Posts Tagged ‘eyewitness misidentification’

« Older Entries

Jerry Lee Jenkins Exonerated in Maryland

Anna Fitzpatrick — June 12, 2013 @ 9:11 AM — Comments (1)

After serving more than ten years in prison and spending time on the sex offender registry, the Charles County Circuit Court vacated Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project (MAIP) client Jerry Lee Jenkins of his 1986 rape conviction and dismissed all charges against him! DNA testing both proved he was innocent of the crime and that another man, Norman Bruce Derr, was the real perpetrator.

Jenkins was convicted despite the victim testifying at trial that he only looked like her attacker and that she could not be positive that it was him. Furthermore, he had been excluded as the perpetrator of an eerily similar 1984 rape that both the Charles County Police and FBI believed to have been committed by the same person as the 1986 rape.

DNA testing being in its infancy at the time of the trial, the testing done at that time was unable to obtain a result. When Jenkins requested a re-test in the mid-1990′s, he was told the evidence did not exist – something he would continue to be told for the next fifteen years.

In 2006, he learned that Derr had been convicted of the 1984 rape based on a DNA cold hit. It was then that Jenkins wrote to the MAIP, which took him on as a non-DNA case. In 2010, before filing a non-DNA innocence claim based on the Derr evidence, MAIP attempted one last search for DNA evidence. Miraculously, Charles County police were able to locate a box of physical evidence containing a hair. Subsequent testing confirmed the semen in the 1986 case belonged to Derr.

Jenkins had been previously released from prison, but he’s elated to be off the sex offender registry and have the stigma of the rape removed from his record.

Congratulations to Mr. Jenkins, the MAIP, and everyone involved in the case!

exoneration,justice, , , ,


Court Orders Review of 50+ Brooklyn Murder Cases

Anna Fitzpatrick — May 23, 2013 @ 9:55 AM — Comments (0)

Often times, wrongful convictions stem from shady police and detective practices, such as contaminated confessions and false eyewitness identification. Such practices are difficult to reform, especially when the public turns a blind eye to such corruptions.

These issues have reached a boil for acclaimed New York City homicide detective Louis Scarcella, an officer who handled some of Brooklyn’s most notorious crimes during the 1980s and 90s. Following the New York Times’ discovery of disturbing patterns in about a dozen of his cases, the Brooklyn district attorney’s office has ordered a review of more than 50 murder cases assigned to Scarcella, an acknowledgment of mounting questions about the officer’s tactics and the legitimacy of the convictions.

One particularly alarming pattern is the use of a single eyewitness, Ms. Teresa Gomez, a drug addict born in Trinidad, for several separate murders. In the late 1980s Ms. Gomez testified that she saw drug dealer Robert Hill commit two separate murders. Both times, she was the only eyewitness. Despite admitting outright that she lied during the first trial, Mr. Hill was still convicted. Ms. Gomez resurfaced for the trial of Mr. Hill’s stepbrothers, Darryl Austin and Alvena Jennette, a trial that also ended in conviction. According to Scarcella, she has testified in at least six cases and he has nothing but praise for her.

Scarcella may also have engaged in questionable tactics to elicit information from witnesses or suspects, or even completely fabricate testimonies. This was the case with Shabaka Shakur, who was convicted based on an incriminating statement Scarcella claims to have obtained during his interrogation, although the underlying interrogation notes were missing. Witnesses and suspects alike have come forward to claim that they were threatened and coerced into testifying how Scarcella coached them.

The incongruities in his cases shed a light on gaping flaws in the criminal justice system. The fact the the cases are under review suggests a much-needed move towards reformation. Improving fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system benefits all segments of society. Victims and their families can see justice; prosecutors and police can have the tools to do their jobs well; the public can have more confidence in the system; and innocent people and their families can avoid the tragedy of wrongful convictions.

Read the full article here.

 

justice,policy, , , , , , , ,


MAYDAY: A Call of the Innocent

Ileejah Hutchinson — May 21, 2013 @ 3:20 PM — Comments (0)

Mayday, mayday, mayday!

This universal call is used to signal and aid individuals who are in distress and seeking assistance. The term is mainly used by marines and aviators; however, in some countries it is also used by law enforcement, fire departments and transportation groups.

The mayday call, which originated in the early 1920s, comes from the French words “venez m’iader,” which means “come and help me.” After a mayday call is given and if there is no response from the coast guard or any person designated to assist within two minutes, any person who hears the call for distress is required to perform a mayday relay, which is a call by one vessel on behalf of another.

IPF has vigorously worked for 10 years to aid persons in distress as a result of wrongful convictions. Exonerees such as, Orlando Boquete, William Dillon and Derrick Williams, to name a few, are perfect examples of successful mayday relays.

The United States of America prides itself on having the best criminal justice system in the world. Sadly it has been proven time and time again that the system is not immune to human error and in some cases, willful misconduct by prosecutors and law enforcement, and outright lies by jailhouse snitches. An innocent person, generally, believes that the justice system will do nothing but protect them, and do its best to eradicate the actual criminals.

Boquete, Dillon and Williams, collectively, spent 58 years in prison before their “mayday calls” were answered. Like all exonerees, Dillon made multiple cries for help; “to anyone who might listen” is how Dillon describes his desperate pleas. Finally with the help of IPF and assistant public defender Mike Pirolo, DNA testing on a key piece of evidence proved that Dillon was innocent. Dillon’s distress calls were finally answered after more than 27 years.

Williams’ sister-in-law took the first step in successfully performing a mayday relay on his behalf. With the help of IPF, Williams was finally able to go home after serving 18 years in prison.

Later this week Orlando will celebrate the 7th anniversary of his exoneration – the day his call for help was answered.

Place yourself in the shoes of Boquete, Dillon, or Williams – imagine spending years locked away from loved ones, family and friends; imagine not being able to fulfill the goals you mapped out for yourself; imagine not being able to make choices of what to eat and where to go. The small things we take for granted everyday are the things they missed, because the system failed and they were convicted of crimes they did not commit.

Because prosecutors, judges, and the State have turned their backs and ignore the cries of the innocent, IPF will continue to respond to mayday calls from those in Florida’s prisons.

It is everyone’s obligation to assist after hearing a mayday call, a cry from the wrongfully convicted, a cry that will prove to be the first step in unlocking the truth. Your assistance can be in many forms – share this post, tell others about IFP and our work, and provide financial support so we can bring home the innocent still in prison.

exoneration,Innocence Project of Florida,justice,prison, , , , , , ,


Former Police Captain Exonerated After 15 Years in Ohio Prison

Jessica — January 30, 2013 @ 10:33 AM — Comments (0)

Persons who have been wrongfully convicted often speak of what kept them going while incarcerated. Some find hope through music, their families, or higher powers. For Douglas Prade, it was a diary. In it contained the names of all the students who worked on his case during the past ten years. Every year he would add new names and cross out previous ones, giving him hope that one day he would be a free man.

After many years of appeals and applications for post-conviction DNA, Prade was declared innocent and walked out court a free man on January 29, 2013 for the murder of his wife. Congratulations to all involved. The Ohio Innocence Project worked feverishly for years in order to produce a compelling case with DNA results against the State of Ohio for his wrongful conviction.

Margo Prade was a highly respected doctor and Doug Prade was a police captain awaiting a promotion to become Akron, Ohio’s newest police chief.

In November of 1997, Dr. Margo Prade was found fatally shot in her car outside her medical facility in Akron. Testimony from two eyewitnesses that placed him at the scene of the crime as well as a forensic dentist claiming the bite mark on Margo’s jacket belonged to Doug, left him with little hope.

In 1998, Judge Mary Spicer sentenced Douglas to a life in prison for aggravated murder.

As one of the largest high profile murder cases in Ohio, Douglas Prade maintained his innocence. Douglas filed multiple applications for post-conviction DNA testing. In 2010, testing was granted; the Court declared new methods had arose which had invalidated previous DNA testing done in the murder case. After expert testimony and questioning was completed, Judge Judy Hunter claimed, “the evidence was clear and convincing.” The DNA testing performed on the sleeve of Margo’s lab coat eliminated the possibility of Douglas as the victim’s killer. In that moment, the Court overturned his convictions and was ordered to be released from prison.

Congratulations to Douglas Prade and to the Ohio Innocence Project as their hard work and dedication made this exoneration possible.

exoneration, , , , , , , , ,


Eyewitness Misidentification: The Most Unreliable Form of Evidence

WSainvil — November 28, 2012 @ 11:06 AM — Comments (0)

Between 1977 and 1979 the Bird Road Rapist haunted State Road 976 in Florida, attacking over 25 women.

In 1980 Luis Diaz, a husband and father of three, was named the Bird Road Rapist and convicted of eight charges of rape. The identification and testimonies from eight victims landed Diaz with multiple life sentences.

During the 26 years he was imprisoned, Diaz maintained his innocence and was adamant that he was innocent of all charges. As his story began to travel, suspicions about the case began to surface, notably because Diaz didn’t match the original description given by the witnesses.

Even though two witnesses recanted their statements, it wasn’t until 2005 that Diaz was exonerated as a result of DNA testing.

“Eyewitness misidentification is the most unreliable form of evidence; however, it’s the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions, accounting for 75 percent of convictions that have been overturned by DNA Evidence.”  -Innocence Project

More than a third of the cases with eyewitness testimony involved multiple eyewitnesses. In Luis Diaz’s case, eight women identified him as their attacker, and all eight were wrong.
Exoneree Misidentifications

Research and Science

In most criminal cases, an eyewitness is crucial to the outcome of the trial. A strong witness could essentially lead to a win. However, the research has shown that many inaccuracies lie within the practice.

During the past 30 years, psychologists have found several variables that contribute to eyewitness misidentification.  Here are a few of their findings:

Estimator vs. Systematic Variables

Gary A. Wells, an American psychologist, has conducted extensive research on eyewitness memory and identification. His Applied Eye-Witness Testimony research, in which he differentiates estimator and systematic variables, has been highly cited and used to further understand the errors of eyewitness identification.

Estimator Variables are aspects of eyewitness identification that can’t be controlled by the criminal justice system. It includes where the crime took place, visibility, and if a weapon was present during an assault. Research has shown that victims tend to focus more on the weapon than the assailant’s face during an attack.

Another major estimator variable is race. It has been noted that it’s more difficult to identify a stranger of a different race than one’s own. For example, white Americans have more trouble identifying black Americans than they do whites and vice versa. The reasoning relies more on exposure to other races rather than prejudices.

Systematic Variables are aspects that can be controlled by the criminal justice system. It includes the way lineups are conducted, how police interact with the witness, and other identification procedures. The research behind systematical variables is far more advanced than estimator variables because it is more valuable to understand what the legal system can do to prevent misidentification.

Controlling Systematic Variables

The U.S Department of Justice released Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement  in 1999 that could help improve the facilitation of identification procedures. The guide suggests how investigators should conduct themselves and the investigation from initial report of the crime to the documentation of line up results.  The research conducted has made an impact that has lead to some changes; however, in order to fully control systematic variables, there are many reforms still needed.

Sequential vs Simultaneous Lineups

Sequential lineups are conducted when the witness is shown one member of the lineup at a time, whereas, in simultaneous lineups all members are presented at the same time. Research has found less errors are made when a sequential line up is administered.

A negative factor eliminated with sequential lineups is relative judgement.  During lineups witnesses tend to compare lineup participants with one another instead of their memory of the assailant. This leads the witness to choose a person who resembles their assailant more than the others, but not the person who resembles the assailant in their memory.

Eliminating Biased Lineups

There are many different elements that contribute to a biased lineup such as line up size, fillers, and who administrates it. Luckily, there are solutions that can eliminate most biases that can lead to a misidentification.

“A lineup is biased when a witness with a poor (or absent) memory is able to guess the identity of the suspect at a rate greater than chance expectation” -Roy S. Malpass and Colin G. Tredoux

A correct lineup size and arrangement is critical to achieve a non-biased line up. The Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement suggest a minimum of five fillers during a lineup. A filler is a person who is not a suspect but is used in a lineup to eliminate errors. All fillers should match the witness’s description. A lineup will become biased when the suspect stands out among all the other members participating.

Double Blind Administration

History has shown that there are some officers of the law who are completely bias in their line of work; however, this isn’t true for all police. Even the most honorable officer can influence a witness without intentionally doing so.

Wells first suggested double blind lineups in 1988; both scientists and the Innocence Projects around the country agree it’s one of the best way to eliminate biases.

A double blind administration is one where the person administering the lineup has no idea who the suspect is. Sometimes detectives can send nonverbal signs (a smile or a frown) to a witness during the procedure and is completely unaware that he is doing so.

In a double blind the lineup, most of the nonverbal communication will be eliminated because the administrator is as unaware as the witness that the suspect may or may not be included in the lineup.

Picking Cotton

In 1985 Ronald Cotton was convicted on two counts of rape and two counts of burglary. He was sentenced to 54 years in prison.

One of his victims, Jennifer Thompson,made it a priority to study her assailant’s face during her attack. She wanted to to memorize as much about him as possible so when the time came, she would be able to identify him.

However, just like in the Diaz case, Thompson was wrong and DNA evidence is what finally proved Cotton’s innocence.

“I had contributed to taking away 11 years of this man’s life, and if indeed we had been wrong–I felt so bad.” -Jennifer Thompson

Even after it was proven that Cotton was innocent and the real perpetrator, Bobby Poole, was identified, Thompson still had difficulties accepting the fact that Cotton wasn’t her attacker.

“I don’t know. The DNA tests, the science tells me that we had the wrong guy. It was Bobby Poole. Ronald Cotton says it is not him, it was Bobby Poole. They do look very similar, it is almost frightening how similar they look to each other… I don’t know. I really don’t know. I have to accept the answer that has been given to me and put faith in our system.”

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/file.php?path=/images/CQ_Researcher/r20090417-poolecotton.jpg

Bobby Poole            Ronald Cotton

Today, Thompson and Cotton travel the United States pushing for legal reforms. They have published a book together, Picking Cotton, which goes in depth about the experiences of both authors.

A Step Forward for Florida

In Florida eyewitness misidentification was a contributing factor in 10 out of 13 (77 percent) of the DNA exonerations, two points higher than the national average.

On Dec. 29, 2011, the Committee on Standard Jury Instruction in Criminal Cases proposed a set of instructions to be given to jurors on eyewitness identification. The proposal was adopted by the Florida Supreme Court on Nov. 21, 2012.

Instructions are to be given to jurors if eyewitness identification is a disputed issue and if requested. Jurors are asked to consider the credibility of the witness by questioning any inconsistent identifications made by the witness, if the difference in the offender’s and eyewitness’s race or ethnic group may have affected the accuracy of the identification, whether the identification was based on the witness’s memory or a result of influences or suggestiveness, and six other factors.

When the proposal was made, the Innocence Project of Florida filed comments pointing out the inadequacies of the instructions.The comment filed reads:

While the committee’s proposed jury instruction touches on a number of important considerations for a jury evaluating eyewitness evidence, the proposed instruction is inadequate in two principle ways: (1) it is not a cautionary instruction as it doesn’t warn the jury of the dangers inherent in eyewitness evidence, nor (2) does it provide any comprehensive guidance on how jurors should weigh certain factors arising in cases with eyewitness evidence.

Although there is more that can be done, IPF’s CEO, Mike Minerva, acknowledges that this is a step in the right direction.

Your Thoughts

The science and facts prove that convicting a person solely on an eyewitnesses identification and testimony can be faulty. Yet, people are still are convicted based on one person’s identification. What changes to eyewitness identification do you think should be implemented in order to prevent innocent people from being imprisoned?

Innocence Project of Florida,justice,litigation,policy, , , , , , , ,


Damon Thibodeaux: The 300th DNA Exoneree in the U.S.

Jordan — October 09, 2012 @ 10:00 AM — Comments (0)

As of Friday, the efforts of the Innocence Project made Damon A. Thibodeaux the 300th person in the US that DNA evidence has assisted in exonerating. DNA exonerees collectively total 4,013 years of wrongful imprisonment. Thirty-three of them were under 18 when they were arrested.

Thiboreaux walks out of prison

Damon Thibodeaux is the 300th DNA Exoneree. ~courtesy of Fox

The Innocence Project released a statement about Thibodeaux’s exoneration. In this quote, they try to look for the positive outcomes of all the innocent years spent in vein:

Fortunately, there are simple, common sense reforms that can prevent wrongful convictions and make sure law enforcement is focused on identifying the true perpetrators of crime. We owe it to the 300 men and women who have been exonerated to pass these reforms to help make sure that our criminal justice system is as accurate as possible. Fixing the system protects everyone because it ensures that the innocent go free and the real perpetrators are locked up and unable to commit other crimes.

People commonly assume that those who plead guilty must be guilty. Why would they say they did a crime they did not do? However, 28 of the 300 DNA exonerees pled guilty to the crimes they were convicted of despite their innocence. Thiboreaux is one of them.

In considering the textbook-botched job multiple parties did on Thibodeaux’s case, we can be thankful that he was saved from death row. He will no longer spend 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, waiting to be killed in accordance with Louisiana’s assessment of the murder and rape of his 14-year-old step-cousin, Crystal Champagne. Without the efforts of the Innocence Project and his attorneys he would have died because of eyewitness misidentification and police interrogation in the form of threats, lies, and a forced false confession.

2007-2012: The Period of Reinvestigation

The Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s Office agreed to investigate what caused Thibodeaux’s imprisonment when his legal team and the Innocence Project brought evidence of his innocence to the District Attorney’s attention.

“I didn’t know that I had done it, but I done it,” Thibodeaux confessed to police in 1997.

They interrogated him for almost nine hours to glean this confession. Before he was convicted, he tried to retract his confession. However, the same judge that recently exonerated him would not hear his retraction and sentenced him.

Thibodeaux has now said: “At that point I was tired. I was hungry. All I wanted to do was sleep, and I was willing to tell them anything they wanted me to tell them if it would get me out of that interrogation room.”

The eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen a man pacing around the area where Champagne’s body was found identified Thibodeaux as that man. But the trial did not reveal the two defeating details of this identification. The news broadcasted Thibodeaux’s picture the day before on TV, and he was already in custody when the witnesses claimed to have seen him.

The Cord on the Tree

The victim was found with a piece of red electrical cord around her neck. It had been burned off of a larger piece of cord found on the tree above where police found her body.

During the interrogations, police used leading questions to provoke an exhausted suspect to admit to actions that agreed with the evidence from the crime scene. They revealed non-public details about the crime with these questions. So Thibodeaux revealed in his confession that he knew details that presumably only the police and perpetrator knew about, which lead to the jury’s conclusion that he must be the perpetrator.  It is sneaky and effective method, as it has been for plenty of other innocent people sent to prison.

He should not have known about the cord in the tree. Thibodeaux, in his confession, said he used a gray speaker wire from his car to strangle her. Even though he messed up the details, this was still enough for a conviction.

The cord tested positive for having blood on it in the original investigation, but it was not DNA tested. When later tested, it revealed the presence of male DNA that did not match that of Thibodeaux.

Outdated Science

Not only did he take a polygraph—which is a highly questionable assessment of the truth for how easy it is to tell the exact opposite truth—he was told at a later time that he failed the test.

The prosecution’s expert knew that he had been threatened with the death penalty during interrogation and confessed in spite of it. The defense never found out. The police also only recorded 54 minutes out of the 8 1/2 hour interrogation.

Read The Sky Valley Chronicle’s article on Thibodeaux’s release.

exoneration,post-conviction,Science,Uncategorized, , , , ,


Sole Faulty Eyewitness ID Uncovered; Saves Deportation

Jordan — September 25, 2012 @ 1:42 PM — Comments (0)

Only a few days before he was to be deported back to Sierra Leone, West Africa, Maligie Conteh’s conviction for armed robbery was overturned. He was arrested and has been incarcerated since November 24, 2009 solely based on a single eyewitness misidentification. The judge is now so convinced of Conteh’s innocence that he will acquit him if the Attorney General’s Office wants a new trial.

The crime – two black men, one with a knife, stole Alfredo Cordona-Lopez’s wallet containing $150 – happened around 6 p.m. in a parking garage of the Plaza at Landmark shopping center in Virginia. Considering it was not daylight savings time and the time of year (November), it is easy to know that it was either dusk or close to nightfall when the crime occurred.

While Cordona-Lopez was telling police at the scene of the crime that the man with the knife was wearing a gray hoodie and white tennis shoes, he saw Conteh riding by on his bike, wearing a black, hoodless jacket and flip-flops. His identification is even more “amazing” considering it was definitely dark by this time and Conteh was probably riding at a distance from the interview. The police arrested him and did not find a knife or any money on him.

And I have not even mentioned that the identification of Conteh happened only 15 minutes after the crime. This means if he had committed the crime, it would mean he ran to stash the money and knife somewhere where he was able to change his clothes and pick up a bike.

This is a 22-year-old guy who, in his home country of Sierra Leone, escaped a rebel ambush that killed his step-sister and -father. He sends money to his relatives still in the country. He also was waiting for an acceptance letter from the U.S. Marine Corps. These inarguable characteristics do not match that of a thief.

But the argument for Conteh only gets better and renders his ability to have stashed the knife and money physically impossible. Ten minutes after the crime, Conteh posted a photo on Facebook from his friend’s house, which was located about a half-mile away from the crime scene. Again, consider the timeline – if he had committed the crime, he would have had to run to his friend’s house, stash the knife and money, change his clothes, take a calm photo and post it, and ride a bike a half-mile back to the crime scene.

The Innocence Project Clinic at the University of Virginia Law School helped with overturning Conteh’s case. His trial attorney never presented the Facebook alibi during his trial. However, it seems Judge Randy L. Bellows doubted the conviction of Conteh when he learned more about the credibility of Cordona-Lopez .

“Just a month before the robbery, the alleged victim had himself been charged with possessing fraudulent documents and driver’s license which would have caused the judge to doubt his testimony,” said Dierdre Enright, Director of the UVA’s Innocence Project Clinic.

Pro-bono attorney Anand Ramana and the UVA Innocence Project Clinic said prosecutors “unintentionally” failed to reveal this information during the convicting trial. The Attorney General said this information was available to the public, so they did not have to disclose it.

Prosecutors persisted that maybe someone else made the Facebook post for Conteh. That is not argument enough to defeat all of the other circumstances, because they have no proof that was what happened. The Facebook post is simply an augmentation to his alibi. The defense has apparently never presented or wasn’t allowed to present anything about faulty eyewitness identification and all of the estimator variables—factors that exist during the time of the identification and are out of the investigation’s control—that distract the witness’s attention.

Cordona-Lopez’s identification of Conteh was inaccurate due to weapons-focus, which says that the weapon the perpetrator is holding during the crime steals the attention of the victim and/or witness. While I explained Cordona-Lopez’s moment of identifying Conteh I touched on multiple other estimator variables, like the fact that it was dark out and Conteh was riding on a bike—therefore in motion.

The Cavalier Daily wrote about Conteh’s release. Two other articles from the Washington Post give a little more background to this story, on his own story and the details of the crime.

justice, , , , , , , , ,


New Jersey Mandates Jurors Know Witness ID Precautions

Jordan — August 06, 2012 @ 12:05 PM — Comments (0)

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently released new standard jury instructions in recognition of the need to provide better guidance to jurors on how to properly evaluate the myriad variables that affect the reliability of eyewitness evidence. These instructions inform jurors of the numerous system and estimator variables that may exist in a case and may cause a misidentification.

System variables are those within the control of the criminal justice system, such as the the procedures used to collect the eyewitness identification or whether the photo lineup administrator introduced suggestiveness into the lineup procedure that had the affect of implying the identity of law enforcement’s known suspect. Estimator variables, on the other hand, are those variables that are not in control of the criminal justice system and have more to do with the the conditions or characteristics of the crime scene, witness and perpetrator, i.e., the viewing conditions during the crime, whether the perpetrator had a weapon, or whether a co-witness contaminated the eyewitness’ memory.  Social scientists have studied these variables and measured how their existence in a criminal case may affect the reliability of an eyewitness identification.

For New Jersey, the 2011 decision in State v. Henderson revealed the need for these instructions in assessing the reliability eyewitness IDs. The Henderson litigation presented the New Jersey Supreme Court with complicated scientific arguments about memory and human behavior, and the Court felt ill equipped to decide the case without a broader record on which to do so.  So the Court took the unprecedented step to remand the case back to a special judge to hear three weeks of evidence from the nation’s most prominent social scientists and make scientific findings of fact about the existence of the variables and how they affect the reliability of eyewitness evidence.  The result of this endeavor was a comprehensive opinion by the Court and a charge to New Jersey’s jury instruction committee to come up with enhanced instructions that would best explain these scientific concepts to jurors.

The Committee’s work is split into three separate instructions, each giving identification assessment precautions pending the location of where the ID was collected: in court only; in court and out of court; and out of court only. Each instruction lists all of the variables and provides guidance on how jurors should consider that variable’s affect on the case.  The judge need not read the entire list of instructions before the presentation of each witness ID. Rather, must only provide the instruction as to variables that apply to the case. Opponents of making these instructions mandatory have suggested they would take up too much judicial time to recite, but the New Jersey Supreme Court obviously did not find this argument persuasive.

Based on a suggestion from the Florida Innocence Commission, the Florida Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions also came up with their own version of an eyewitness identification jury instruction. IPF executive director, Seth Miller, filed a public comment outlining major deficiencies with the proposed instruction and proposing the New Jersey instruction as a model.  We are awaiting action by the Florida Supreme Court.

Read the full article on the N.J. Supreme Court’s imposing sweeping changes in crime witness testimony.

How do you think such instructions would help jurors in Florida better assess the reliability of eyewitness evidence?

judicial,policy, , , , ,


Research challenging eyewitness ID reforms

Jordan — June 07, 2012 @ 8:25 AM — Comments (2)

Psychologist urges reforms to consider what might be lost

University of California, Riverside psychologist Steven E. Clark released an article questioning what he observes as the “no-cost” view of the new eyewitness identification reforms. The article does not use overly complex language and helps reformers consider fully legitimizing their propositions. Clark’s main observation is that the new reforms are decided to be the best, because they seem to identify the actual perpetrator in the best way, but they do not consider the correct identifications that could have been made by the old procedures. The reforms should be implemented if it is worse to misidentify an innocent person than lose a correct identification.

He asks for more research to be done to legitimize the reforms. The reforms work towards the goal of getting witnesses to correctly identify suspects as closely as possible to their memory, unaffected by outside factors. Clark does not doubt the reforms have good intentions and are designed to avoid outside factors like they suggest they will, he just calls for more support.

If anything, maybe the justice system should be more speculative of witness identifications, even after the reforms ensue. Less weight should be given to them. The reforms are changing a process that has been a major part of the criminal process for quite some time, why not change the way they are viewed as well?

Science, , , ,


Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?

Jordan — May 18, 2012 @ 9:21 AM — Comments (0)

A multi-year team of researchers from Columbia Law School have just released a book-length monograph that thoroughly addresses the probable innocence of the 1989 Texas executee, Carlos DeLuna. The article shows how this case represented a poor judicial process in every facet imaginable.

All of the obvious details are captured in the work, called Los Tocayos Carlos (The Carlos Namesake) and can be found at: http://thewrongcarlos.net. The name reflects how all crime evidence and current personal testimonies that professor James Liebman and a team of students observe point to another man named Carlos—Carlos Hernandez. DeLuna was charged for stabbing and killing of gas station cashier Wanda Lopez. Even though he and Hernandez had histories of crime and together the night of this crime, Hernandez’s history was of the violent type. The knife used in this murder, one later described by his then girlfriend as his prized possession, was seemingly the same one he was later sent to jail for using in a 1989 assault.

By inclusion of more recent video interviews, the site reveals how everyone who lived in the neighborhood of Hernandez, now deceased, knew him as violent. Neighbor Janie Adrian recounts him bragging about killing Lopez. But it seems that back then, neighbors either feared him too much to approach court or did not realize how they were able to help.

Hernandez even called DeLuna his tocayo (twin or namesake); Hernandez knew DeLuna was shouldering the blame. Both looked very much alike; so much so that family and friends found their photos indistinguishable. Absolutely no serious forensic evidence went into the conviction. Two nighttime, cross-ethnic eyewitness reporters later identified him by photo. One merely claimed DeLuna was playing with a knife outside the station. The other man saw a Hispanic man run out of the gas station after stabbing Lopez and described him as having threatened him and wearing a flannel shirt and a gray sweatshirt, something Hernandez was known for wearing. DeLuna was later found shirtless but had apparently been wearing a white-long sleeved shirt. Even a then local police detective, Eddie Garza, points out that the prosecutor did not believe Hernandez was a real person, though obviously he was known by police in the area.

Perhaps the most striking video on the site provides a Texas death house chaplain’s account of how DeLuna even maintained his innocence before laying to lethal injection. He also told journalist Karen Boudrie-Evers, who continuously interviewed him while on death row, in his last phone call immediately before injection that he did not do it.

This monograph is equally relevant to cases today, as evidence viewed superficially can lead to assumption and a resistance to critical thinking. Such human self-righteousness in the affecters of discipline paired with a suspect’s bad history close all minds to the opportunity of true justice. Look into the fascinating facts the website listed above presents and decide for yourself whether or not an innocent man was executed in Texas.

justice,prison,Uncategorized, , , , , ,

« Older Entries
© Copyright Innocence Project of Florida, Inc. This web site is supported in part by grants from The Florida Bar Foundation.