THE INNOCENCE PROJECT

What is the Innocence Project? A non-profit organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through post-conviction DNA technology. A non-profit organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through post-conviction DNA technology. Established in 1992 by attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld Established in 1992 by attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld To date 337 people have been released, including 18 who spent time on death row. (This number continues to grow.) To date 337 people have been released, including 18 who spent time on death row. (This number continues to grow.)

Keep It In Perspective … Those exonerated by DNA evidence are not the only ones who are wrongfully convicted. Those exonerated by DNA evidence are not the only ones who are wrongfully convicted. Only a fraction of criminal cases involve biological evidence that can be subject to DNA testing. Only a fraction of criminal cases involve biological evidence that can be subject to DNA testing.

Why are people wrongfully convicted? Eyewitness misidentification Eyewitness misidentification Unreliable or limited science Unreliable or limited science False confessions False confessions Forensic science fraud or misconduct Forensic science fraud or misconduct Government misconduct Government misconduct Informants or snitches Informants or snitches Bad lawyering Bad lawyering

Cause #1: Eyewitness Misidentification YOU CAN ATTEST TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS!!! YOU CAN ATTEST TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS!!! …. REMEMBER THAT DAY IN SEPTEMBER?!

Cause #1: Eyewitness Misidentification This is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions. This is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions. Years of social science research has shown that eyewitness identification is often unreliable, yet sometimes it is the only evidence available. Years of social science research has shown that eyewitness identification is often unreliable, yet sometimes it is the only evidence available. Eyewitness Identification – Getting it Right Eyewitness Identification – Getting it Right Eyewitness Identification – Getting it Right Eyewitness Identification – Getting it Right

Your composites!

Why does it happen? Standard Line-up: 1. Administrators know who the suspect is and may give unintentional clues. 2. Photographs or individuals are viewed simultaneously so the choice is made on who looks most like the memory instead of building the mental image from scratch. 3. The person is led to believe the perpetrator is there so this leads to selecting someone even if there is doubt.

How can this be reformed? “Double-blind” procedure/Use of blind administrator “Double-blind” procedure/Use of blind administrator Instructions that include that the perpetrator may or not be there. This prevents the eyewitness from looking to the administrator for help. Instructions that include that the perpetrator may or not be there. This prevents the eyewitness from looking to the administrator for help. Suspect photos should be selected that do not bring any unreasonable attention to the suspects. All “fillers” should resemble the eyewitness description. Suspect photos should be selected that do not bring any unreasonable attention to the suspects. All “fillers” should resemble the eyewitness description. Eyewitness should provide a statement commenting on how confident he is in his selection. Eyewitness should provide a statement commenting on how confident he is in his selection. Lineup procedure should be documented. Lineup procedure should be documented. Lineup members should be presented one by one instead of all together – this has proven to increase the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Lineup members should be presented one by one instead of all together – this has proven to increase the accuracy of eyewitness identification.

Cause #2: Unvalidated or Improper Forensics Many forensic techniques have never been subject to rigorous scientific evaluation. Many forensic techniques have never been subject to rigorous scientific evaluation. Bitemark comparisons, hair microscopy, firearms and toolmark analysis, shoe print comparisons Bitemark comparisons, hair microscopy, firearms and toolmark analysis, shoe print comparisons Some forensic techniques that have been validated are improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial. Some forensic techniques that have been validated are improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial. Getting it right - Forensics Getting it right - Forensics Getting it right - Forensics Getting it right - Forensics

What exactly happens? Absence of scientific standards – many forensic disciplines were created to solve crimes; sometimes the “scientific” evidence can sound more precise than it is. Ex) The hairs “match” or are “consistent with” the defendant’s hair. Absence of scientific standards – many forensic disciplines were created to solve crimes; sometimes the “scientific” evidence can sound more precise than it is. Ex) The hairs “match” or are “consistent with” the defendant’s hair. Improper forensic testimony – some analysts go further with their testimony than science allows and this may be accepted as fact. Improper forensic testimony – some analysts go further with their testimony than science allows and this may be accepted as fact. Forensic misconduct – fraudulent forensic scientists report fabricated test results. Forensic misconduct – fraudulent forensic scientists report fabricated test results.

What can be done? Establish a national forensic science agency with standards and enforcement Establish a national forensic science agency with standards and enforcement Research Research Assessment of validity and reliability Assessment of validity and reliability Quality assurance, accreditation, and certification Quality assurance, accreditation, and certification State oversight commissions and advisory board State oversight commissions and advisory board Enforcement of existing requirements Enforcement of existing requirements

Cause #3: False Confessions In 30% of the DNA exonerated cases, innocent defendants delivered outright confessions or pled guilty. In 30% of the DNA exonerated cases, innocent defendants delivered outright confessions or pled guilty. Why? Why? Duress or Coercion Duress or Coercion Intoxication Intoxication Diminished capacity Diminished capacity Mental impairment Mental impairment Ignorance of the law Ignorance of the law Fear of violence Fear of violence Actual infliction of harm Actual infliction of harm A threat of a harsh sentence A threat of a harsh sentence Misunderstanding of the situation Misunderstanding of the situation Getting it right – Confessions Getting it right – Confessions Getting it right – Confessions Getting it right – Confessions

What can be done? False Confession False Confession False Confession False Confession False Confession or Child Abuse False Confession or Child Abuse False Confession or Child Abuse False Confession or Child Abuse Recording interrogations Recording interrogations Prevents disputes Prevents disputes Create a clear record of suspects statements Create a clear record of suspects statements Increase public confidence in the criminal justice system Increase public confidence in the criminal justice system Deter officers from using illegal tactics Deter officers from using illegal tactics

Cause #4: Forensic Science Misconduct False testimony, exaggerated statistics, laboratory fraud False testimony, exaggerated statistics, laboratory fraud Since forensic evidence is offered by “experts,” jurors often give it more weight than other evidence Since forensic evidence is offered by “experts,” jurors often give it more weight than other evidence Crime scene – evidence can be planted, mishandled, or destroyed. Crime scene – evidence can be planted, mishandled, or destroyed. At any stage, errors can be made in identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting. At any stage, errors can be made in identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting.

Cause #5: Government Misconduct Sometimes officials take steps to ensure that a defendant is convicted despite weak evidence or even clear proof of innocence. Sometimes officials take steps to ensure that a defendant is convicted despite weak evidence or even clear proof of innocence. Deliberate suggestiveness in identification procedures Deliberate suggestiveness in identification procedures Withholding of evidence from defense Withholding of evidence from defense Deliberate mishandling, mistreatment, or destruction of evidence Deliberate mishandling, mistreatment, or destruction of evidence Coercion of false confessions Coercion of false confessions Use of unreliable government informants or snitches Use of unreliable government informants or snitches Getting it right – Government Misconduct Getting it right – Government Misconduct Getting it right – Government Misconduct Getting it right – Government Misconduct

What can be done? States should be encouraged to form criminal justice reform commissions to study wrongful convictions and advocate for changes in the system. States should be encouraged to form criminal justice reform commissions to study wrongful convictions and advocate for changes in the system. The commissions should include experts from all parts of the criminal justice system – including crime victims and concerned members of the public. The commissions should include experts from all parts of the criminal justice system – including crime victims and concerned members of the public.

Cause #6: Informants and Snitches Getting it Right - Informants Getting it Right - Informants Getting it Right - Informants Getting it Right - Informants People have been wrongfully convicted in cases in which snitches People have been wrongfully convicted in cases in which snitches Have been paid to testify Have been paid to testify Have testified in exchange for their release from prison Have testified in exchange for their release from prison Are fed information about the cases from law enforcement officials so they can successfully give false testimony Are fed information about the cases from law enforcement officials so they can successfully give false testimony

What can be done? It is unlikely that snitch testimony will ever be banned. But it desperately needs to be regulated: It is unlikely that snitch testimony will ever be banned. But it desperately needs to be regulated: Snitches should be wired to electronically record statements. Snitches should be wired to electronically record statements. Law enforcement officials should electronically record their conversations with snitches. Law enforcement officials should electronically record their conversations with snitches. Prosecutors should disclose whether snitches have been promised leniency, immunity, cash, or anything else. Prosecutors should disclose whether snitches have been promised leniency, immunity, cash, or anything else.

Cause #7: Bad Lawyering Getting it right – Bad Lawyering Getting it right – Bad Lawyering Getting it right – Bad Lawyering Getting it right – Bad Lawyering Ineffective, incompetent or overburdened defense lawyers can lead to the conviction of innocent people. Ineffective, incompetent or overburdened defense lawyers can lead to the conviction of innocent people. Some of the worst cases: Some of the worst cases: Slept in the courtroom Slept in the courtroom Failed to investigate alibis Failed to investigate alibis Failed to call or consult experts of forensic issues Failed to call or consult experts of forensic issues Failed to show up for hearings Failed to show up for hearings

Evidence Preservation WHEN EVIDENCE IS DESTROYED, JUSTICE IS NOT SERVED! All physical evidence in all criminal cases should be properly maintained for as long as the prisoner is incarcerated. All physical evidence in all criminal cases should be properly maintained for as long as the prisoner is incarcerated. Solving cold cases – DNA evidence has helped to solve hundreds of cold cases in recent years. Solving cold cases – DNA evidence has helped to solve hundreds of cold cases in recent years. When evidence is lost or destroyed the chances increase tremendously that the wrong person will be convicted or an innocent person will be acquitted. When evidence is lost or destroyed the chances increase tremendously that the wrong person will be convicted or an innocent person will be acquitted.

Access to DNA Testing Barriers to truth – 44 states have laws permitting inmates access to DNA testing, six do not grant access. Barriers to truth – 44 states have laws permitting inmates access to DNA testing, six do not grant access. Even in states with access, sometimes motions for tests are declined. Even in states with access, sometimes motions for tests are declined. Allow testing in cases where DNA testing can establish innocence – including cases where the inmate pled guilty Allow testing in cases where DNA testing can establish innocence – including cases where the inmate pled guilty Not include a “sunset provision” or expiration date for post-conviction DNA access Not include a “sunset provision” or expiration date for post-conviction DNA access Require states to preserve and account for biological evidence Require states to preserve and account for biological evidence Provide flexibility in where and how DNA testing is conducted Provide flexibility in where and how DNA testing is conducted

Exoneree Compensation The majority of people released have not been compensated. The majority of people released have not been compensated. States have a responsibility to restore innocent people’s lives to the best of their ability. States have a responsibility to restore innocent people’s lives to the best of their ability. With no money, housing, transportation, health services or insurance, and a criminal record that is rarely cleared despite innocence, the punishment lingers long after an innocent person is exonerated. With no money, housing, transportation, health services or insurance, and a criminal record that is rarely cleared despite innocence, the punishment lingers long after an innocent person is exonerated. State by state basis : NY: If the wrongfully convicted person "did not by his own conduct cause or bring about his conviction" and files a claim within two years of his pardon of innocence, he shall receive "damages in such sum of money as the court determines will fairly and reasonably compensate him.“ NC: Any person with a pardon for innocence is eligible for $50,000 for each year of wrongful incarceration with a maximum of $750,000. Also includes provision of job skills training and education tuition waivers.

What can we do? Join the Innocence Project online community to receive updates Donate to the Innocence Project For more information on ways to help, visit