, Protess and the university argue that the state's attorney's office failed to articulate how students' educational records are relevant to the question of whether McKinney's conviction should be overturned.

The Chicago Headline Club, a chapter of the national Society of Professional Journalists, strongly protests the subpoenas issued by the state's attorney's office. The club issued this statement:

"The Headline Club believes Alvarez should rescind the subpoenas and stop pressuring Medill Innocence Project students to reveal all of their notes, recordings, e-mails and even grades given. Instead, her office should use what they have already from Medill students as a basis for their own further investigation. We recommend applause for the students' efforts to protect the innocent."

In the state's attorney's 25-page response to deny the motion to quash the subpoena, staffers argue, "Justice requires an objective review of all evidence, not simply the evidence the school now feels is supportive of their version of events" and that materials sought should be turned over to create "an accurate assessment of witnesses' credibility and other essential issues."

Also, they argue that Protess's syllabus and grading criteria are significant; they reason that students were motivated to get good grades: "If students are told they will get an "A plus" if they get exculpatory evidence, surely this would go to bias and interest."

The state's attorney's lawyers contend that Protess and his students are not reporters defined by the act. "The school acted as an investigative agency, as opposed to a news gathering agency intent on publishing the news," they argue.

In conclusion, the state's attorney's office concluded that they are involved in a truth-seeking process and that the other side needs to demonstrate McKinney's innocence through credible testimony: "To withhold voluminous materials from the truth-seeking process is truly ironic behavior given the school's mission of justice."

The university and Protess conclude, in a brief to quash the state's attorney's subpoenas, "The issue at McKinney's upcoming evidentiary hearing is whether he is guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. The syllabus for Protess's journalism class, the grades and grading criteria for his students and a pile of expense forms are not relevant to this issue in any legitimate sense."

Also, they contend that the state's attorney's office is undermining the ability of the Innocence Project to do its work in the future, and they describe the state's attorney's office's demands as "highly intrusive" and "highly disruptive" and not protected by the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act.