|
The Innocence Project |
|---|
|
The
following notes on "The Innocence Project" were from an "Issues of our Times"
discussion on December 17, 2003 at the UUCC. These notes were
produced by Wanda Goldstein, who also fascilitated the discussion. The Innocence Project, a non-profit legal clinic, was created in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. Its purpose is to use DNA testing to reopen the cases of long-term or death row prisoners who have maintained their innocence. To date 140 or more wrongly convicted persons have been exonerated and released by this means. Questions that were asked included: 1. What is the importance of DNA evidence? What does it do? How can it prove people innocent? 2. Are there problems or pitfalls in the use of DNA? (race and poverty, the death penalty, careless handling, destruction of evidence...) 3. What are some of the factors that can lead to the wrongful conviction of an innocent person? What can be done to correct these mistakes? 4. What legislation would you like to see passed to make trials more fair and retrials more accessible? DNA is a powerful tool, but depends upon retaining the original evidence. Often it has been discarded after the trial and the subsequent appeals. The group discussed the careless handling or incompetent lab work that may be done. Labs may "work for" the police. Poor work may destroy evidence without yielding conclusive results. Tests and lawyers are expensive, and race and poverty sometimes affect whether a hearing will be allowed. Finally, the death penalty may mean that exoneration comes too late. Since so many prisoners have been proven innocent, the burning question is how and why they were convicted in the first place. According to The Innocence Project, the first 70 exonerations showed the following most common factors (many cases showed more than one reason): 61 Mistaken I.D. MISTAKEN I.D. This has held up over time as a major problem, with 2/3 of the first 138 exonerations involving mistaken eyewitnesses. The group discussed the pitfalls of this evidence, especially given the problems of darkness, distance, stress, fear, and eagerness to be helpful to the case. Police strongly encourage an I.D. According to The Innocence Project, the use of a lineup, where the person sees a whole group at once (and often believes that one among them must be the right one) is the most usual and also the most unreliable. Cross-racial identifications are especially shaky. When an investigating officer conducts the lineup and knows the suspect is in it, subtle cues (accidental or deliberate) can be given. This evidence can therefore often be faulty. The same is true of simultaneous photographs. Suggested Remedies: The Innocence Project suggests: ask for I.D. by means of sequential double-blind lineups or photographs, administered by someone who does not know the identity of the suspect. Tell the witness that the perpetrator may not be in the group shown. Ask witnesses to rate the certainty of their opinions at each stage. Videotape all stages of the identification process. Avoid show-up procedures (i.e., focusing on an up-or-down I.D. of a single person). FALSE CONFESSIONS: The group discussed the factors that can lead to false confessions, such as coercion, intoxication or drugs, ignorance of the law, mental impairment, etc. Also threats of an extreme sentence (e.g. the death penalty) can cause a false confession. The Central Park Jogger case was mentioned, in which five teenagers confessed and were later shown to be innocent. (DNA evidence backed the confession of the actual criminal.) Other examples were cited. Suggested remedies: Videotape all interrogations. It was pointed out that this is already required in Alaska, Minnesota and the United Kingdom. Police and DA's need to be alert to the possibility of mental illness or mental problems, since a large number of false confessions involve these populations. POLICE AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT: Poor investigation, wrong techniques, suggestive lineups and other cues to witnesses, coercion of witnesses and suspects, planted evidence etc. were discussed. Overzealous prosecution and untruthful prosecutors cause wrongful convictions. They may suppress exculpatory evidence, destroy evidence, fabricate and misrepresent evidence, and use unreliable witnesses, informants and snitches. Suggested remedies: Police and prosecutors need to be trained to avoid the bad practices that have been used to get a conviction, and must be held accountable. The Innocence Project suggests disciplinary committees to focus exclusively on misconduct of officers and prosecutors. Judges should warn juries of the unreliability of jailhouse snitches. Federal agencies should be involved to investigate misconduct by officers of the state. JUNK SCIENCE: This is a large and complex problem leading to wrongful convictions. What is presented as "scientific evidence" by an acknowledged "expert" may be overstated or conjectural. The Innocence Project lists a number of examples of junk science: testimony about tests that were never actually done, suppressing test results that go against the prosecution, falsified results, falsified credentials, misinterpretation of test results by the "expert", including exaggeration of the statistics. Suggested remedies: The group discussed the poor quality work that has been discovered in many laboratories, including the FBI Crime Lab. The laboratories' loyalty to the police and the prosecutor was discussed. The defense should have access to laboratories to run needed tests and to check the state's results. The Innocence Project suggests these additional measures: Follow rigorously the Supreme Court guidelines on scientific findings. Subject crime labs to the same standards as medical laboratories. Oversight agencies should be created and have authority to regulate practices and set standards for outsourcing. Crime labs must be reviewed periodically and accredited. There should be spot-checking to maintain quality control. There should be a rating system. DNA testing should replace unreliable and subjective methods such as microscopic hair comparisons. Crime laboratories should not be linked in any way to the fiduciary process of any police agency. Budgets must be separate and not subject to police control. Police should not be allowed to supervise or evaluate lab employees. All test results should be provided to all parties involved, with explanation of procedures followed and disclosure of any exculpatory results. "Whistle blowers" within crime laboratories should be protected. Law and medical schools should sponsor postgraduate forensic science programs and degrees. LEGISLATION: During the discussion of each of these problems, the group suggested laws that should be passed to make the needed reforms. Trials should be based on sound practices, and people in prison should be able to have the tools to prove their innocence, such as having funds available, a guarantee of a hearing etc. All agreed that the death penalty itself is an egregious miscarriage of justice, and has been handed down in a huge number of cases in which the person was innocent. An unknown number of innocent people have surely already been executed under our system. It was pointed out that the worse the crime, the easier it is for the wrong person to be convicted because of the high emotions, media coverage etc. The INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Leahy of Vermont. It was introduced in the House of Representatives, and passed in major substance by a vote of 357 to 67! This overview of the bill (pending in the Senate) has sections underlined that are especially relevant to this topic: Innocence Protection Act
of 2001 (and 2003)
The Innocence Protection Act of 2001 is a carefully crafted package of criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing the risk that innocent persons may be executed. Most urgently, the bill would afford greater access to DNA testing by convicted offenders; and help States improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases. TITLE I – EXONERATING THE INNOCENT THROUGH DNA TESTING Sec. 101. Findings and purposes. Legislative findings and purposes in support of this title. Sec. 102. DNA testing in federal criminal justice system. Establishes rules and procedures governing applications for DNA testing by inmates in the federal system. Courts shall order DNA testing if it has the scientific potential to produce new exculpatory evidence material to the individual's claim of innocence. When the test results are exculpatory, courts shall order a hearing and make such further orders as may be appropriate under existing law. Prohibits the destruction of biological evidence in a criminal case while a defendant remains incarcerated, absent prior notification to such defendant of the government's intent to destroy the evidence. Sec. 103. DNA testing in State criminal justice system. Conditions receipt of Federal grants for DNA-related programs on an assurance that the State will adopt adequate procedures for preserving biological material and making DNA testing available to inmates. Sec. 104. Prohibition pursuant to section 5 of the 14th Amendment. Prohibits States from denying applications for DNA testing by death row inmates if the proposed testing has the scientific potential to produce new exculpatory evidence material to the inmate's claim of innocence. Also prohibits States from denying inmates a meaningful opportunity to prove their innocence using the results of DNA testing. Inmates may sue for declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce these prohibitions. Sec. 105. Grants to prosecutors for DNA testing programs. Permits States to use grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs to fund the growing number of prosecutor-initiated programs that review convictions to identify cases in which DNA testing is appropriate and that offer DNA testing to inmates in such cases. TITLE II – ENSURING COMPETENT LEGAL SERVICES IN CAPITAL CASES Sec. 201. National Commission of Capital Representation. Establishes a National Commission of Capital Representation to develop standards providing adequate legal representation for indigents facing a death sentence. The Commission would be composed of nine members and would include experienced prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges, and would complete its work within one year. Total authorization of $1,000,000. Sec. 202. Capital defense incentive grants. Establishes a grant program, to be administered by the State Justice Institute, to help States implement the Commission's standards and otherwise improve the quality of representation in capital cases. Authorization if $50,000,000 for first year, and such sums as may be necessary for the two years that follow. Sec. 203. Amendments to prison grant programs. Directs the Attorney General to withhold a portion of the funds awarded under the prison grant programs from death penalty States that have not established or do not maintain a system for providing legal representation in capital cases that satisfies the Commission's standards. The Attorney General may waive the withholding requirement for one year under certain circumstances. Sec. 204. Effect on procedural default rules. Provides that certain procedural barriers to Federal habeas corpus review shall not apply if the State did not provide legal representation to the habeas petitioner under a State system for providing representation that satisfied the Commission's standards. This section does not apply in any case in which the relevant State court proceeding occurred more than 1 year before the formulation of such standards. Sec. 205. Capital defense resource grants. Amends the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, to make more Federal funding available for purposes of enhancing the availability, competence, and prompt assignment of counsel in capital cases, encouraging the continuity of representation in such cases, and increasing the efficiency with which capital cases are resolved. TITLE III – MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Sec. 301. Increased compensation in federal cases. Raises the total amount of damages that may be awarded against the United States in cases of unjust imprisonment from $5,000 to $50,000 a year in a non-death penalty case, or $100,000 a year in a death penalty case. Sec. 302. Compensation in state death cases. Encourages states to maintain effective procedures for reasonably compensating persons who were unjustly convicted and sentenced to death, and investigating the causes of such unjust convictions in order to prevent such errors from recurring. Sec. 303. Certification requirement in federal death penalty prosecutions. Increases accountability by requiring the Attorney General, when seeking the death penalty in any case, to certify that the federal interest in the prosecution is more substantial than the interest of the state or local authorities. Modeled on the certification requirements in the federal civil rights and juvenile delinquency laws, this section codifies existing practice as reflected in section 9-10.070 of the U.S. Attorney's Manual. This section does not create any rights enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Sec. 304. Alternative of life imprisonment without possibility of release. Clarifies that juries in death penalty prosecutions brought under the drug kingpin statute, 21 U.S.C. §848(l), have the option of recommending life imprisonment without possibility of release. This amendment incorporates into the drug kingpin statute a procedural protection that federal law already expressly provides to the vast majority of capital defendants. Sec. 305. Right to an informed jury. Encourages states to allow defendants in capital cases to have the jury instructed on all statutorily-authorized sentencing options, including applicable parole eligibility rules and terms. Sec. 306. Annual reports. Directs the Justice Department to prepare an annual report regarding the administration of the nation's capital punishment laws. The report must be submitted to Congress, distributed to the press and posted on the Internet. Sec. 307. Sense of the Congress regarding the execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded. Expresses the sense of the Congress that the death penalty is disproportionate and offends contemporary standards of decency when applied to juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded. |
Return to Restorative Justice Page