Wrongful Convictions and DNA Exonerations: Understanding ...

1 Wrongful Convictions . AND DNA EXONERATIONS: Understanding THE. ROLE OF FORENSIC. SCIENCE. BY GERALD LAPORTE. A review of erroneous Convictions that involved forensic science can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results , render conclusions, and testify in court. O. ne of the greatest tragedies in the criminal justice system is the conviction of a person for a crime he or she did not commit. Erroneous Convictions can have immeasurable consequences for exonerees, original crime victims, and families (see sidebar, NIJ Listening Sessions with Victims and Exonerees of Wrongful Conviction ).1 Additionally, they may also have long-lasting negative effects on the witnesses, investigators, lawyers, judges, and other criminal justice professionals involved in erroneous Convictions . It is therefore incumbent on us to understand the root causes of these tragic events to help ensure that injustice is not repeated.

2 Wrongful conviction cases have been associated with various causes, which will be discussed throughout this article; however, we specifically examine cases that included forensic science as a contributing factor. Our analysis reviews publicly available data on erroneous Convictions and then presents a summary of the cases that have cited forensic science as a potential factor. The goal is to identify what we can learn from these cases to help mitigate the potential for erroneous Convictions when forensic scientists perform testing, interpret results , render conclusions, and testify to their findings. During the analysis phase of this study, some inconsistencies were identified with respect to information that is generally available via websites and publicly accessible databases. Also of concern, there is a lack of Understanding and reliance on formal research studies that are generally based on a robust experimental design. 2 Wrongful Convictions and DNA Exonerations: Understanding the Role of Forensic Science The work we do as forensic Inadequate defense Informants ( , jailhouse snitches).

3 Scientists and the conclusions Unvalidated or improper forensic science we reach have lasting effects on However, Jon Gould, who has written extensively people's lives, so we must pursue about erroneous Convictions , and his colleagues caution that without a comparison or control group every effort to understand and of cases, researchers risk labeling these factors as causes' of erroneous Convictions when they may identify our weaknesses. be merely correlates. 3 They designed a unique experimental strategy to study factors leading to There will undoubtedly be debate as to the ultimate rightful acquittals or dismissal of charges against an impact of forensic science in many of the exonerations innocent defendant near misses that were reviewed. The extent to which forensic science is a not present in cases that led to the conviction of an contributing factor in each case will often include a innocent person. After identifying a set of erroneous certain degree of subjective interpretation because Convictions and near misses and analyzing the cases the majority of erroneous Convictions involve using bivariate and logistic regression techniques, complex investigations, multiple contributing factors, Gould and his colleagues identified 10 factors.

4 Complicated juror decisions, and mistakes from (not causes) that led to a Wrongful conviction of an policies and practices that have since changed. innocent defendant instead of a dismissal or acquittal: Moreover, we do not have all of the details or full transcripts from the evidence and testimony presented Younger defendant at trial, which may further inhibit our Understanding Criminal history and bias our opinions. Weak prosecution case It is most important for forensic scientists to Prosecution withheld evidence understand that the work we do and the conclusions we reach either in forensic reports Lying by a non-eyewitness or testimony have lasting effects on people's lives, Unintentional witness misidentification so we must pursue every effort to understand and identify our weaknesses. Misinterpreting forensic evidence at trial Weak defense Inconsistencies in Publicly Available Defendant offered a family witness Data States with a punitive culture According to the Innocence Project, a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to Rebecca Goldin, a professor of mathematical exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals, 342 sciences, has also written about the challenge of people have been exonerated as a result of DNA conveying the differences between causation and analysis as of July 31, The Innocence Project correlation.

5 As Goldin states:4. lists six contributing causes for Wrongful Convictions : Journalists are constantly being reminded that Eyewitness misidentification correlation doesn't imply causation; yet, conflating the two remains one of the most common errors False confessions or admissions in news reporting on scientific and health-related Government misconduct studies . If one action causes another, then they National Institute of Justice | NIJ Journal / Issue No. 279 April 2018 3. are most certainly correlated. But just because the University of California, Irvine; the University two things occur together does not mean that one of Michigan Law School; and the Michigan State caused the other, even if it seems to make sense. University College of Law. It identifies 133 DNA. exoneration cases (39 percent), from the same pool The Innocence Project's website includes a referenced of cases identified by the Innocence Project, in which link to unvalidated or improper forensic science forensic science is a contributing factor.

6 For 157 cases (46 percent) of the 342 cases. If we cross-reference the same 157 cases on the National Exhibit 1 lists information on the 24 discrepant cases. Registry of Exonerations' (NRE's) website a A review of each of these cases, including case project that collects information about all known narratives from both the Innocence Project and NRE. exonerations from 1989 to the present5 we find and internet articles when applicable, found that in some inconsistencies in how the Innocence Project these cases, the Innocence Project's website did not and NRE classify forensic science as a factor, making include a clear description of the improper forensic it challenging to reconcile the data. NRE is managed science, there was ambiguity in the narrative, and by the Newkirk Center for Science and Society at the evidence described was actually exculpatory. As Exhibit 1. Discrepant Cases Contributing Factor(s). Innocence Project Exoneree State Listed on National Registry Forensic Narrative of Exonerations 1 Avery, Steven WI Microscopic hair examination Mistaken witness identification 2 Burnette, Victor VA Microscopic hair examination Mistaken witness identification 3 Cotton, Ronald NC No description of a forensic error Mistaken witness identification Hair: Exculpatory, similar but 4 Cunningham, Calvin VA Mistaken witness identification not consistent Co-defendant (not guilty); False confession; perjury or false 5 Cruz, Rolando IL.

7 Boot print accusation; official misconduct Mistaken witness identification;. 6 Gray, David IL No secretor testing performed perjury or false accusation;. official misconduct False confession; perjury or false 7 Halsey, Byron NJ Uncertain accusation Co-defendant (not guilty); False confession; perjury or false 8 Hernandez, Alejandro IL. boot print accusation; official misconduct Mistaken witness identification;. 9 Jones, Ronald IL ABO blood typing false confession; official misconduct 10 McClendon, Robert OH No description of a forensic error Mistaken witness identification 11 McSherry, Leonard CA No description of a forensic error Mistaken witness identification 12 Nesmith, Willie PA No description of a forensic error Mistaken witness identification continued on the next page National Institute of Justice | 4 Wrongful Convictions and DNA Exonerations: Understanding the Role of Forensic Science Exhibit 1. Discrepant Cases (continued). Contributing Factor(s).

8 Innocence Project Exoneree State Listed on National Registry Forensic Narrative of Exonerations No description of a forensic Mistaken witness identification;. 13 Ochoa, James CA error; fingerprint and DNA. official misconduct exculpatory No description of a forensic Mistaken witness identification;. 14 Powell, Anthony MA error; DNA not admissible at the official misconduct time Mistaken witness identification;. 15 Rivera, Juan IL No description of a forensic error false confession; perjury or false accusation; official misconduct Mistaken witness identification;. 16 Snyder, Walter VA No description of a forensic error false confession; perjury or false accusation; official misconduct No description of a forensic 17 Towler, Raymond OH Mistaken witness identification error; hair lacked sufficiency 18 Turner, Keith TX No description of a forensic error Mistaken witness identification No description of a forensic 19 Waller, James TX Mistaken witness identification error; hair was not the same No description of a forensic 20 Waller, Patrick TX Mistaken witness identification error; ABO could not exclude No description of a forensic False confession; official 21 Warney, Douglas NY.

9 Error; ABO was exculpatory misconduct No description of a forensic Mistaken witness identification;. 22 Whitley, Drew PA error; hair was similar, but perjury or false accusation analyst could not be certain 23 Williams, Willie GA No description of a forensic error Mistaken witness identification 24 Woods, Anthony MO No description of a forensic error Mistaken witness identification stated previously, some erroneous Convictions involved also discuss the discrepancy in the percentages of subjective assessments when it comes to contributing exonerations citing forensic science as a contributing factors (see sidebar, The Case of Steven Avery ). Therefore, for the purpose of this article, we use the 133 cases listed by NRE not the 157. Further, the NRE website lists a total of 1,944 cases cited by the Innocence Project for further exonerations since 1989 (this includes both non-DNA analysis. and DNA exonerations), and improper forensic science is cited in 24 percent of all exonerations, not just DNA NRE lists six categories of contributing factors (not exonerations such as those reported by the Innocence causes) that are similar to those on the Innocence Project.

10 Researchers John Collins and Jay Jarvis Project's website: National Institute of Justice | NIJ Journal / Issue No. 279 April 2018 5. Mistaken witness identification or eyewitness Nonetheless, the use of forensic science has also misidentification been linked with Wrongful Convictions in past cases and characterized in the media and legal reviews as Perjury or false accusation faulty, misleading, and junk science. Forensic False confession science when incorrectly perceived as a single discipline causes observers to conflate matters Official misconduct and acquire their own misperceptions about all Inadequate legal defense forensic science disciplines. Moreover, there can False or misleading forensic evidence be a variety of methods within a single forensic discipline and it is often a method, not the entire Although neither the Innocence Project nor NRE use discipline, that may have been improperly applied the 10 factors identified by Gould and his colleagues, or interpreted.