The Rocky Mountain
Innocence Center
Understand the Causes
EYEWITNESS MISIDENTIFICATION
Misidentification is the number one cause of wrongful convictions. Whether by perjury or eyewitness/victim error, innocent people are spending time behind bars for crimes they did not commit. The criminal justice system puts a lot of faith in eyewitness testimony, but there is no way to guarantee their testimony is fact. Only after innocence is proven is it made evident that eyewitness testimony was erroneous. Due to this fact, it is not possible to know the number of wrongful convictions by mistaken identity, because many who are mistakenly identified will never have a chance to prove their innocence. Furthermore, the scope of the problem cannot be known because of instances where prosecutors drop the case or in cases where people are acquitted after reversals on appeal. While appellate decisions are published and readily available online, the problem with trial acquittals or dropped cases, is that they are not systematically catalogued and made public, so there is no way to be sure of the role of eyewitness testimony in those cases.
THE FACTS
In June of 2000, an analysis by the Center on Wrongful Convictions found that of 51 exonerations by DNA testing in the United States and Canada, 76.1% had been based in whole or in part on eyewitness identification testimony.
Another study of 86 exonerated capital cases by the Center on Wrongful Convictions found:
* Of the 86 cases, eyewitness testimony played a role in 46 (53.5%)
* In 33 cases (38.4%), eyewitness identification was the only evidence
* Of the 46 cases that involved eyewitness testimony, 32 cases only had one eyewitness (69.6%), while the remaining 14 cases had multiple eyewitnesses (30.4%)
* In 19 cases (41.3%), the eyewitnesses were strangers, in 9 cases (19.6%), they were non-accomplice acquaintances
For more information, see Eyewitness Testimony.
REMEDIES
There are multiple remedies to minimize the number of wrongful convictions by mistaken identification. The most important remedy is to reform eyewitness identification procedures.
Sequential lineups is one technique that has been increasingly used in eyewitness identification procedures. In a sequential lineup, the witness is shown lineup members one at a time. The witness has to identify whether or not the person is the perpetrator before they can move on to the next person. This method differs from the traditional procedure of the witness viewing all members at once (simultaneous lineup). The sequential lineup procedure has proven to be more accurate because it forces witnesses to use an absolute judgment strategy rather than a relative judgment strategy (where they compare all the members and simply choose the best match from the group). After all, it is certainly possible that the perpetrator is not in the lineup at all.
Poor Defense Lawyering
There are a number of reasons why a defendants defense may not be sufficient:
* Resources in judicial system are stacked against poor defendants.
* Defense lawyers can be ineffective, incompetent, or overburdened with too many cases.
* Overworked lawyers may fail to properly investigate, call key witnesses, or adequately prepare for trial.
* Public defenders and court-appointed attorneys are not able to access adequate resources because of decreased funding
A review of exonerated cases has shown a trail of unacceptable defense lawyering practices at the trial and appeal levels. In some of the worst cases, defense attorneys have:
* Slept in the courtroom during trial
* Been disbarred shortly after finishing a death penalty case
* Failed to investigate alibis
* Failed to call or consult experts on forensic evidence
* Failed to show up for hearings
Public defense offices must be adequately funded and staffed so that attorneys are not required to take on more cases than suggested by ABA guidelines. In order to provide the best possible defense for the accused, state and local funds need to remain substantial. Securing adequate pay for public defenders can improve competency and quality of defense attorneys by insuring that the best attorneys are hired and will remain in those positions as they gain more experience. All defense attorneys must have the training, ability, and desire to provide sincere advocacy for their clients.
FORENSIC MISCONDUCT
False testimony, exaggerated statistics, and laboratory fraud have all led to wrongful convictions. Jurors often give forensic science more weight, because it is provided by experts. However, when misconduct occurs the added weight is damaging and can lead to wrongful convictions. In some cases, labs and their personnel are not impartial, because they are too closely tied to police and prosecutors. Other times, a criminologist who lacks necessary knowledge may exaggerate findings and does not have to worry about being caught because the lawyer, judge, and jury have no background in the relevant science. In many cases, critical evidence is destroyed making re-testing to uncover the misconduct is impossible.
Many people deal with forensic evidence at different stages in the criminal process. Identification, collection, testing, storage, handling, and reporting of evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage:
* At the crime scene, evidence can be planted, destroyed, or mishandled.
* At the forensic lab, evidence can be contaminated, poorly tested, consumed or mislabeled.
* In the report, results can be misrepresented
DNA exonerations have revealed a number of cases where results were reported on evidence when no test was actually done!
Here are some notorious cases of forensic misconduct by scientists, experts, and prosecutors that have lead to wrongful convictions:
* Fred Zain, the former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, testified for the prosecution in 12 states over his career (many in West Virginia and Texas) and has left a trail of fabricated results, false testimony on results, and has willfully omitted evidence from his reports.
* Pamela Fish, a Chicago lab technician, has testified for the prosecution about false matches and suspicious results in at least eight cases that secured convictions, but were later proven innocent by DNA testing.
* The Houston crime lab has been under an ongoing investigation for alleged mishandling of evidence and misreported results.
A number of reforms could limit the number of cases where forensic misconduct occurs. For example, the Innocence Project suggests states impose standards on the preservation and handling of evidence. In addition, when exonerations suggest misconduct of an analyst or that a facility lacked proper procedures or oversight, independent audits of their work in other cases should take place to uncover the possibility of other wrongful convictions.
UNRELIABLE/LIMITED SCIENCE
With the emergence of DNA evidence in the courtroom, experts have begun to call into question the reliability of other forms of science. These older forms of forensic science can show if someone may have committed a crime, but there can never be absolute certainty. Often in cases, forensic science is falsely presented to juries to be 100% reliable, when that is not necessarily the case. Juries are presented with the evidence that matches the prosecutors argument, but are not told that the evidence may be inexact or inaccurate.
The Innocence Project has worked on cases in which:
* Hair evidence was said to microscopically match the defendant and only 1 in 10,000 people; even though it was impossible to prove that statistic, it was nevertheless presented to the jury.
* A scientist told a jury that biological evidence matched the defendants blood type. The jury was not told that 41% of the public also matched the blood type.
* Expert testimony about a bite mark match led an innocent man to death row.
Before DNA, body fluid from crime scenes was collected and tested for blood type, in a practice known as serology. It could only determine whether a suspect was a member of the population of potential donors who could have deposited fluids at a crime scene. In many DNA exonerated cases, serologists failed to disclose the limited reliability of the test or misapplied statistics. In such cases, juries were misled by the testimony and innocent people were convicted. The use of DNA has proven that these tests are unreliable and frequently produce erroneous results.
INFORMANT TESTIMONY
In more than 15% of DNA exonerations, a snitch or informant testified against the defendant to help secure a conviction.
People have been wrongly convicted in cases where the snitch:
* Was paid to testify
* Testified in exchange for being released from prison
* Testified that they overheard a confession or witnessed the crime
It comes as no surprise that snitches lie or fabricate on the stand. For a desperate, unemployed inmate, incentives like a shortened sentence or payment are very appealing. When faced with possible jail time, snitches will testify on the prosecutors behalf as a means to avoid incarceration. Their testimony can literally make or break a case when no other hard evidence is involved.
Reforms are needed that do not weigh unreliable snitch testimony so heavily for juries. Possible remedies are: assessing the credibility of the informant and revealing their prior history to the jury, electronically record all meetings with the informant, and ensure the snitch does not have access to sensitive case information.
FALSE CONFESSIONS
In more than 25% of exonerated cases, defendants made incriminating statements or gave outright confessions to crimes that DNA evidence proves they did not commit.
During police investigations there are many reasons why defendants give false confessions:
* Duress
* Coercion
* Intoxication
* Diminished capacity
* Mental impairment
* Ignorance of the law
* Fear of violence
* Infliction of harm by interrogator
* Threat of harsh sentence
* Misunderstanding of situation
MENTAL STATE OF CONFESSOR
* Juvenile confessions are often unreliable, because children can be easily manipulated or do not fully understand the situation. Both juveniles and adults think that they can go home if they just confess.
* People with disabilities are likely to give a false confession, because they are tempted to accommodate and respect authority. In addition, most interrogators lack the training to question people who are mentally disabled, which can lead to false confessions.
* Lengthy interrogations or exhaustion can also cause people to falsely confess. Some also believe that they can confess now and go home and worry about proving their actual innocence later.
All interrogations should be electronically recorded with audio and video. These recordings help both prosecutors and defense lawyers accurately portray the confession of the accused while also identifying false confessions.
© 2009 Rocky Mountain Innocence Center
358 South 700 East, B235, Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Phone: 801-355-1888 E-Mail: RMIC_Qwest.net
