Eyewitness Misidentification And False Testimony

Other causes of wrongful convictions. Besides eyewitness misidentification and false testimony, there are two other major causes of wrongful convictions: improper science and informants. The problem with scientific evidence is that it is not always reliable; even scientific techniques that have been subjected to more empirically rigorous testing can be faulty if presented in the wrong way.

The National Academy of Sciences (2009) was highly critical of a broad range of forensic disciplines, such as ballistics, hair and fiber analysis, impression evidence, handwriting analysis, and even fingerprint analysis. The academy concluded that there are problems with standardization, reliability, accuracy and error, and the potential for contextual bias.

(p. 4)
Victims after release. Often it is the case that when an exoneree is released from prison, their struggles are not over – they simply manifest into a different type of struggle (Vartkessian & Tyler, 2011). The process of reintegration is never simple, however, there are certain factors that may ease the transition or harden it. If an exoneree is cleared through DNA evidence, they may be viewed more innocent than those who were exonerated due to due process violations. Some of the main struggles exonerees will face are initial public statements made about them upon their release, the fight to gain compensation for their suffering, and the public’s perception of whether they are truly innocent individuals.
Public statements. Vartkessian and Tyler (2011) examined the impact of the state’s public statements about an exoneree being wrongfully convicted upon public perceptions; they used Michael Roy Toney’s exoneration case as an example. Due to Toney being released because of Brady violations and not DNA evidence, his factual innocence is automatically called into question. The media coverage of his case is staunchly slanted and those who follow the case heard a biased set of information. Instead of garnering sympathy and support for a man who spent twelve years in prison for a crime he did not commit, the coverage relies on the thoughts of the prosecution and the victims’ families – who are bitter at the man they believe was responsible for taking their loved ones lives. As a type of control group to compare the Toney case too, Vartkessian, and Tyler (2011) also mention the Anthony Graves exoneration. The types of evidence that exonerated the men were the same – a non-DNA exoneration – but because the prosecutor made it public that Graves was an innocent man, his reintegration process began with the populace believing he was an innocent man and treating him as such. Likewise, Vartkessian and Tyler (2011) bring forth one more case – the Earl Washington exoneration. Washington was found innocent of the crime due to DNA evidence. Therefore, when he was released, his factual innocence was intact because DNA evidence instead of trial errors is what set him free. The public views these types of evidence under a differing set of views. Therefore it can be maintained that the type of evidence that leads to exoneration is of paramount importance to how the public will receive the individual upon release. It can also be said that, in non-DNA exonerations, it is the actions and statements of the state actors and victim’s family that will determine how the wrongfully convicted individual is received into society.
Compensation policies.

There are three ways in which an exoneree may obtain compensation after their release: tort claims, private bills, or compensation statutes (Mandery et al, 2013). Tort claims, suing the government, are often unsuccessful do to the standards that must be met. A violation to a specific constitutional right must be demonstrated in order for the claim to be valid. As most wrongful convictions take place due to eyewitness misidentification, false confession, faulty science, and informants, usually a constitutional right has not been violated. Even if the exoneree can prove that a constitutional right has been violated, government actors are protected by absolute immunity, for judges and prosecutors, and qualified immunity, for police officers. A private bill is a petition sent to the government asking for compensation while avoiding the immunities set in place for government actors. It is no more successful than tort claims, however. The last form of compensation exonerees may try to pursue is through pre-existing statutes – though only 27 states and the District of Columbia currently have any statutes of this kind. The obstacle with these, however, is meeting the eligibility requirements.

In some states, exonerees may not seek compensation if they somehow contributed to their convictions (by, for example, pleading guilty to the crime or falsely confessing). In other states, only those with official pardons from the government may seek compensation. In still

others, only those who were exonerated with DNA evidence are considered eligible. (Mandery et al., 2013, p. 559).
The grim truth is that many of the post-conviction exonerees do not meet these requirements. In fact, “only 41% of wrongfully convicted individuals ever receive any compensation” (Mandery et al., 2013, p. 560). Though they are no longer serving a prison sentence, many of these eligibility requirements maintain that they are guilty in some sense. There is no other reason for employing restrictions on exonerees, free men and women, other than the fact that true innocence is not believed.
Quality of life.

An individual’s quality of life largely depends on how the public perceives them as a person – this may be truer for exonerees than anyone. Reintegration into society has proven difficult due to this stigma due to a host of problems such as psychological disorders and poor social and practical skills (Thompson, Molina, and Levitt, 2012). The theoretical framework these researchers used with consideration to the stigma exonerees suffer was the correspondence bias – meaning that people tend to attribute other peoples’ behavior to their internal disposition rather than a situational occurrence. If someone believes that the conviction was due to personal attributes rather than a situational issue, they are likely to suspect future criminality on the part of the exoneree, even though their prior conviction was absolved. The situational factors – eyewitness misidentification, false testimony, improper forensic science, and unreliable informants – are often forgotten or unknown to the perceiver. The average citizen does not always understand that innocence alone does not always protect a defendant, and the abovementioned situational factors do exist within the legal

realm.
Thompson, Molina, and Levitt (2011) also consider how parolees, who are provided with social assistance after release, display problems in finding work, maintaining housing, and being involved with their communities outside of the penal system. This consideration is significant to the present research because exonerees, who may experience similar levels of stigmatization as parolees, are not granted the same social services; therefor, they are at an even greater disadvantage in resolving these life issues.
The results of Thompson, Molina, and Levitt’s (2012) first study indicate that guilty individuals were, in fact, viewed more negatively than the exonerated ones. Exonerated citizens were neither view positively or negatively, with consideration to personal traits, and no conclusion could be drawn due to the lack of a control group – the citizen with no criminal history. Therefore, these researchers decided to conduct a second experiment, which would include an exoneree, a parolee, and the average individual who had had no contact with the criminal justice system. These results indicated that the participants rated the exonerees and average citizens the same with ‘desire to be closeness’ indicating that the stigma of the exoneree from the first study proved less significant than previously thought. Participants rated some personal characteristics of the exoneree more negatively than the average citizen and they also rated the same level of intelligence between guilty individuals and exonerees. These researchers believe this may be due to the context because the newspaper articles depicted in the first study were of the individual being released from prison while the second study had the individuals starting college. Thompson, Molina, and Levitt (2012) comment that future research may focus on context and whether it affects parolees and exonerees differently. Participants indicated more support for exonerees than the both guilty and average citizen groups which may show that the public views exonerees as being wronged and in needing of extra support. They found little support for assisting the guilty after release which may contend to the ignorance of reintegration. The major finding, which supports prior research, was the exonerees were rated more negatively on personal characteristics than the average citizen, which could serve as validation of the correspondence bias or simply that they were of less good-nature for coming into contact with the system at all.
Thompson, Molina, and Levitt (2011) explain there appears to be stigmatization of exonerees when considering their personal characteristics. However, stigma was absent when testing the desire to be close to exonerees and the support for society’s assistance and compensation programs for exonerees. A trend was noticed with a high level of participant trust in the reliability of DNA evidence which could indicate that those who become exonerated through means of DNA are not viewed negatively. Researchers believe future research on non-DNA exonerations could provide valuable insight. They also state that, other than personal characteristic negativity, exonerees are viewed as victims of the system and should be helped after release; therefore, successful reintegration is possible for exonerees.
States that don’t allow post-conviction DNA evidence. In states that do not allow inmates to access their DNA evidence, prosecutors, judges, and court clerks, are the only ones left who can (Chang, 2008). The problem is that prosecutors are often unwilling to contest their own outcomes due to a number of reasons: the belief in finality, meaning that they believe the defendant received a fair trial and should not receive another, the belief that it will undermine the system’s credibility, the fear that misconduct on their part may arise, or the fear of a “slippery slope” being created. Chang (2008) argues that there should be a standardized ruling applied to all of the states that allows inmates to defend themselves from wrongful incarceration.
Chang (2008) introduces how the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) was established in 2004 after over a hundred cases of exoneration had taken place. The IPA’s stance is against denying inmates access to DNA evidence.
If the proposed DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence which is material to [the prisoner's claim] that the prisoner did not commit [the offense], and which raises a reasonable probability that the prisoner would not have been convicted. (Chang, 2008, p. 290)
The IPA has granted wider access to DNA evidence and the federal government has agreed to provide grants for DNA analysis. Chang’s (2008) also claims that the ban on post-conviction DNA exoneration, from the eight states, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. She also contends that, even though the Brady case has not yet been applied to post-conviction evidence, it should not matter when exculpatory evidence becomes available because it is evidence that could prove the inmate innocent of the charges altogether. She also claims that since DNA testing was not around at the time of many of the cases where claims of innocence have been made, that evidence should qualify as being withheld from the defendant’s cases just as the prosecutors withheld evidence in the Brady case.
Chang (2008) delves into the philosophical issue concerning the primary goal of the criminal justice system, which is to convict the guilty and free the innocent. She claims that the eight states that do not allow DNA exoneration are in direct opposition of that goal. The only outcome of this statute is that innocent people remain wrongfully convicted, and guilty individuals remain free.

Conclusion
It’s hard to conceive how someone could spend years of their life in prison while knowing they were innocent. The innocence Project has vastly opened the nations eye to what has happened, and they will continue to investigate until every innocent man is free. The abovementioned research provides insight into a couple issues exonerees and yet-to-be-exonerated innocents must face: a less than desirable chance at gaining compensation, the way state actors and the crime-victim’s family will determine how the public will perceive you, and for those living in one of the eight states that doesn’t allow post-conviction DNA exoneration, never getting the opportunity to become exonerated at all. Why is there so many restrictions placed upon exonerees when it comes to applying for compensation? Likewise, why doesn’t everyone recognize an exoneree’s innocence after they have been cleared of all charges? Research has shown that society is in favor of more readily-available services and compensation for exonerees, and that they believe an apology is in order from the government actors. Why are there eight states that won’t allow post-conviction DNA exoneration, when all it does is guarantee innocents no chance to claim their freedom? Finally, when will the government begin to care for the innocents the wrongfully locked up? Successful reintegration is possible, but these citizens cannot do it alone. This area of research has gained momentum since the Innocence Project joined the cause, but more attention needs to be demanded if these issues are ever to be settled.