Uncovering the Hidden Truth
A Corsicana, Texas house fire in
1991 that killed three girls also called an end to their father, Cameron Todd
Willingham’s life. Thirteen years later, on the 17th day of February, he
gathered in the visiting room with relatives, separated with plexiglas from his
parents, said his last goodbyes without hugging them, and said to his parents
to never stop fighting to vindicate him. He was gone and buried next to his
children’s graves (Grann). “Justice is Blind” an idiomatic expression that
calls justice impartial and objective. Ironically, justice is blind, not in the
context of fairness and just, but in the ways in which it has closed its doors
to those who are wrongfully convicted. Wrongful convictions happen frequently
and are linked to problems in the Criminal Justice System like official
misconducts, eyewitness misidentifications and improper or invalidated forensic
science that puts a challenge to the system’s accuracy and rationality, calling
for public response and immediate reforms.
The
famous Greek Philosopher, Aristotle once said, “at his best, man is the noblest
of all animals; separated from law and at justice, he is the worst”
(Brainyquote). Justice is the quality of being fair and reasonable”
(“Justice”), a concept taught and practiced by all faiths, countries,
individuals and groups. A kid fights with another kid over a toy, and let’s it
go because he is holding onto all the toys already- calling what he did, just.
Similarly, a society’s guidelines
for crimes, punishment and procedures to protect the rights of the innocent is
a form of justice as well. But what happens if the same system that is expected
to protect the innocents fails to do the job? Then, wrongful convictions are
likely to occur. When an innocent defendant is found guilty, or when they feel
compelled to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit, it is known as
wrongful conviction. In other cases, a “jury unmistakably finds a person with a
good defense guilty, or where an appellate court, a part of the judicial system
responsible for hearing and reviewing appeals from legal cases that have been
heard in other lower courts, reverses a conviction in violation of the
defendant’s constitutional rights.”
Regardless, the National Registry of Exonerations has recorded 1576
exonerations in the United States since 1989, of which 112 were sentenced to
death, and 265 spent more than 20 years behind bars. “There are enough
doubts..touching intimately on the integrity of the system that we should be
concerned” writes Judge Alex Kozinski, the nation’s most prominent judges in a
news article (Volokh). There is a prevalent problem to see the system as
unjust, and multiple resources indicate that the top reasons are due to invalidated
forensic evidence, mistaken witness identification and official misconduct.
Science is not perfect, and with the
advancing technology used in the criminal justice to help resolve criminal
cases in a faster pace, tests can produce many errors. Ultimately, experts base
their evaluations on scientific testing like DNA. DNA stands for
Deoxyribonucleic acid, a carrier of genetic information and a “self-replicating
material, present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of
chromosomes,” and with its testing, a person can be found guilty of his or her
crime (“DNA”). Since the 1980s, the
technology has helped in solving the nation’s high violent crimes but there
remains some issue. While the testing was developed through extensive
scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques –
such as “hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and
shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific
evaluation.” On the other hand, forensics techniques that have been properly
validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes
improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony (NAACP). The more than 300 documented
exonerations of innocent prisoners through post-conviction DNA tests from 1989
to 2014 show that the traditional mechanisms of error correction in our system
are insufficient. The direct appeal (in which a defendant challenges a criminal
conviction secured at the trial level to a higher court), is ill-suited to
address errors based in fact as opposed to law. And classic
"collateral" remedies, such as habeas corpus, are replete with
statutes of limitations and other procedural hurdles too high even for the
innocent to clear. Going forward, we need to address both the substantive and
the procedural flaws that can yield miscarriages of justice. Even worse,
DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of all criminal cases. Only a
small number of individuals who claim that they are innocent can receive
attention of organizations like the Innocence Project with the proper resources
to exonerate, absolve someone from blame for a fault or wrongdoing (Maeve and
Bonn, 402). Hundreds of cases of people freed from post-conviction DNA analysis
are available on the Innocence Project that were first convicted due to errors
in science.
 |
| Figure 1: Courtesy of Forensic Science |
DNA evidence is so powerful that it
has been the only reason for some criminals to stay away from their families or
reunite with their loved ones. It has played a role in about 50 percent of
wrongful convictions. As depicted in figure 1, out of 85 cases of people
convicted wrongfully, 29 cases were the immediate result of Questionable
Forensic Evidence or Testimony. The Innocence Project is the largest
organization that works on exoneration cases of those wrongfully convicted
through improper testing’s like DNA analysis and pushes the government to
reform the criminal justice system. Overall, its mission is to free hundreds of
people in jail and give them justice, by collaboratively working with the law
through legal work and as well as give support to the exonerate as they begin
to rebuild their lives. People like Clarence Harrison and Kennedy Brewer are of
the few that spent years in jail for a crime they did not commit. Harrison was
exonerated in 2004 after being in prison for 17 years in Georgia for rape,
robbery and kidnapping a 25-year-old woman from the bus stop. At the request of
the DeKalb County Public Defender’s office, slides from the rape kit were sent
to a commercial lab for DNA analysis where the lab was unable to perform DNA
analysis on the slides. Despite that, Harrison did not give up and contacted
the Georgia Innocence Project in 2003. He was told in the early 1990s that all
the evidence had been destroyed because the last slide was sent for DNA
analysis but later discovered that one slide contained evidence from the rape
kit still existed, from where it was determined that Harrison was innocent.
Similarly, Brewer was arrested in Mississippi for killing his girlfriend’s
three-year-old daughter and was sent to death row. A semen sample was recovered
from the victim’s body but was “deemed insufficient for DNA testing.” After
some analysis of bite marks, which in fact were of insect bites, advanced DNA
testing was conducted, excluding Brewer to be the possible perpetrator. In
2008, charges against Brewer were dropped and he was free. In analyzing both
cases, it can be seen evidence was improperly handed, there were reportings of
no tests conducted, outright falsification, reporting inconclusive reports as
conclusive and failing to report any conflicting results. Even though, science
is the most reliable tool to help put criminals in jail, it can still produce
incorrect results, and affect innocent’s life. In most cases, if testings are
not done, then witness identification is enough evidence to prove someone
guilty.
Often, it is normal to mistaken
someone or something for what it is not. If that happens, all is needed is an
apology and everything becomes normal. Thirty-four percent of innocent
exonerations responsible for eyewitness misidentification is not normal. For it
to be the leading cause of the wrongfully convicted is certainly not normal.
Misidentifying a witness does not only relate to a stranger committing a crime
toward another, there are two common types; robbery and rape. A human’s memory
cannot remember and record all information; it drops most out of short-memory
and stores some in the long-term memory. In stressful situation like robbery,
murder, or rape- recalling information becomes tougher and in extreme cases
impossible to identify the witnesses or perpetrator. In these situations, many
victims become confused and frustrated. Indications like these should be used
cautiously but unfortunately, prosecutors and police rely on eyewitness
evidence as the main piece to convict anyone (Stenzel). A well-known incident
is of the story of Ronald Cotton, served 10 years in prison for someone’s
crime.
 |
| Image2: Courtesy of the Innocence Project |
Eyewitness misidentification
testimony is a factor in 75 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases,
of which, according to the Innocence Project, 40 percent s involved a cross
racial identification, where studies indicate that people are less able to
recognize faces of a different race on their own. For example, in the Book Picking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and
Redemption, the rape survivor, Jennifer Thompson misidentified the actual
perpetrator with Ronald Cotton, a high-school dropout, which led to him serving
in jail for 10 years for a crime he did not commit. Thompson was “so sure of her selection that even
after DNA evidence proved the defendant was innocent, she had a difficult time
believing the truth” (Stenzel 510). The National Registry of Exonerations
writes that the contributing factor for his conviction was only based on the
witness testimony. Cotton was exonerated through DNA evidence in 1995 but his
time in prison never came back. “I felt like someone pushed a knife through me” Cotton describes his feelings in a 60-minute special
interview when Thompson pointed at him, in surety in court (Keppler Speakers).
The real criminal had died, and Thompson and Cotton, after freedom traveled
together to educate hundreds of the Criminal Justice System and about rape
(Image 2). Courts have acknowledged that eyewitness misidentification exist
because of factors like high stress, a person’s memory diminishes, weak
correlation between a witness's confidence in his or her identification.
 |
| Figure 3: Courtesy of New Yorker Magazine |
A human has a natural tendency to
seek support from people who they trust, and just like that, evidence is put in
the hands of people that the system trusts. Justice vanishes when the same
people expected of help in the crucial field are not reliable. Think of it this
way, if there is a computer of no use and that which contains virus, are thrown
away. That is not the case in the Criminal Justice System. The Golden Gate
University Law Review indicates that in a survey of the causes of wrongful
convictions, “prosecutorial misconduct was listed as a cause in nearly half of
the cases. In twenty-five percent of those cases, the type of misconduct was
the knowing use of false testimony.” In a case of Hayes v. Brown false evidence
was present that misled the judge, jury, and the council. The prosecutor gave
an incentive to lie- about which the jury was not informed, leading to a death
sentence of Blufford Hayes. “The court never looked beyond the government's
assertions and take into consideration that the prosecutor’s duplicitous conduct
might have affected the jury’s verdict in any form” (Lynn). Courts are expected
to analyze a case further, not blindly trust what is presented to them. When it
occurs, people also turn their backs, never to believe again. Sadly,
Willingham, the father of three children that died in a fire in their home as
shown in figure 3, is sitting at his death row, even after insisting upon his
innocence and refused to plead guilty in return for a life sentence was a
victim of misconduct as well. Dr. Gerald Hurst,
a Cambridge-trained chemist known for debunking arson myths, said so in a
report that Texas Governor Rick Perry regrettably chose to ignore the reports
which led to Willingham’s
execution, even after a comprehensive report proved that he was innocent
(Wachtel). The Governor’s inability to look beyond the faults in the case and
neglecting the visible evidence shows how corrupt the system is.
Another case many defense lawyers refer to and use to help
defend wrongful convicted, especially those connected to DNA testing, is the
story of Annie Dookhan. She was a state chemist arrested for proceeding drug
samples received from suspects three times faster than her fellow colleagues.
Her ambition to declare drug samples positive that were not tested at all,
tampering with evidence, forging signatures and lying to the court, tainted
more than 40,000 drug samples. After her arrest in 2000, she pleaded guilty to
27 counts and was sentenced to three to five years in prison and two years’
probation. Dookhan’s plea affected many innocent lives who were in jail for the
crimes that they did not commit (Seelye). Surprisingly, no one in the lab had
questioned her behavior or bothered to re-analyze the evidence she was working
with. In an article published by Arizona Law Review, she said she “messed up
bad,” and amazingly, “her misconduct had gone undiscovered for nine years, even
though she testified--and was cross-examined--in at least 150 trials”
(Driscoll). That is 150 lives destroyed- not an acceptable or reasonable way to
suggest that humans make mistake therefore it is fine. Mistakes happen and are
forgiven, but when a person pleads guilty to charges stemming from her playing
with evidence, forgiveness is not an option. Dookhan was only sentenced to
serve three to five years in the custody of the state Department of Correction,
and recently in 2016 she has been granted parole from her prison sentence. Her
attorney, Nicolas Gordon said “the decision for her parole was ‘entirely
appropriate’ given her lack of prior criminal record. She is extremely strong
and resilient who will have a bright future.” There were no questions asked,
she was freed leaving innocents person incarcerated, guilty person released
endangering the public, and most importantly, millions are being spent to cover
up the mess that was created” (Levenson). At the end the integrity of the
justice system flustered and governmental policies are left challenged.
With the consistent outcries and
demands from the public and organizations like the Innocence Project hoping to
make reforms in the system, the government is making some efforts to reduce the
issue. The innocence project tries to promote laws that will help compensate
innocent people for the harm experienced by false convictions. So far, through
the organization, 50 states have statutory access to post-conviction testing;
32 states have compensation laws; 19 states have implemented comprehensive
eyewitness identification reform; 24 states record interrogations statewide; 23
states with robust preservation of biological evidence laws; 50 states with
ethical rules for prosecutors to share evidence supporting a defendant’s claim
of innocence before trial. These are just some of the few things that are done,
but more can be done.
The Department of Justice lists some
of the possible things that can be done to help reduce innocent convictions in
the US, after it being the country with more prisoners (with about 5 percent of
the world’s population, there are almost a quarter of world’s prisoners).
First, there can be an increase in the analysis capacity of public crime labs
where the initiative will call for $60 million in funding to use in services.
For example, that money can be used to provide basic infrastructure support,
build infrastructure through laboratory information management systems, provide
automation tools to Public DNA labs, give support for the storage of forensic
evidence, stimulate research and development. In addition, it is necessary to
train law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and Judges
(Justice.gov).
Wrongful
convictions jeopardize the future of many families, and as Judge Kozinski puts
it, it impossible to consider that every one of the 2.2 million people in
prisons and jail are guilty. An acceptable error rate at 5 percent means
110,000 innocent people incarcerated across the country. A 1 percent is 22,000
innocent people (Volokh). When an inmate is released from prison after a lengthy
term, he or she is not returned to the same people or world. Their children get
older; friends forget; jobs disappear, and spouses find other partners. A small
research was conducted in a college writing to the sciences class, where only a
small sample of students were asked, how they would feel if a loved one of
theirs was innocent but convicted of crime? Majority said they will feel
enraged, and livid. Elizabeth Flint, a
Criminal Justice and Legal Studies major at St. John’s University believes that
compensation for these people exonerated should be a priority. Government, she
says, need to consider the years they have lost and put pressure on them to
analyze, train and immediately change any misfits they see in the system.
Over the last two decades, an
alarming number of wrongful convictions have been caused due to reasons like
improper forensic testings, eyewitness misidentifications and poor official
conduct. Despite that the Innocence Projects phenomenal effort to bring reform
has successfully exonerated many innocents. Once knowledge is obtained, seeking
justice becomes easy. Taking small steps is key to reaching the goal.
Eventhough filling in the holes of the criminal justice system is a lengthy
process, simply educating oneself and others is a big indicator to helping set
innocents free. No matter what field it is, responsibility comes with a good
moral character, a person who is responsible and honest. A student majoring in
biology should carefully conduct research in labs so another unreliable chemist
is not tampering in labs. A student in psychology should consider working with
families and victims of wrongful convictions so another innocent individual is
not separated from his or her family on the next holiday.
Work Cited
“Help Us Put an End to Wrongful Convictions!” Innocence Project, Innocence Project,
Web. 7th
April 2018.
“Advancing Justice through DNA Technology: Using DNA to
Solve Crime.” The United States
Department of Justice, Web. 28 March 2018.
Seelye, Katharine Q., and Jess Bidgood. “Prison for a State
Chemist Who Faked Drug
Evidence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Nov. 2013.
Driscoll, Sean K. "I Messed up Bad": Lessons on
the Confrontation Clause from the Annie
Dookhan Scandal." Arizona Law Review, vol. 56, no. 3,
Sept. 2014, pp. 707-740.
EBSCOhost,
Dookhan Scandal,” Arizona Law Review, vol. 56, no. 3, pp.
707-740.Web. 23rd April
2018.
Grann, David. “Trial by Fire.” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 10 July 2017,
“Innocence Project.” NACCP, NACCP. Print. 25th April 2018
Wachtel, Julius. “ DOJ: Texas Executed an Innocent Man.” Police Issues. Police Issues. Web,
24th April 2018
Thompson-Cannino, Jennifer, et al. Picking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption.
St. Martin's Griffin, 2010.
“Touch DNA: From the Crime Scene to the Crime Laboratory.” Forensic Magazine, 14 June
2016
Stenzel, Carla. “Eyewitness Misidentification: A Mistake
that Blinds Investigations, Sways
Juries, and Lockes Innocent People
Behind Bars.” Academic Search Complete.
EBSCOhost. 1 June 2017. Web. 30
April 2018.
Olney, Maeve and Scott Bonn. "An Exploratory Study of
the Legal and Non-Legal Factors
Associated with Exoneration for
Wrongful Conviction: The Power of DNA Evidence."
Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 26, no. 4, June 2015, pp.
400-420. EBSCOhost, Web. 30th April
2018.
KepplerSpeakers, director. YouTube. YouTube, YouTube, 16 June 2011.
“Justice.” Oxford English. Oxford English. 2018. Accessed. 24th April 2018.
Volokh, Eugene. “Judge Kozinski on Wrongful Convictions and
Excessively Long Sentences.”
The Washington Post, WP Company, 15 July 2015.
Accessed. 2nd May 2018.
Levenson, Eric. “Annie Dookhan, Center of Drug Lab Scandal,
Released from Prison.”
Boston.com, The Boston Globe, 12 Apr. 2016,
“Eyewitness Identification Reform Act.” NCDOJ. NCDOJ. 1 March 20008. Web. 2nd
May 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment