Understand the Causes of Wrongful Conviction in the United States Criminal Justice System - The Innocence Project

From:
The Innocene Project

http://www.InnocenceProject.org/

The Causes of Wrongful Conviction

Click to learn more about the causes from a geographic perspective.

How does your state stack up? Click on the maps below to learn about wrongful convictions and criminal justice reforms in each state.

Eyewitness Misidentification

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.

Read the Innocence Project's "Reevaluating Lineups" report on eyewitness misidentifications.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Eyewitness_ID_Report.pdf

When witnesses get it wrong
In case after case, DNA has proven what scientists already know — that eyewitness identification is frequently inaccurate. In the wrongful convictions caused by eyewitness misidentification, the circumstances varied, but judges and juries all relied on testimony that could have been more accurate if reforms proven by science had been implemented. The Innocence Project has worked on cases in which:

•  A witness made an identification in a “show-up” procedure from the back of a police car hundreds of feet away from the suspect in a poorly lit parking lot in the middle of the night.

• A witness in a rape case was shown a photo array where only one photo of the person police suspected was the perpetrator was marked with an “R.”

• Witnesses substantially changed their description of a perpetrator (including key information such as height, weight and presence of facial hair) after they learned more about a particular suspect.

• Witnesses only made an identification after multiple photo arrays or lineups — and then made hesitant identifications (saying they “thought” the person “might be” the perpetrator, for example), but at trial the jury was told the witnesses did not waver in identifying the suspect.

Variables impacting accuracy of identifications
Leading social science researchers identify two main categories of variables affecting eyewitness identification: estimator variables and system variables.

Estimator variables are those that cannot be controlled by the criminal justice system. They include simple factors like the lighting when the crime took place or the distance from which the witness saw the perpetrator. Estimator variables also include more complex factors, including race (identifications have proven to be less accurate when witnesses are identifying perpetrators of a different race), the presence of a weapon during a crime and the degree of stress or trauma a witness experienced while seeing the perpetrator.

System variables are those that the criminal justice system can and should control. They include all of the ways that law enforcement agencies retrieve and record witness memory, such as lineups, photo arrays and other identification procedures. System variables that substantially impact the accuracy of identifications include the type of lineup used, the selection of “fillers” (or members of a lineup or photo array who are not the actual suspect), blind administration, instructions to witnesses before identification procedures, administration of lineups or photo arrays, and communication with witnesses after they make an identification.

Click here to learn about reforms the Innocence Project strongly recommends for individual law enforcement agencies and state legislatures.

Decades of solid scientific evidence supports reform
As far back as the late 1800s, experts have known that eyewitness identification is all-too-susceptible to error, and that scientific study should guide reforms for identification procedures. In 1907, Hugo Munsterberg published “On the Witness Stand,” in which he questioned the reliability of eyewitness identification. When Yale law professor Edwin Borchard studied 65 wrongful convictions for his pioneering 1932 book, “Convicting the Innocent,” he found that eyewitness misidentification was the leading cause of wrongful convictions.

Since then, hundreds of scientific studies (particularly in the last three decades) have affirmed that eyewitness identification is often inaccurate — and that it can be made more accurate by implementing specific identification reforms.

Featured Case: Calvin Willis

One night in 1982, three young girls were sleeping alone in a Shreveport, Louisiana home when a man in cowboy boots came into the house and raped the oldest girl, who was 10 years old. When police started to investigate the rape, the three girls all remembered the attack differently. One police report said the 10-year-old victim didnâ’t see her attacker’s face. Another report — which wasn’t introduced at trial — said she identified Calvin Willis, who lived in the neighborhood. The girl’s mother testified at trial that neighbors had mentioned Willis’s name when discussing who might have committed the crime. The victim testified that she was shown photos and told to pick the man without a full beard. She testified that she didn’t pick anyone, police said she picked Willis. Willis was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. In 2003, DNA testing proved Willis’ innocence and he was released. He had served nearly 22 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. Click here to read more about Willis’ case.

Unreliable or Improper Forensic Science

Since the late 1980s, DNA analysis has helped identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent nationwide. While DNA 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. Meanwhile, 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. In some cases, forensic analysts have fabricated results or engaged in other misconduct.

An overview of the role of unvalidated and improper forensics in causing wrongful convictions and reforms to prevent injustice. With Brandon Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and the author of "Convicting the Innocent."

All of these problems constitute unvalidated or improper forensic science, which is the second-greatest contributor to wrongful convictions that have been overturned with DNA testing.  In more than 50% of DNA exonerations, unvalidated or improper forensic science contributed to the wrongful conviction. Click here for a complete table with information on each case where unvalidated or improper forensic science contributed to a wrongful conviction that was later overturned with DNA testing.

While DNA exonerations are a window into the effect of unvalidated or improper forensic science contributing to wrongful convictions, DNA does not solve the problem. In fact, experts estimate that only 5-10% of all criminal cases involve biological evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing. In the other 90-95% of crimes, DNA testing is not an option – so the criminal justice system relies on other kinds of evidence, including forensic disciplines that may not be scientifically sound or properly conducted.

The Absence of Scientific Standards
Unlike DNA testing, many forensic disciplines – particularly those that deal with comparing impression marks and objects like hair and fiber – were developed solely to solve crime.  These disciplines have evolved primarily through their use in individual cases. Without the benefit of basic research or adequate financial resources, applied research has also been minimal.

In fact, many forensic testing methods have been applied with little or no scientific validation and with inadequate assessments of their robustness or reliability. Furthermore, they lacked scientifically acceptable standards for quality assurance and quality control before their implementation in cases.

As a result, forensic analysts sometimes testify in cases without a proper scientific basis for their findings. Testimony about more dubious forensic disciplines, such as efforts to match a defendant’s teeth to marks on a victim or attempts to compare a defendant’s voice to a voicemail recording, are cloaked in science but lack even the most basic scientific standards.  Even within forensic disciplines that are more firmly grounded in science, evidence is often made to sound more precise than it should.  For example, analysts will testify that hairs from a crime scene “match” or “are consistent with” defendants’ hair – but because scientific research on validity and reliability of hair analysis is lacking, they have no way of knowing how rare these similarities are, so there is no way to know how meaningful this evidence is.

Improper Forensic Testimony
Too often, forensic analysts’ testimony goes further than the science allows. Many forensic techniques that have been practiced for years – but not subjected to the rigors of scientific research – are accepted and repeated as fact. Juries are left with the impression that the evidence is more scientific than it is, and the potential for wrongful convictions increases.

Improper forensic testimony is not limited to unvalidated disciplines, however. Among the DNA exoneration cases, scores of people were wrongfully convicted after forensic testimony misrepresented serology results. Serology is still used, but before DNA testing it was the only way to help identify the source of blood, semen or other bodily fluids at a crime scene. Using serology, forensic analysts could determine what blood type was present in fluids collected in a rape kit, for example. In many cases, analysts testify properly about what the serology can tell and what percentage of the population shares the perpetrator’s blood type. But in other cases, analysts fail to recognize that the biological sample could be a mixture of fluids from the victim and perpetrator, and the victim’s blood type could mask the perpetrator’s – making it impossible to know the blood type of the perpetrator. In other cases, analysts provide inaccurate statistics for the percentage of the population who share the perpetrator’s blood type.
 
Forensic Misconduct
The vast majority of forensic employees are hardworking, ethical and responsible. They use the best scientific techniques available to deliver objective, solid information – regardless of whether the science favors the defendant, supports the prosecution or is inconclusive.

In many cases, the science – rather than the scientist – is inadequate. In other cases, forensic analysts make mistakes that could result from lack of training, poor support or insufficient resources to meet an ever-growing demand. But in some cases, forensic analysts have engaged in misconduct. While these “bad apples” don’t reflect the entire forensic field, one fraudulent forensic analyst can taint countless cases. For example, in some wrongful convictions later overturned with DNA testing, forensic analysts fabricated test results, reported results when no tests were conducted or concealed parts of test results that were favorable to defendants. In virtually all of these cases, analysts had engaged in misconduct that led to multiple separate wrongful convictions, sometimes in multiple states.

Making Real Reform a Priority
The Innocence Project works at the local, state and federal levels to ensure quality forensics. Nationally, the Innocence Project supports creating a federal forensic science agency that will stimulate research to validate forensic science disciplines, and will also set and enforce standards. In states, the Innocence Project supports commissions and advisory boards that help make sure forensic facilities have the information and resources they need to do quality work. Meanwhile, the Innocence Project advocates for full enforcement of the existing forensic oversight mechanisms in the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. This federal program provides critical funding for state and local crime labs and other forensic facilities – on the condition that grant recipients have proper oversight mechanisms in place to handle allegations of serious negligence or misconduct.

Featured Case: Alejandro Dominguez

Dominguez was 16 years old when he was convicted in Illinois of a rape he didn’t commit. In addition to an eyewitness misidentification, the limited science of a blood type match led jurors to believe that evidence against Dominguez was stronger than it actually was. One of several errors in the trial was a reckless omission by a forensic scientist who testified for the prosecution. Semen was found on the victim’s body, the scientist testified, and Dominguez’s blood type matched the semen sample, meaning he could have been the perpetrator. The scientist did not tell the jury, however, that two-thirds of men in America would have matched that sample. Dominguez was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison. He was released after serving four years and sought DNA testing at his own expense. The tests proved his innocence. His case is one of many in which limited forensic science or erroneous forensic testimony has led to wrongful convictions. Click here to read Dominguez’s full profile.

False Confessions

In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.

These cases show that confessions are not always prompted by internal knowledge or actual guilt, but are sometimes motivated by external influences.

False confessions have played a role in 25% of wrongful convictions overturned through DNA testing. Here, University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett describes the wrongful conviction of Frank Sterling in New York and reforms to prevent false confessions in other cases.

Why do innocent people confess?
A variety of factors can contribute to a false confession during a police interrogation. Many cases have included a combination of several of these causes. They include:

•duress
•coercion
•intoxication
•diminished capacity
•mental impairment
•ignorance of the law
•fear of violence
•the actual infliction of harm
•the threat of a harsh sentence
•Misunderstanding the situation

•Some false confessions can be explained by the mental state of the confessor.

•Confessions obtained from juveniles are often unreliable – children can be easy to manipulate and are not always fully aware of their situation. Children and adults both are often convinced that that they can “go home” as soon as they admit guilt.

•People with mental disabilities have often falsely confessed because they are tempted to accommodate and agree with authority figures. Further, many law enforcement interrogators are not given any special training on questioning suspects with mental disabilities. An impaired mental state due to mental illness, drugs or alcohol may also elicit false admissions of guilt.

•Mentally capable adults also give false confessions due to a variety of factors like the length of interrogation, exhaustion or a belief that they can be released after confessing and prove their innocence later.

Regardless of the age, capacity or state of the confessor, what they often have in common is a decision – at some point during the interrogation process – that confessing will be more beneficial to them than continuing to maintain their innocence.

From threats to torture
Sometimes law enforcement use harsh interrogation tactics with uncooperative suspects. But some police officers, convinced of a suspect’s guilt, occasionally use tactics so persuasive that an innocent person feels compelled to confess. Some suspects have confessed to avoid physical harm or discomfort. Others are told they will be convicted with or without a confession, and that their sentence will be more lenient if they confess. Some are told a confession is the only way to avoid the death penalty.

Recording of interrogations
The Innocence Project has recommended specific changes in the practice of suspect interrogations in the U.S., including the mandatory electronic recording of interrogations, which has been shown to decrease the number of false confessions and increase the reliability of confessions as evidence. Read more about recommended policy reforms to prevent false confessions.

Featured Case: Eddie Joe Lloyd

Lloyd was convicted of the 1984 murder of a 16-year-old girl in Detroit after he wrote to police with suggestions on how to solve various recent crimes. During several interviews, police fed details of the crime to Lloyd, who was mentally ill, and convinced him that by confessing he was helping them “smoke out” the real killer. Lloyd eventually signed a confession and gave a tape-recorded statement. The jury deliberated less than an hour before convicting him and the judge said at sentencing that execution, which had been outlawed in Michigan, would have been the “only justifiable sentence” if it were available. In 2002, DNA testing proved that Lloyd was innocent and he was exonerated. As mandated in a settlement with Lloyd’s family, Detroit Police officials said in 2006 they would start videotaping all interrogations in crimes that could carry a sentence of life. Read Lloyd’s full profile.

Unreliable or Improper Forensic Science

Since the late 1980s, DNA analysis has helped identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent nationwide. While DNA 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. Meanwhile, 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. In some cases, forensic analysts have fabricated results or engaged in other misconduct.

  An overview of the role of unvalidated and improper forensics in causing wrongful convictions and reforms to prevent injustice. With Brandon Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and the author of "Convicting the Innocent."

Forensic Science Misconduct

Because forensic science results can mean the difference between life and death in many cases, fraud and other types of misconduct in the field are particularly troubling. False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in several states.

Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. In some instances, labs or their personnel have allied themselves with police and prosecutors, rather than prioritizing the search for truth. Other times, criminalists lacking the requisite knowledge have embellished findings and eluded detection because judges and juries lacked background in the relevant sciences, themselves.

In some cases, critical evidence has been consumed or destroyed, so that re-testing to uncover misconduct has proven impossible. Evidence in these cases can never be tested again, preventing the truth from being revealed.

One weak link
The identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting of any piece of forensic evidence involves a number of people. Evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage of this process.

The risk of misconduct starts at the crime scene, where evidence can be planted, destroyed or mishandled. Evidence is later sent to a forensic lab or independent contractor, where it can be contaminated, poorly tested, consumed unnecessarily or mislabeled. Then, in the reporting of test results, technicians and their superiors sometimes have misrepresented their findings. DNA exonerations have even revealed instances of "drylabbing" evidence – reporting results when no test was actually performed.

All over the map
The Innocence Project has seen forensic misconduct by scientists, experts and prosecutors lead to wrongful conviction in many states. The following are among the more notorious:

•  A former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, Fred Zain, testified for the prosecution in 12 states over his career, including dozens of cases in West Virginia and Texas. DNA exonerations and new evidence in other cases have shown that Zain fabricated results, lied on the stand about results and willfully omitted evidence from his reports.

•  Pamela Fish, a Chicago lab technician, testified for the prosecution about false matches and suspicious results in the trials of at least eight defendants who were convicted, then proven innocent years later by DNA testing.

•  A two-year investigation of the Houston crime lab, completed in 2007, showed that evidence in that lab was mishandled and results were misreported.

Ending forensic fraud
The Innocence Project has uncovered these abuses since 1992 and has developed recommendations for forensic labs, law enforcement agencies and courts to ensure that forensic science misconduct is prevented whenever possible. The Innocence Project calls for states to impose standards on the preservation and handling of evidence. When exonerations suggest that an analyst engaged in misconduct or that a facility lacked proper procedures or oversight, the Innocence Project advocates for independent audits of their work in other cases that may have also resulted in wrongful convictions.

Visit our Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight page for more information.

Featured Case: George Rodriguez

George Rodriguez was exonerated in 2005 after serving 17 years for a sexual assault he didn't commit. Rodriguez's case helped to reveal a pattern of error and fraud in the Houston Police Department Crime Lab that is still being investigated and corrected today. In Rodriguez's case, lab director Jim Bolding testified that a hair found in the victim's underwear could have belonged to Rodriguez. He also testified that blood type evidence showed that Rodriguez – and not a co-defendant – could have deposited biological fluids. This was false – later tests showed that the co-defendant could have been a contributor. DNA testing also showed that the hair used against Rodriguez could not have been his. Audits of the Houston lab since Rodriguez's exoneration have revealed a wide range of misconduct. Click here to read Rodriguez's full profile.

Government Misconduct

Some wrongful convictions are caused by honest mistakes. But in far too many cases, the very people who are responsible for ensuring truth and justice — law enforcement officials and prosecutors — lose sight of these obligations and instead focus solely on securing convictions.

The cases of wrongful convictions uncovered by DNA testing are filled with evidence of negligence, fraud or misconduct by prosecutors or police departments.

  Wrongful convictions are often caused by negligence, fraud or misconduct by police or prosecutors. Here, University of Virginia Law Professor Brandon Garrett explores how government misconduct can cause injustice and what we can do to prevent it.

While many law enforcement officers and prosecutors are honest and trustworthy, criminal justice is a human endeavor and the possibility for negligence, misconduct and corruption exists. Even if one officer of every thousand is dishonest, wrongful convictions will continue to occur.

DNA exonerations have exposed official misconduct at every level and stage of a criminal investigation.
 
Common forms of misconduct by law enforcement officials include:

•    Employing suggestion when conducting  identification procedures
•    Coercing false confessions
•    Lying or intentionally misleading jurors about their observations
•    Failing to turn over exculpatory evidence to prosecutors
•    Providing incentives to secure unreliable evidence from informants

Common forms of misconduct by prosecutors include:

•    Withholding exculpatory evidence from defense
•    Deliberately mishandling, mistreating or destroying evidence
•    Allowing witnesses they know or should know are not truthful to testify
•    Pressuring defense witnesses not to testify
•    Relying on fraudulent forensic experts
•    Making misleading arguments that overstate the probative value of testimony 

For more background on this issue, download the Northern California Innocence Project report on prosecutorial misconduct.

Necessary Oversight
We need to find solutions to fix these problems. One way to put checks on the enormous power of prosecutors and law enforcement officials would be to establish criminal justice reform commissions.

Featured Case: Bruce Godschalk

In some cases, fraud can be committed by officials long after a person is convicted. Bruce Godschalk was convicted of two rapes in Pennsylvania in 1987. The state’s evidence at trial included a false confession Godschalk allegedly gave to police, a misidentification by a victim, and testimony from a jailhouse snitch. When the Innocence Project tried to seek DNA testing on Godschalk’s behalf in 2001, the official misconduct continued. A state motion claimed that prosecutors had sent all relevant evidence to a lab without notifying the defendant or the Innocence Project. It falsely claimed that all evidence had been consumed in testing and all tests were inconclusive. A carpet sample with a semen stain was not given to the lab in the round of secret testing. When this piece of carpet surfaced, testing proved that another man had committed the crime for which Godschalk had been wrongly convicted. Click here to read Godschalk’s full profile.

Informants

In more than 15% of wrongful conviction cases overturned through DNA testing, an informant testified against the defendant at the original trial. Often, statements from people with incentives to testify — particularly incentives that are not disclosed to the jury — are the central evidence in convicting an innocent person.

 
  False testimony from incentivized informants can cause wrongful convictions. Here, University of Virginia Law Professor Brandon Garrett describes how informants cause injustice and what we can do to prevent it.

People have been wrongfully convicted in cases in which incentivized witnesses:

• Have been paid to testify
• Have testified in exchange for their release from prison
• Have testified in multiple distinct cases that they have evidence of guilt, through overhearing a confession or witnessing the crime

DNA exonerations have shown that informants lie on the stand. To many, this news isn’t a surprise. Testifying falsely in exchange for an incentive – either money or a sentence reduction – is often the last resort for a desperate inmate. For someone who is not in prison already, but who wants to avoid being charged with a crime, providing false testimony may be a desperate measure to avoid incarceration.

In some cases, informants come forward voluntarily, often seeking deals or special treatment. But sometimes law enforcement officials seek out informants and give them extensive background on cases — essentially feeding them the information they need to provide false testimony.

Incentivized witnesses continue to testify in courtrooms around the country today. In some cases without biological evidence, the incentivized witness’ testimony is the only evidence of guilt.

Vital reforms are needed to ensure that unreliable incentivized witnesses are not given undue weight by juries.

Landmark Study:
In 2005, the Center on Wrongful Convictions in Chicago issued a report,  “The Snitch System: How Incentivized Witnesses Put 38 Innocent Americans on Death Row.”  The study provides a comprehensive look at the problem of informant testimony, and describes in detail how the use of informant testimony contributed to the conviction of specific innocent defendants.

More Resources:

Two Canadian cases led officials to conduct studies of the use of in-custody informants. Click below for more information on:

• The Kaufman Commission (Guy Paul Morin case) – Ontario
•The Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow – Manitoba

Featured Case: Larry Peterson

Larry Peterson was wrongly convicted in 1989 of murder and sexual assault and sentenced to life in prison. Four people – three of Peterson’s co-workers and a jailhouse informant – helped the state convict Peterson with false testimony. During an investigation of the crime, police interviewed some of Peterson’s co-workers several times. After lengthy interrogations, threats of prosecution and other questionable police tactics, the three men said Peterson had confessed to them during a ride to work. Records have since shown that Peterson did not work on the day these men said the confession occurred. A jailhouse informant with charges pending in three counties also testified that Peterson had admitted guilt to him while in the county jail. DNA finally proved Peterson’s innocence in 2005 and he was exonerated in 2006. Click here to read Peterson’s full profile.

 Bad Lawyering

The resources of the justice system are often stacked against poor defendants. Matters only become worse when a person is represented by an ineffective, incompetent or overburdened defense lawyer. The failure of overworked lawyers to investigate, call witnesses or prepare for trial has led to the conviction of innocent people. When a defense lawyer doesn't do his or her job, the defendant suffers. Shrinking funding and access to resources for public defenders and court-appointed attorneys is only making the problem worse.

Wrongful convictions are often caused by inadequate defense. University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett explains how bad lawyering can cause injustice.

Asleep on the job
A review of convictions overturned by DNA testing reveals a trail of sleeping, drunk, incompetent and overburdened defense attorneys, at the trial level and on appeal. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Innocent defendants are convicted or plead guilty in this country with less than adequate defense representation. In the some of the worst cases, lawyers 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 issues
• failed to show up for hearings

Good Defense Means Fair Justice
There are ways to stop wrongful convictions from happening due to ineffective representation. See our Fix The System section to learn more about our recommendations in support of better defense for poor defendants.

Featured Case: Jimmy Ray Bromgard

The exoneration and release of Jimmy Ray Bromgard from Montana prison provides a sobering view of the effects of inadequate or incompetent counsel. Bromgard, arrested when he was 18, spent 15 years in prison for the brutal rape of an eight-year-old girl, a crime post-conviction DNA testing proved he did not commit. Bromgard’s trial attorney performed no investigation, filed no pre-trial motions, gave no opening statement, did not prepare for closing arguments, failed to file an appeal, and provided no expert to refute the fraudulent testimony of the state’s hair microscopy expert. Other than the forensic testimony and the tentative identification, there was no evidence against Bromgard. Click here to read Bromgard’s full profile.