by James Dilmore and Lisa Brunner, Op-Ed Participants
Traditional processes for
conducting identifications—through presentation of a mug shot “six pack” and
extensive investigator interaction—can result in shaping the witness’s memory
to fit the selections. In other words, the mug shot that most closely resembles
the actual perpetrator becomes the match, especially if the
witness’s choice is confirmed by the investigator with a simple, “Good work.
You found the right guy.”
David Ranta spent the
past 22 years in a maximum-security prison near Buffalo. Ranta was convicted of
murdering Rabbi Chaskel Werzberger during a botched robbery. The tragedy of
Werzberger’s death is compounded by a further tragedy, as reported by the New York Times on March 20, 2013: Ranta
is almost certainly not guilty of the crime.
The
heart-wrenching tales of the wrongfully convicted routinely top media outlets’
most-shared lists. Since beginning their work in 1992, the Innocence Project
has achieved the exoneration of 305 individuals. The story of each exoneree
differs, but common themes emerge: a criminal justice system that failed, and shattered
lives. It is too easy to read a headline, say what a shame, and turn the page. Yet
neither the wrongfully convicted nor the victims’ families have that luxury. We
in the legal community have an obligation to do more than just fold up the
newspaper with a shake of the head. We should instead ask what went wrong and investigate
how we improve the criminal justice system, striving to maintain the integrity
of our legal system and avoid such horrific mistakes in the future.
Indeed,
by strategically evaluating past exonerations, we can establish common causes
of incorrect convictions. For example, faulty identifications by witnesses,
false confessions by the accused, misused or flawed forensic science and
fabricated incriminations by jailhouse informants are all frequently to blame
for innocent individuals being convicted. Knowing the causes is just the
beginning of the inquiry. We must then ask, “How can these aspects of the
criminal justice system be targeted for improvement? Are states doing enough to
protect the tremendous liberty interests at stake?”
A group of students at
Duquesne Law are attempting to answer these questions. Using the results of
extensive social science research and the trends from the Innocence Project’s
exonerations, Stephen Chesney, Ashley Moss, James Dilmore and Scott Graham
developed methods for scoring the performance of states in these crucial
aspects of criminal process. For example, psychological experiments demonstrate
that suspect identification is a malleable process; the memory of a witness can
be shaped by later influences and is just as delicate as physical evidence.
 |
National scorecard on causes of wrongful conviction.
Duquesne Law students Stephen Chesney, Ashley
Moss, James Dilmore and Scott Graham
have taken the results of extensive social
science research and the trends from the Innocence Project’s
exonerations to
develop methods for scoring the performance of states in these crucial aspects
of criminal process.
This map demonstrates how states measured up.
|
Better to have a “blind”
administrator (unfamiliar with the crime or the suspects) presenting pictures
of potential subjects sequentially, research suggests. By establishing a “best
practice” model for suspect identification including these and other factors,
the students formed a grading rubric to evaluate a state’s performance. Similar
approaches were applied to other causes of wrongful convictions. Each factor was
weighted by the relative frequency of occurrence to develop a national “scorecard”
for the statutory procedural safeguards employed by the states.
Results of the study were
surprising. One might suspect that a “tough on crime” state like Texas would
perform poorly, while traditionally liberal states would pass with flying
colors. Instead, the opposite was observed. States with the highest scores included
Texas, Illinois, Ohio and North Carolina, with Texas being far and away the
best. South Dakota, Kansas, Kentucky and Mississippi had the lowest scores. Pennsylvania
fell in the bottom third at #36. Interestingly, many states with high scores
also had high numbers of exonerations, with Texas again leading the way with
47. It appears that if states have a recognized problem—if numerous
exonerations have occurred—steps are taken to correct the situation.
While intriguing, the
real utility of these data lies in their potential to motivate changes. When
confronted by reform-minded activists, police departments and lawmakers often
assert that procedural reform would be too burdensome to implement or that the
changes will not have a significant impact. The data belie those arguments.
Some states—indeed, some large states—have implemented changes. The sheer volume
of exonerations also drives home the point that the system is at times flawed. The
substantial liberty interests at stake are worthy of these achievable and
modest procedural reforms. Most importantly, by reforming the already
exceptional criminal justice system, state governments will only enhance the
public’s confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to convict
criminals while sparing the innocent.
