It was a study that occurred in Illinois, but it could have been written about any state at any time. The Center on Wrongful Convictions, based at Northwestern University, is one of many such centers that have popped up in recent years as researchers and attorneys become more aware of the problems of wrongful convictions.
This study, conducted by John Conroy of the Better Government Association and Rob Warden, the executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern University School of Law, focused on the costs of such convictions.
The monetary price tag discovered in the seven-month investigation that tracked Illinois exonerations from 1989 through 2010, was placed at $214 million, which imprisoned innocent people for 926 years. Worse yet, there were the opportunity costs, because they did not catch the right people, the actual perpetrators went on to commit many more crimes.
DNA evidence has allowed the criminal justice system to exonerate individuals in those rare instances where DNA evidence exists in a cast. It has opened the door for projects like the Innocence Project to work toward exonerating individuals in cases with physical evidence.
But from a research perspective, it now provides fresh data for academics to study. Last week, Yolo Judicial Watch was contacted by the Preventing Wrongful Convictions Project based at American University, which has received an NIH [National Institute of Health] grant to “ascertain which factors explain how the criminal justice system identifies and addresses cases of factual innocence to prevent wrongful convictions.”
In order to do that, “the project is comparing felony cases that ended in an official exoneration with those in which defendants had charges dismissed or were acquitted on the basis of their factual innocence.”
The study on wrongful convictions from the Center on Wrongful Convictions is the first study to look at the cumulative damage from wrongful convictions in Illinois since the advent of DNA evidence.
“This landmark investigation underscores the need for sweeping reforms of law enforcement, forensics and the judiciary,” said Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions.
“The public pays in multiple ways” for errors or willful misconduct by law enforcement officials, said John Conroy, co-writer of the report. “The whole community pays when the real criminal is left on the street and goes out and commits other felonies.”
“I am astounded,” said former U.S. Attorney Thomas Sullivan, who chaired the Capital Punishment Reform Committee established by the Illinois General Assembly. “Those are astounding numbers in terms of total years in prison and dollars spent.”
He added, “These numbers are dramatically high. If they are correct or anywhere near correct, it certainly is another indication of why special care is needed in these prosecutions to avoid convicting someone who’s innocent and failing to convict someone who is guilty.”
The researchers believe that the 97 felonies in that crime spree may be just a fraction of the total number crimes, just as the number of exonerations are probably a fraction of those actually wrongfully convicted over that time.
The researchers wrote, “One bad case can ruin lives and wreak havoc in communities.”
They continued, “During the 26 years that Jerry Miller was serving prison time and probation for a brutal rape he did not commit, Robert Weeks, the actual perpetrator, attacked at least four women, raping three (he was stopped before raping the fourth); committed aggravated battery on 11 police officers; and attacked a man with a chain in an unsuccessful attempt to steal his watch, according to police and court documents.”
“Those documents indicate that injuries to the four women included a broken cheekbone, a broken nose, a broken orbital bone, a broken wrist, and lacerations, contusions, and hematomas to one woman’s face, neck, ribs, and legs,” they write. “Three of the police officers required hospital treatment. Many of the attacks occurred in and around Wicker Park.”
Moreover, even with exoneration, Mr. Miller continues to suffer.
“After his release from prison on parole in 2006, the innocent Miller, an Army veteran with no previous criminal convictions, endured the humiliation of having his name, photograph, and physical description posted on the state’s registered sex offender website. In a recent interview with the BGA, Miller said he was also required to attend and pay for sex offender classes, prohibited from jobs that had contact with children and from living with any family member who had children, and forbidden to answer his door on Halloween.”
“Documents filed in Miller’s civil suit against the city indicate that serological testing by the Chicago police crime lab to determine the blood type of the perpetrator should have cleared him, but the technician reported inconclusive results, a conclusion that a nationally renowned expert found “simply inconceivable” in 2009 after conducting the same tests on the rape victim’s garment. Nothing in police reports indicate that Miller had done anything suspicious to make officers suspect he was a rapist, nor was he seen in the vicinity of the rape when it occurred, nor was there any physical evidence linking him to the crime.
“According to police reports, Miller became a suspect because two patrolmen saw the composite sketch of the rapist and thought it resembled a man they’d seen several days earlier near Lincoln Park, approximately two miles from where the rape occurred. Miller had worked at a restaurant near the Lincoln Park Zoo and said he was back in the neighborhood that day looking for another job as a cook.
“One of the parking lot cashiers picked Miller out of a lineup, another was described in police reports as having made a ‘tentative’ identification, and although the victim picked two other men out of a photo array as possible suspects, at trial she said Miller ‘looked like’ the man who attacked her.”
“DNA testing in 2007 exonerated Miller. His civil suit cost the city $8 million in settlement and legal fees.”
Their study found “an array of overlapping reasons contributed to the 85 cases of wrongful conviction.” They added, “In the majority of cases, alleged government mistakes or misconduct played a role, as did some other non-government-related causes.”
In 66 cases, alleged police misconduct or error played a role, in 46 cases it was erroneous eyewitness identification, in 44 cases alleged prosecutorial misconduct or error, 33 cases had false confessions, 30 cases had incentivized witness testimony, 29 had questionable forensic evidence or testimony, and 23 had alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
“Alleged government error, often rising to the level of misconduct, and eyewitness misidentification—both of which cost Miller and the city so much—are the two leading causes of wrongful convictions in the BGA/CWC study,” they write.
The researchers add, “Government error and misconduct appeared in 81 out of the 85 cases, and purported eyewitnesses fingered the wrong person in 46, according to the investigations.”
“These aren’t garbage men; these are highly trained police officers and prosecutors who passed bar exams and took an oath on the Bible to do their jobs,” said Andy Shaw, executive director of the association as reported by the New York Times. “But they didn’t.”
In many of the cases that the report highlights, the actual perpetrator has never been caught. In some case they have not even been investigated, despite the police and prosecutors having clues about their identities.
The study found that law enforcement had an incentive not to go after the real criminal once a wrongful conviction had been revealed, because evidence that might come to light could be used in suits by wrongfully-convicted people to show misconduct or incompetence.
The study recommends basic reforms like videotaping interrogations for all cases, overhauling identification and line-up procedures, banning testimony by jailhouse informants and increased transparency in the review process for complaints of police abuse.
The researchers wrote, “The American Bar Association (ABA) has recommended model rules requiring that prosecutors, upon finding new evidence that might indicate a wrongful conviction, must turn that material over to the defense; investigate to determine if the person is indeed innocent, and if so, take steps to remedy the conviction. While other states have embraced that reform, Illinois has not.”
They add, “Illinois also lags behind in enacting reforms designed to reduce eyewitness misidentification.”
While these reforms are standard practice in many states, we continue to question whether they are truly sufficient.
What is interesting, from our perspective, is how many times the listed factors have come up in the Judicial Watch’s court study. In addition, the focus on wrongful convictions and the work of the Innocence Project is yielding a lot of new data to cast a light on problems in the criminal justice system that will hopefully lead to reform and better techniques.
The BGA/CWC study found a substantial lag time between wrongful conviction and exoneration (the average length of imprisonment in the 85 cases was more than 10 years). As we have often noted, it often takes at least twice that length.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What bothers me about these research studies, is that we as a society spend immense dollars on them that repeatedly show the same thing. We know where the problems are. There really need to be national standards; crime labs need to be completely independent of the prosecutor’s office, for starters.
If researchers start with a sample that’s 100 per cent “wrongfully convicted” people, there must be SOME reason(s). How many of these cases were overturned [u]because of[/u] misconduct, ineffective counsel, etc.–as opposed to being found [u]factually innocent[/u] by DNA or other definitive evidence?
Maybe there’s a “good news” side to these findings. All reasons except erroneous eyewitness reports could be fixed if we had the will. Judges should be able to act when they recognize ineffective counsel.
Penalties for purposeful misconduct should be severe (three strikes?) Unintentional mistakes should generate penalties on the perps and cash for the victims.
I don’t hold out much hope for resolution, however, as long as we see DAs and law enforcement fighting requests to get DNA checked for those already incarcerated. Testing DNA still around in old cases should be a right wherever DNA has potential to clear someone.
The fact that authorities still argue against these requests is an embarrassment to our system.
The biggest price society pays is simply that innocent people are “found guilty” in a legal system that claims it’s better to free ___ guilty people than convict one innocent.
[quote]I don’t hold out much hope for resolution, however, as long as we see DAs and law enforcement fighting requests to get DNA checked for those already incarcerated. Testing DNA still around in old cases should be a right wherever DNA has potential to clear someone.
The fact that authorities still argue against these requests is an embarrassment to our system. [/quote]
Totally agree. The reason we need national standards. Even tho criminal laws are state standards, the feds can dole out grants for those states who agree to adopt the national standards. In the long run it would save money – because convicting the innocent is very costly even dollarwise…
None of us can truly understand what it is like to be innocent and wrongfully convicted. We do not know the depths of pain and suffering innocent people endure in our name “We the People”. But it is important for us to try.
I for one would like our government to act more Nobly. Especially, when it comes to acknowledging that a mistake was made. It baffles the mind that many people do not believe that mistakes are made by DA’s, Police or Judges or that they are immune to corruption. They are human like the rest of us. Just like every one of us they are imperfect and make mistakes. Making a mistake is inevitable, but we need to acknowledge the mistake and move on to the proper action whatever that may be, but we should not cover it up.
They should also not be immune to purposeful misconduct. Like any other employer, the legal system has good and bad employees; greedy and corrupt employees, but also honest and self-sacrificing employees. As the public and as jurors, we need to acknowledge this and not hold the legal system and all those involved in it on a pedal stool because after all, we are all human. If someone has committed misconduct, no matter who they are, they need to be held accountable.
There also needs to be more transparency in the system. I don’t like that Attorneys on both sides are not sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I find that completely dishonest and not conducive to the purpose of fact finding that the process and a trial are supposed to be about.
[quote]” I don’t like that Attorneys on both sides are not sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”[/quote]Certainly an interesting concept. But, if that would work, why not skip the lawyers and just have the accused swear to tell the truth and judge by his “sworn” statement. Less money, less time, fewer ([u]many[/u] fewer) to incarcerate.
I don’t think anyone has come up with fairer system than our adversarial approach, as problematic as it is sometimes.
Let me clarify. Most people do not realize that neither the defense nor the prosecution are sworn to tell the truth. There is an inherent bias because most people believe they are. Yes, there is the code of civil procedure, but attorneys are seldom held accountable for lying in court. I’d just like more transparency and real honesty from those in the system.
We know sometimes there are honest, unintentional mistakes – okay identify them and correct it. Sometimes there are intentional “mistakes” – those also need to be identified, corrected and reprimanded or some action taken.
Technically speaking attorney’s don’t tell anything.
They ask questions and put forward evidence.
Their closing statements are subject to objections about being in dispute of facts or pertaining to facts that are not in evidence.
Discovery is also supposed to be bound by rules and there are at least on paper supposed to be sanctions for Brady violations. That’s really where I think most prosecutorial misconduct comes into play – the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.
“What bothers me about these research studies, is that we as a society spend immense dollars on them that repeatedly show the same thing.”
I really couldn’t disagree with you more.
First, we are not spending immense dollars on studies like this.
Second, research has never been done on this, we need to be able to look at actual data and test it empircally.
I agree with JustSaying that there may be a flaw in the study in that they may have selection bias. Although in this case, I’m not sure that selecting on the dependent variable is a huge problem considering they are looking to determine what caused a faulty finding. The research I sited from American University does the kind of comparative statics that I think JustSaying is more used to looking at.
Having been in a lot of trials, I’m not certain I agree that those safeguards are all that safe. I think it’s a real problem for a jury to attempt to analyze a confession and determine if there is a problem. I note the researcher from Virginia who was an expert and on the surface could not find where a lot of the confessions went wrong.
[quote]I agree with JustSaying that there may be a flaw in the study in that they may have selection bias. Although in this case, I’m not sure that selecting on the dependent variable is a huge problem considering they are looking to determine what caused a faulty finding. The research I cited from American University does the kind of comparative statics that I think JustSaying is more used to looking at.[/quote]I didn’t mean to criticize the study or to suggest a flaw–only to observe that somebody did something wrong in each case just by definition.
In any case, it’s an interesting study showing the major role [u]intentional[/u] system sabotage might be playing in wrongful convictions. It seems the “penalty” for such prosecutorial conduct (having to retry the defendant?) has proved inadequate to stop such practices. David, please provide a link for the study results.[quote]”Most people do not realize that neither the defense nor the prosecution are sworn to tell the truth.”[/quote]I’m not so sure–judges make it very clear what’s evidence and what isn’t (opening and closing statements, for example). (Anyway, who trusts lawyers to be telling the truth in any situation?!)
A bigger “truth” problem in trials, I think, is the way technical experts (who are sworn) repeatedly come up with diametrically opposed reports based on the same information. Are they both telling the truth, or is one not really an expert?
I wish there was DNA in the case of Ajay Dev vs. People. Then surely, it would be an exoneration. Two of the jurors said on the vanguard that if it weren’t for his admission on the pre-text recorded phone conversation, he’d be a free man. Some of the other jurors confirmed this as well. I am still searching for his admission on the transcript and I am a native speaker of the Nepali language(the language in which Ajay spoke and that the jurors were led to believe by the DA Mount’s incorrect interpretation and wrong context). In fact, there are more than 50 denials in the conversation of about 55 minutes, both in English and Nepali. After careful examination of the transcript my conclusion is this. Ajay’s conversation was wrongly interpreted and in the wrong context. In fact the two sentences that the DA used to persuade the jurors of his admission, not only was interpreted incorrectly and the context was wrong, but 30 seconds later, Ajay clearly is denying the charges and he continues to deny both in Nepali and in English for the next 30 minutes with both calmness and with anger. There is not a single place on the entire conversation where he has admitted. True, that some of the conversation is cloudy, but how can it not given the situation that the detective composed the conversation with the girl and Ajay for entrapment(detective Hermann destroyed his notes…wonder why) and that someone is accusing you of something that never happened because of rage and revenge. You and I have never been in that situation so it is very easy to judge what the conversation should be like. We cannot possibly put ourselves in Ajay’s shoes. The jurors messed up in this case. They did not CRITICALLY AND ANALYTICALLY studied the pre-text phone conversation. The judge sided with the DA(not that surprising). Ajay got railroaded into WRONGFUL CONVICTION. I still have hope that Yolo County will correct this wrongful conviction and give Ajay and his family and 100s of friends peace. After all, just like Iyah says above, we are all humans and we are not immune to making mistakes but correcting the mistakes once realized makes us a better human being.
for more info check http://www.advocatesforaajay.com
“Technically speaking attorney’s don’t tell anything.
They ask questions and put forward evidence.
Their closing statements are subject to objections about being in dispute of facts or pertaining to facts that are not in evidence.”
I’m glad you prefaced your comment with “Technically speaking”. While this may be true. I’ve seen attorney’s offer “evidence” for witnesses who merely had to agree or disagree. So who is going to parse out what was or wasn’t the evidence?
“(Anyway, who trusts lawyers to be telling the truth in any situation?!)”
Funny, but I think most people apply that phrase only to Defense Attorneys, but not all attorneys, which also includes Prosecutors.
I also agree there is a huge problem with “expert witnesses”. Experts should not be affiliated with either side – just like ERM commented earlier crime labs should be independent of the prosecutor’s office and so should all experts. This is where national standards to qualify as an expert would be helpful as well.
should have read “They did not CRITICALLY AND ANALYTICALLY study”
and also a correction: http://www.advocatesforajay.com
JustSaying here you go: link ([url]http://www.bettergov.org/investigations/wrongful_convictions_1.aspx[/url])
I’ll be talking a bit more about expert witnesses tomorrow.
[quote]Let me clarify. Most people do not realize that neither the defense nor the prosecution are sworn to tell the truth. [/quote]
This is an incorrect statement. From the code of ethics for attorneys, which would include both prosecution (who is held to a higher standard and is required to follow additional rules) and defense:
Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct
In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth;
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(C) Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision;
(D) Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been overruled or a statute that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional; and
(E) Shall not assert personal knowledge of the facts at issue, except when testifying as a witness.
[quote]First, we are not spending immense dollars on studies like this. [/quote]
Studies on what is wrong with our criminal justice system has been going on for years…
From wikipedia: “Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, crime rates soared and social issues took center stage in the public eye. A number of new laws and studies focused federal resources on researching new approaches to crime control. The Warren Court (the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren), issued a series of rulings which redefined citizen’s rights and substantially altered the powers and responsibilities of police and the courts. The Civil Rights Era offered significant legal and ethical challenges to the status quo.
In the late 1960s, with the establishment of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) and associated policy changes that resulted with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The LEAA provided grants for criminology research, focusing on social aspects of crime. By the 1970s, there were 729 academic programs in criminology and criminal justice in the United States.[16] Largely thanks to the Law Enforcement Education Program, criminal justice students numbered over 100,000 by 1975. Over time, scholars of criminal justice began to include criminology, sociology, and psychology, among others, to provide a more comprehensive view of the criminal justice system and the root causes of crime. Criminal justice studies now combine the practical and technical policing skills with a study of social deviance as a whole.”
You are conflating issues here, none of those studied wrongful convictions.
[quote]You are conflating issues here, none of those studied wrongful convictions.[/quote]
From http://www.llrx.com:
Reports
This is a collection of a few seminal reports on wrongful conviction published by the government, academics, various organizations and the media.
Innocence and the Crisis in the American Death Penalty (Death Penalty Information Center 2004). This report focuses on wrongful convictions in death penalty cases. It examines the impact that the increasing numbers of innocent defendants on death row is having the on the debate over capital punishment.
Exonerations in the United States 1989-2003 (University of Michigan Law School 2004). This is a study of exoneration cases nationwide since the inaugural use of DNA in 1989. It examines such issues as false confessions and problems in the functioning of the criminal justice system overall. And it has been published as a law review article, Samuel R. Gross et al., Exonerations in the United States 1989 Through 2003, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 523 (2005).
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology (US 2003). This report describes the President’s initiative and funding plan for the application of DNA technology to solve crimes, identify missing persons and protect the innocent. It describes the need to clear up backlogs and improve administration of DNA testing at the federal, state and local levels. A small portion of the fund is to be devoted to post-conviction testing.
An Ordinary Crime (Frontline 2002). This web site was created in conjunction with a Frontline investigation into the question of Terence Garner’s innocence-he was convicted of robbery and attempted murder in North Carolina-and the many issues concerning the identification evidence and the prosecution of the case. See State v. Terence Garner: A System Goes Awry, Trial Briefs, Aug. 2002, at 35.
Fatal Flaws: Innocence and the Death Penalty in the USA (Amnesty International 1998)
This report examines the global problem of innocent persons being sentenced to death.
What Jennifer Saw (Frontline 1998). This is a collection of stories and reports concerning misidentification, wrongful imprisonment and the work of The Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law.
Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial (National Institute of Justice 1996)
This study focuses on cases where DNA testing exonerated people in pending and post-conviction cases.