The worst thing in life is paying for another man's mistake. Sadly, this is something that occurs frequently. After watching a video about the wrongful conviction and the imprisonment of Ronald Cotton, I was baffled. I find it absurd that an innocent person can lose their freedom for a crime that they were not involved in. Ronald Cotton is not the only unfortunate individual who has endured wrongful imprisonment. Bennet Barbour, James Bain, and many others have been convicted of crimes that they did not commit due to faulty eyewitness testimonies. Ronald Cotton was convicted of burglary in the first degree and rape in the first degree after Jennifer Thompson accused him as her attacker. On July 28, 1984, Jennifer Thompson was rape a knifepoint. …show more content…
This is exactly what happened to the wife of Bennett Barbour, when Bennett was 22-years-old he was accused of the rape of two women that were sexually assaulted at gunpoint on February 7, 1978. The victims described their attacker as a man who was 5’6” tall and 145 pounds. Within a week one of the victims picked Bennett out of a photo array and two live lineups. All three times the victim chose Bennett. At the time, Bennett was 115 pounds and he had suffered from a brittle-bone disease and had a pin in his elbow which would have made it difficult for him to commit the rape. There were hair and semen found at the scene that didn’t belong to Bennett, which proved his innocence, yet he was still arrested for the crime. Unfortunately, the eyewitness testimony trumped all the evidence that supported the fact that he was not the attacker. Regardless of all the evidence and the alibi he had provided he was convicted of the crime and sentenced to 10 years in prisons. However, Bennett served 35 years in prison and was not released from prison until May 24, 2012, when he was cleared of the rape. There are many individuals wrongfully incarcerated due to flawed eyewitness testimony. Thanks to DNA testing, these three men were cleared of all crimes and released from prison. There are others not as fortunate. In my opinion, eyewitness testimonies should not be allowed as evidence in court. As a juror, you must keep in mind that trauma affects the mind and can shatter your memory and mistakes can be made. Therefore, to eliminate the chances of sending an innocent person to prison the only thing that should be taken into consideration during deliberation is physical and forensic
Ron’s old boss from Somer’s Seafood, Mr. Byrum, who was a Native American, said that he saw Ronald wearing white gloves when he rode his bike. Ronald did wear white gloves, but he cut off the tops of them. Ray then said that Ronald was always messing with the waitresses by touching them, but Ronald said he Ray always thought he was messing with the waitresses. He then went onto say that Ron bothered an eighteen year old and a forty-seven year old. Ray then said that the waitresses were white. After three and a half years, Ronald found out that Mary Reynolds, the other victim, picked him as her attacker. She claimed that she knew it was him all along, but was too afraid to identify him. He was then charged with her rape. He told his cellmate, Fearnow, about the lineup and he told it to Mr. Moseley, his defense attorney. Fearnow was trying to make a deal for himself to get Ronald into even more trouble.
Omar Abdul Ballard had admitted to the rape and murder of Michelle Bosko; his was the only semen found. Furthermore, Ballard tried to tell police that he alone had committed the crimes. Yet despite the physical evidence and Ballard’s statements, the courts decided to continue their cases against the other four men. Even the lawyers that should have been trying to defend the Norfolk Four did little to actually defend them against the charges and instead opted to try to get them a lighter sentence. Their own lawyers seemed unable to get over the fact that the men had confessed to the crime. Even with explanations of long interrogations, threats, and lies by the police these lawyers were unwilling to believe that innocent men would confess to such a heinous crime. Instead, they were urged to “cooperate” with the police and tell the “truth”. With this type of advice the men went up to the witness stand and committed perjury lying under oath and relaying their false confessions to the jury. The problem it seems is that the police and the courts were not interested in the truth or justice, they are looking for an easy way to close a case. They were looking for someone to blame and they were unwilling to admit that they were wrong when evidence seemed to show they had a made a
Within the book picking cotton, the alleged rapist Ronald Cotton is sentenced to life in prison and 55 years. During his sentence he finds himself being placed in solitary confinement, and while there Ron finds the experience rather beneficial as he explains that being in there presented him with the chance to meditate and reflect. Now there are many rumors about the infamous solitary confinement. These rumors debate whether or not it helps prisoners, allowing them to spend the time as Ronald Cotton as seen it, as an opportunity to self-reflect, or if it is a cruel and unusual punishment due to the drastic effects it has on convicts. The initial intent of solitary confinement was to isolate convicts as a way for them to self-reflect and improve
"Forgiveness" and "racism" are two words that usually do not go together. Surprisingly enough Picking Cotton tells the story of how Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton showed the upmost forgiveness for a wrongful conviction that in part was caused due to the racism. Racism was surely present in the South in the early 1900 's, but historically one does not think racism was a major issue in the 80 's. In one man 's opinion, Ronald Cotton, the Burlington police had racist views that contributed to him serving a life imprisonment for a crime he never committed. In 1984 when two white women were raped by a black man, race played a role in convicting the wrong black man in Burlington, North Carolina. Ronald Cotton was wrongfully convicted by racism
This paper will consider eye witness testimony and its place in convicting accused criminals. Psychology online (2013) defines “eye witness testimony” as a statement from a person who has witnessed a crime, and is capable of communicating what they have seen, to a court of law under oath. Eye witness testimonies are used to convict accused criminals due to the first hand nature of the eye witnesses’ observations. There are however many faults within this system of identification. Characteristics of the crime is the first issue that will be discussed in this paper, and the flaws that have been identified. The second issue to be discussed will be the stress impact and the inability to correctly identify the accused in a violent or weapon focused crime. The third issue to be discussed is inter racial identification and the problems faced when this becomes a prominent issue. The fourth issue will be time lapse, meaning, the time between the crime and the eye witness making a statement and how the memory can be misconstrued in this time frame. To follow this will be the issue of how much trust jurors-who have no legal training-put on to the eye witness testimony, which may be faltered. This paper references the works of primarily Wells and Olsen (2003) and Rodin (1987) and Schmechel et al. (2006) it will be argued that eye witness testimony is not always accurate, due to many features; inter racial identification, characteristics of the crime, response latency, and line up procedures therefore this paper will confirm that eyewitness testimonies should not be utilised in the criminal ju...
If that does not occur to the reader as an issue than factoring in the main problem of the topic where innocent people die because of false accusation will. In addition, this book review will include a brief review of the qualifications of the authors, overview of the subject and the quality of the book, and as well as my own personal thoughts on the book. In the novel Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make It Right authors Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer expose the flaws of the criminal justice system through case histories where innocent men were put behind bars and even on death row because of the miscarriages of justice. Initially, the text promotes and galvanizes progressive change in the legal
Eyewitness testimony is when people who were either involved in the “accident/ situation” give their side of the story, and give a testimony on what supposedly happened all through their eyes (Branscombe & Baron, 2017). In the movie eyewitness testimony was key to convict the “killers” of the store clerk murder, and one example was when each person described the car all from different points of view and distances. I felt like the eyewitnesses just used each other to reference the same car, they all didn’t have an accurate description of the car but when with it based on what the lawyer was say and hinting at. Another way these eyewitness testimonies seemed to be completely wrong and even harmful to the investigation was because everyone said that they saw Billy and his friend running away and speeding off when they could not really describe those two young mans descriptions with great detail. Which this was another form of eyewitness testimonies are really unreliable and shouldn’t really be used in a court of
They gave a poor testimony and the witnesses used are untrustworthy. Saying his evidence leads towards Bob Ewell committed the crime of beating Mayella Ewell not Tom Robinson. Post
The court must find more evidence and not to depend on eyewitness testimony and to look for the best people as possible. Besides, there more evidence that DNA testing. Eyewitness must be proven in order to arrest the right suspect and question the suspect to get more evidence in steady of keeping in prison for false witness. The police for tracking everywhere the suspect went and people the suspect contact with that time. It will solve the problem by asking the eyewitness question and the suspect questions to see if both things they said
Ronald Cotton faced scrutiny and discrimination. This treatment did not begin with the Thompson case. Cotton had dated white women in the past, and it was known by his neighbors that he did so. Cotton knew that the town disapproved of his behavior and felt that by merely dating white women, the town felt he was guilty of other crimes (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton, p. 84). During the investigation, detectives judged Cotton based on his race, specifically commenting that he dated “little white girls” (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton, p. 82). Prosecutors
Contributing to most cases of wrongful convictions is Eyewitness misidentification. Eyewitness misidentification not only is the greatest cause of wrongful conviction but it also single handedly creates a huge 75% of convictions to be overturned due to DNA testing. When dealing with eyewitness testimony there is no guarantee that the criminal to which the victim is describing can be narrowed down to a single person. That is where facial and body features such as height, weight, and other personal reference can help victims remember a clearer image. Thus, when the suspects are in the police lineup the victim will either see the criminal, or not. Sadly, the false testimony, or “snitch” testimony come to play. Yes, victims could be telling the truth to whether the criminal is actually in...
When someone points their finger to a specific person in a courtroom and identifies them as the criminal, it is very powerful. Most people think that that is a case closer. Often these people have identified the same person in photos and line ups prior to being in court. But, is it possible that they could be wrongly identifying an innocent man? Even if they completely believe it and would pass a lie detector test when asked if they believed that this person was truly the one who committed the crime? “Picking Cotton”, the story of Jennifer Thompson’s accusation of Ronald Cotton, is a perfect example of the faults of eyewitness news.
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
The Cotton Club, as one of the most famous nightclubs in Harlem, was an iconic symbol of the Harlem Renaissance of the Roaring Twenties. The nightclub was opened in September of 1923, and was a place where people could see the latest dances and bask in the culture and creativity of Harlem’s most famous nightclub. It was owned and operated by gangster Owen “Owney” Madden. The club operated pretty consistently until it was relocated to downtown Harlem in February of 1936. The Cotton Club has a rich history during the era, a variety of different events were held there starring several different performers, including tap dancer Bill “Bojangles” Robinson.
It is often one of the most important types of evidence in a court room and plays a big role in the criminal justice system. In court, an individual is expected to remember information they saw while being present in a crime that was committed. Some people might think it is easy, if a person was there at the time of the crime committed there is no way they may get it wrong, but the reality is that many do misidentify the perpetuator and the justice system winds up incarcerating the wrong individual. Eyewitnesses have to retrieve their memories from the time the crime was occurred which can be troubling when our memories can easily be changed with what we believe to be true. Throughout the years, studies have in fact shown that eyewitness testimony is not reliable. There are many factors in eyewitness testimony that can cause a wrongful conviction some of them being, weapon focus, mental state, racial profiling and show-ups versus line-ups. The Innocence Project stated that eyewitness misidentification is the one of the main reasons to wrongful convictions which was proven by 70% of convictions overturned due to DNA testing. Two stories that are constantly used to demonstrate factors that come into play when identifying a perpetrator is the story of “Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton” as well as the story of Brenton Butler which had a documentary created called “Murder On a