Wrongful convictions are a miscarriage of justice in which an innocent person is convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned or even executed for a crime they did not commit. Wrongful convictions happen at all levels, from misdemeanor to death penalty, the evidence shows thousands of people have been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned throughout the history of the United States Judicial Systems. There are several independent and combination reasons for wrongful convictions, along with options for those convicted to appeal the rulings. However, for all the progress we make as a society in our judicial systems, we still fail dozens of people a year (going by the optimistic numbers that don’t account for those yet undiscovered).
What causes wrongful convictions? Usually a combination of factors. The leading cause is Eyewitness Misidentification, being linked to about 75% of cases. Any entry level psychology course will show, human memory is flawed, research shows that people neither ‘record’ events ‘in play’, nor later ‘recall’ them exactly as they happened. Memories distort and degrade under stress and over time. Also, they are also easily contaminated by preconceptions and other people. There are also those convicted due to the witnesses knowingly lying for the purpose of convicting the accused, for varying personal reasons.
Junk Science is when scientific methods are used to prove guilt, however, the methods used are not properly regulated, come with inadequate validation of their reliability or significance, are preformed by under-qualified labs and/or technicians, and some are due to unethical practices, incompetence or plain sloppiness. Overall, they do not hold to proper scientific standards. ‘Proper’ scientific examinations have freed hundreds of wrongfully convicted people.
DNA forensics is the most regulated in it’s testing methods, however, the other methods vary greatly from there. “A subsequent review identified forensic science testing errors in 63% of the wrongful convictions and false or misleading testimony by forensic experts in 27%” (Giannelli, Paul, 2011.) Like everything in the justice system, the science is only as accurate as the human producing the results.
False Confessions are another cause of wrongful convictions, being involved in about 25% of cases, a third of which were juveniles. Regardless the confessors age, race, mental state, and so on, most have one thing in common, at some point they decided confessing was easier than fighting to show their innocents. Then, there are those who think they are helping someone (taking the blame or feel responsible though they are not), as well as those who are mentally ill, and others who would have less interest or ability to appeal or be known of.
False confessions can also go hand and hand with Government Misconduct. Improper interview techniques, such as denying access to a lawyer, mistreating the detainee, taking advantage of a member of an ‘at risk’ community (mentally challenged, Juvenal, the elderly, etc…). Up to outright ignoring evidence to the contrary and proceeding, evidence planting and tampering (with evidence, witnesses, and so on.). Government misconduct is arguably the most reprehensible cause for wrongful convictions.
Snitches, witnesses who testify for an incentive, have caused the conviction of about 19% of the cases overturned. Often times, juries are unaware that a witness is a snitch, weather it’s time off their sentence, privileges, or just monetary compensation, knowing testimony is ‘bought’ can make a big difference in it’s credibility. While there is a generally held code among inmates not to snitch, it happens regularly, more often when rewarded.
And, even if none of the aforementioned effects someone, wrongful convictions can come simply from having a Bad Lawyer. Weather under-prepared, under-skilled, overworked or what-have-you, a bad lawyer can be all it takes to put an innocent person in jail or prison.
Cameron Todd Willingham’s case shows how several of these factors can play into a false conviction and execution. Mr. Willingham (a widower) was convicted of the arson murder of his three daughters, and sentenced to death in 1991. A heater in the girl’s bedroom ignited a house fire in the night, Mr. Willingham was the only survivor. He maintained he woke in the night to the smoke, and upon failing to get the girl’s bedroom door open he ran outside as the fire engulfed the house. The prosecution argued the (non-forensic) arson investigation showed acceleration points, had burned fast and hot, and was set intentionally. They also produced a cell-mate, Johnny Webb, witness to testify that Willingham had confessed to him. During sentencing a psychologist, James Grigson, cited a skull and serpent tattoo and band posters as evidence to sociopath tendencies, along with his erratic behavior in the moments and days following the fire. They claimed financial gain as motive.
In appeals, it was brought up that the psychologist that testified, had been expelled from the field since, for unethical behavior. Gerald Hurst (a renowned forensic-arson expert) reexamined all the physical evidence and could refute and discredit every piece with peer-reviewed and repeatable testing methods. Other fire investigators had also found the same evidence during a previous appeal. There was even another fire due to a faulty heater (the same model), that left an identical burn pattern (the main citation for arson evidence), while he was on death row. The Texas Governor at the time, Rick Perry, is accused of impeding the writ of habeas corpus investigation. He’s said to have replaced three commission members, to sway the findings, to uphold the conviction. The DA in the case has been accused of suppressing evidence that could have provided reasonable doubt, and the witness has been recorded stating he lied in his testimony, in exchange for time off his own sentence. Mr. Willingham was executed in 2004.
What can be done if wrongfully convicted of a crime? If sentenced to death, one at least has the benefit that ‘exhausting the appeals’ is mandatory. Though, 2% (that have been proven) of the death row population has been wrongfully executed, since the death penalty’s reinstatement in 1976. Another 12% of those sentenced to death, since reinstatement, have been exonerated prior to execution. The first step regardless of conviction level is to decide who one appeals through, weather one goes through a non-profit, personal lawyers, or independently. The Innocents project for example (non-profit), will only accept cases where the defendant is ‘fully innocent’. Other organizations will help in situations such as ‘it wasn’t murder, it was self-defense’, if they feel it holds merit and aligns with their core values. Some of these groups are non-profit and free or financially assisted, others are not. Privet attorneys will take any case they feel they can win, but unless it’s through a pro-bono (which can narrow eligibility), this is often too expensive for most inmates to maintain. The prisoner can also file with the courts directly on their own behalf, without a lawyer (most frequented method).
The prisoner must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the courts, including the facts of the case and the evidence to their being held illegally (wrongfully convicted). The petition can be filed by mail, online, or in person with a filing fee. Some states waive this fee for the first few filings or if the petitioner is deemed unable to afford it (though there is a limited number of times this applies to each case), the costs involved are one reason some inmates stop trying to appeal. If one is using a lawyer or has found an organization to aid them, they would send their petition to them, they would then review it for validity and likelihood of the case being overturned. The review process takes several months in non-profit organizations, but can be much faster through personal lawyers, there is no official review process for direct filing by a prisoner.
Once the petition is filed the courts serve it, in that the party claimed to be at fault (facility/warden) for the wrongful detention in question, is informed of the petition and the courts decision as to rather they need to provide a response. From here, a judge takes the petition into consideration to decide rather to elevate it into a writ, or to dismiss it.
Once a petition becomes a writ, a hearing is set. The hearing is a full trial with evidence and witnesses. It can involve a jury, but only it’s focus is the wrongful conviction, not the original crime involved. The outcome of this hearing is the ruling. If denied, and the conviction upheld, the prisoner can start the process over with new findings or evidence. Many inmates give up at this point due to funding and lack of new evidence.
Wrongful convictions can be fought, but it is difficult, time consuming, and expencive to win. The more appropriate correction is with the original conviction processes. Starting with being more selective in the type of and experience level of scientific testing and administrators/experts admissable in court. To requier proper disclosures reguarding eyewitness reliability, and if the witness is profiting in any way. And, like many of the problems in the criminal justice system, uncloging it or properly funding it, so that the lawyers and courts had the proper time to spend on a cases, would go miles.
References
Bernhard, Adele. “Justice Still Fails: A Review of Recent Efforts to Compensate Individuals Who Have Been Unjustly Convicted and Later Exonerated.” Justice Still Fails: A Review of Recent Efforts to Compensate Individuals Who Have Been Unjustly Convicted and Later Exonerated by Adele Bernhard :: SSRN. SSRN, 2004. Web. Oct. 2016. <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=1396849>.
“Cameron Todd Willingham: Wrongfully Convicted and Executed in Texas – Innocence Project.” Innocence Project. N.p., 12 Sept. 2010. Web. Oct. 2016. <http://www.innocenceproject.org/cameron-todd-willingham-wrongfully-convicted-and- executed-in-texas/>.
Giannelli, Paul. “Wrongful Convictions and Forensic Science: The Need to Regulate Crime Labs.” Wrongful Convictions and Forensic Science: The Need to Regulate Crime Labs by Paul C. Giannelli :: SSRN. SSRN, 7 Sept. 2011. Web. Oct. 2016. <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083735>.
Leo, Richard. “Studying Wrongful Convictions: Learning from Social Science.” Studying Wrongful Convictions: Learning from Social Science by Richard A. Leo, Jon B. Gould :: SSRN. SSRN, 2009. Web. Oct. 2016. <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1531903>.
“Death Penalty Information Center.” DPIC | Death Penalty Information Center. N.p., n.d. Web. Oct. 2016. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/>.
- Jocelyn Johnson
Dirtsa's 