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.
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...
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
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.
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...
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.
Jennifer Thompson-Cannino was raped at knife point in her apartment. She was able to escape and identify Ronald Cotton as her attacker. The detective conducting the lineup told Jennifer that she had done great, confirming to her that she had chosen the right suspect. Eleven years later, DNA evidence proved that the man Jennifer Identified, Ronald Cotton was innocent and wrongfully convicted. Instead, Bobby Poole was the real perpetrator. Sadly, there are many other cases of erroneous convictions. Picking cotton is a must read for anybody because it educates readers about shortcomings of eyewitness identification, the police investigative process and the court system.
...t I do not think that the evidence presented is enough for a conviction to sentence any man or woman to death.
"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
Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.
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
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
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