Wrongful Convictions

Posted: January 4th, 2023

Wrongful Convictions

Student’s Name:

Institutional Affiliation:

Wrongful Convictions

Introduction

The Al Jazeera America and Films Media Group (2017) leaves many viewers wondering just how rampant is the problem of wrongful conviction in the U.S.’s and the world’s criminal justice system. The revelation according to the film is the issue is too common. Investigations by the National Registry of Exonerations reveal that about 149 people were exonerated in 2015 for crimes they did not commit – more than any other time in history. The number increased from 139 in 2014 and 61 from 2005 (The Al Jazeera America and Films Media Group, 2017). The trend suggests that the number of wrongful convictions is increasing and something needs to change to save more people from serving jail terms for mistakes they did not commit (Fraser, 2009). The report pays considerable attention to how overreliance on eyewitnesses can lead to wrongful convictions in situations where the witness is not very certain about their decision, as well as how forensic evidence that ought to be precise can be flawed thereby causing improper sentencing. The suitable ways to achieve truthful convictions and to lower the number of exonerations is to train officers in suitable investigative approaches and to adopt effective ways of identifying culprits using eyewitnesses. Developing groups that create awareness on the effective ways of identifying suspects and incorporating forensic evidence may also be helpful in improving credibility surrounding the conviction of wrongdoers. Eradicating wrongful convictions due to false testimony by eyewitnesses and flawed forensic analysis requires application of various approaches because the problem is deep-rooted and inappropriate or inadequate effort may not address the issue. 

Reliance on Eyewitnesses and how it could lead to Wrong Convictions

Eyewitness identification serves a crucial purpose in the identification and prosecution of criminals, but it is now common knowledge that eyewitnesses can make blunders that may have severe repercussions. Generally speaking, misidentification by eyewitnesses can be termed as failures of visual memory or perception, which may entail seeing things incorrectly, or the loss of precision or accuracy in storing, maintaining, and recalling what happened or what was seen (Albright, 2017). Using an eyewitness to identify a suspect serves as a form of direct testimonial proof that may be utilized for forensic needs, which is for the formation of facts in a criminal prosecution or investigation (Albright, 2017). The use of eyewitness had a long history of application in this capacity by the courts and law enforcers, in the U.S. and other parts of the world, and has served a major role in both acquittals and convictions (Albright, 2017). Despite the use of eye witnesses playing the key role in court cases, there have been a number of occasions where eye witnesses have failed, as in the case of misidentifications resulting in conviction of innocent individuals. The effects of wrongful convictions based on incorrect eyewitness testimonies are multifaceted and profound (Albright, 2017). Thousands of people have stayed behind bars for many years while the true violators remain at large, free to indulge in more crimes (Albright, 2017). Unfortunately, incidences where the eye witness misidentifies a culprit have largely contributed to the public’s mistrust of the Justice system, going as far as to cause public unrest with anger being meted on the courts and various law enforcement agencies.  Several factors can lead to innocent people being sent to jail, and knowing some of these could help in taking appropriate measures to deal with the situation. Statements from eyewitnesses usually serve an important function in securing convictions for criminal cases, with police surveys indicating that eyewitness testimonies account for the highest percentage of evidence in more than 21% of cases (Cornell Law School, 2018). The high usage of eyewitnesses, however, does not imply that such evidence is always reliable. In fact, about 75% of wrongful convictions are as a result of incorrect eye witness statements (Hallcox & Welch, 2009). The data indicates that up to 100 innocent people can be convicted annually in the U.S. and in the UK because of inaccurate eye witness accounts. Today, the idea of eye witness misidentification is familiar to the public following the Netflix documentary ‘Making a Murderer’ (Cornell Law School, 2018). The production focuses on Steven Avery who is falsely accused of rape and spends nearly 18 years in jail before securing his release. One of the people offering their testimonies in Avery’s case was paid to act as an eyewitness, and, without much investigation, the jury believed what the false witness said.

Social scientists have elaborated over the years that there is adequate reason to worry about the correctness of the eyewitness identification process and the testimony utilized in criminal trials. Even though eyewitnesses can generally seem confident that their memory serves them accurately in identifying a suspect, the changeable nature of visual perception and human memory makes eyewitness testimony one of the most untrustworthy ways of presenting evidence (Hurley, 2017). Courts initially disregarded the problems that could emerge from eyewitness identification, until evidence from DNA tests started to be used to clear or exonerate criminal defendants, in some scenarios many years after they were convicted (Hurley, 2017 and Srihari, 2011). The high number of exonerations attracted the attention of people both within and beyond the judiciary who started to question the facts behind each wrongful conviction, and after much analysis it became clear that the leading cause for wrongful convictions was incorrect eyewitness identification.

Violations of the law with regard to offering justice can happen more often than TV documentaries would want people to believe, over a wide range of crimes. A prime example of such a case in the UK was that of William Mills who was falsely accused and jailed for robbing the Royal Bank of Scotland along Dumbarton Road in Glasgow City, UK. Four eyewitnesses in the 2007 case said they recognized Mills as the person who robbed the bank, but none of them was correct (Liebman et al., 2014). About 70 police officers ambushed Mills’ home at 5.30 in the morning, after he heard his wife shouting that people with guns were outside their house. Mills opened the front door only to come face-to-face with a number of police officers carrying rifles and shields and wearing ski masks (Liebman et al., 2014). The security officers ordered Mills, his wife, and two daughters to lie on the floor, and the four of them were forced to lie there with the laser beams of the guns pointed at them. The court sentenced Mills for nine years for stealing 8,217 pounds, but he was freed six months into his sentence after DNA discovered on a door knob linked the incident to Michael Absalom (Liebman et al., 2014). Mills had said that he and his family continue to suffer and that he is forced see a psychologist frequently to deal with the mental trauma that he still sometimes experiences. Mills’ case clearly elaborates how eyewitnesses can sometimes offer information that they are not really sure about and how this could result in wrongful conviction.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) assembled a team of experts in the recent past to perform a study of the factors that lead eyewitnesses to falsely identify a culprit. The committee of experts  came from various fields including the courts, statistics, and neural and cognitive science, to take part in a comprehensive study of the real factors leading to eyewitness misidentification. The Laura and John Arnold Foundation funded the program which was chaired by Albright in collaboration with Judge Rakoff who serves at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York City (Albright, 2017). The study mostly paid attention to the scientific evidences for limitations on visual memory and perception, which in turn put constraints on the authenticity of eyewitness reports (Albright, 2017). The study also paid attention to the eyewitness identifications processes utilized by law enforcement for investigating and prosecuting crimes as well as on the legal practices and standards for inclusion of eyewitness testimony in the courtroom. The NAS committee discovered that, over the years, the issue of eyewitness identification has been viewed through applied research aimed at knowing how relevant variables influence the capacity of a witness to precisely recognize the victim, that is, the eyewitness’ performance (Albright, 2017). The committee further discovered that all efforts by humans to give testimony can be termed as collecting, analyzing, storing, and remembering information and, because of this factor, depend majorly on the brain’s system that mediates memory, perception, and sensation. The committee relied on the research carried out over the past decade that has showed how the systems function, more so in the case of information collected or gained through the visual sense (Albright, 2017). One of the major tasks carried out by the committee on eyewitness recognition was to consider the body of research with the objective of determining the factors that influence an eyewitness’ performance and to know, in some way, why identification errors occur and what can prevent their occurrence.

The traditional eyewitness identification process and practices have some flaws that can make the identification approach less effective and likely to misguide the victim and the lineup administrator. Sometimes, when trying to identify a perpetrator using the standard lineup approach, the administrator may know who the real suspect is, and some findings reveal such lineup administrators can give unintentional signals to the eyewitness about the individual to pick from the lineup (Palmer & Brewer, 2012). Also, sometimes, when dealing with a standard lineup, without any instructions from the officer in charge, the eyewitness usually assumes that the suspect is one of those in the lineup, which often results in them selecting a person despite doubts (Lindsay & Wells, 2005). The administrator while handling a standard lineup may choose to form a photo or live lineup where the non-criminal fillers do not meet the eyewitness’ description of the suspect or do not resemble the perpetrator (Carlson & Carlson, 2014). Such scenarios usually lead to speculations where the suspect falls into the wrong arms of the law without much strength to defend themselves from going to jail. Another factor that could affect the credibility of the identification process when the eyewitness has to identify the culprit from a lineup is the officer in charge of the process may not produce or formulate a statement from the witness defining their level of confidence in an identification conducted during the recognition process (Wixted et al., 2015). It is always vital to remember that the confidence a witness displays can be subject to influence or manipulation by the information the witness receives following the identification process (Wixted et al., 2015). Investigations reveal that information offered to an eyewitness after recognition, implying that the he or she selected the right suspect, can dramatically elevate the witness’ confidence in the identification process. It is essential, therefore, to understand and capture the level of confidence an eyewitness displays at the time the identification takes place.

Several other factors make eyewitness’ accounts less credible, which makes it necessary to identify proper ways of making the process more effective. The initial step towards precisely identifying something one has seen in the past is seeing it correctly to begin with. Studies in recent years have identified many elements about the functionality of vision (Loftus, 2005). The studies show visual sensation is the starting process of sensing light and instilling basic image features. The sensation themselves are brief, and only a small bit of what one senses is perceived in the real sense. Attention, on the other hand, entails a process where one’s brain aligns appropriately in response to the visual system and filtering out irrelevant information while the relevant information is chosen for additional processing (Loftus, 2005). Perception refers to the process through which attended visual content is logically analyzed and organized into patterns appropriate for cognition and the action needed in the situation.

The above evaluation implies that the fidelity and essence of reported visual experiences is mainly limited by three interconnected features: bias, confidence, and uncertainty. Uncertainty in this case implies the difficulties encountered in interpretation the neural signals in cases where there is much noise (Mickes et al., 2012). Vision is usually hampered by noise emanating from various natural sources, some connected with the structures of the visual environment such as shading, shadows, reflective glare, and reflective surfaces (Mickes et al., 2012). The presence of such noise could cause uncertainty about what one is actually looking at, such that any information one might store in the memory or any decision made has a high probability of being incorrect (Mickes et al., 2012). Security officers, prosecutors, and judges, therefore, need to consider how several factors could interfere with memory and recollection to acquire insight into the flaws associated with eyewitness narration.

It is also critical to understand that memory is malleable, and a person can give a wrong account because they do not have a precise memory of what happened. Often, the information perceived by a witness is stored in the memory, where it is available for recovery when needed to identify a suspect (Leo, 2016). The form of memory utilized in this case is declarative, such that it comprises consciously reachable episodic and semantic content, giving perceived things meaning relative to common knowledge, as well as a sense of time and place (Leo, 2016). It is controlled by brain systems dissimilar from those engaged in visual perceptions and functions with unlike dynamics, but its outcomes are similarly impacted by confidence, bias, and uncertainty (Leo, 2016). Often, declarative memories are perceived as entailing three vital processes, which are encoding, storing, and retrieval, which imply, respectively, to the formation of memory, whether a memory is for a short period or maintained for long, and recollecting items stored in the memory (Police Executive Research Forum, 2013). These elements, however, are not static, passive procedures or processes that record, maintain, and divulge the content in an informational space, unaffected by external influences (Meissner et al., 2005). The content cannot be regarded as a veridical everlasting record such as photographs stored safely. On the flip side, the reliability of the memory may be affected by several factors at all phases of processing, from encoding, storage, and the last phase of retrieval. Without knowing, people often encode information in a discriminatory manner and later embark on either reconstructing, forgetting all together, needing to update, and distorting the things they perceive to be true (Wells, 2014). Doubtful memories of witnesses’ accounts may be biased by information subsequently collected from many sources, which significantly increases the odds of information bias thereby raising the possibility of misidentifying a suspect (Wells et al., 1979). In addition, the precision of evidence collected from these sources strengthen the witness’ confidence in the events recalled, even though the respective sources may themselves be less reliable and are not likely to be independent transmitters of information.

Reliance on Forensic Evidence and how it could lead to Wrong Conviction

Many perceive forensic science as the ultimate tool for solving crime, and to enable prosecutors to present concrete evidence against accused persons, especially in big cases such as rape and murder, while also utilizing it to reintroduce cases that were still pending due to lack of tangible evidence. Many victims and their close relatives perceive it as godsend and TV watchers wonder at its consistency in bringing good endings to crime-related issues. Anderson (2018) regard forensic science as an investigative field loaded with impressive and appealing methods of collecting evidence to present in the courtroom. The process entails matching the fingerprints and carrying out DNA analysis (Appleby et al., 2013). Forensic analysis may also entail carrying out other experiments such as testing the hair of a rape victim for traceable micro-organisms left by the attacker.

The developments in technology compel judges to demand for more tangible evidence with some members of the jury knowing the weaknesses of relying on eyewitnesses. Shelton (2008) who has served as a felony trial judge for about 17 years feels that the increased production of films that highlight crime and courtroom proceedings influences how judges determine the cases they handle. Shelton gives the example of TV shows such as ‘Dateline NBC’, ‘CSI: Crime Scene Investigation’, and ‘48 Hours Mystery, American Justice’ that cover many aspects of legal proceedings surrounding criminal cases. Shelton (2008) gives the example of popular forensic dramas such as ‘Bones’ and ‘Cold Case’ that he also thinks highly influence how judges determine the cases before them. The way the judges in such films rely on technology to make their decisions, according to Shelton (2008), compel judges in reality to demand evidence that is based on technological production and forensic analysis. Many judges, journalists, and attorneys have claimed that watching TV shows like CSI has caused jurors to faulty acquit guilty defendants when the prosecution fails to present scientific evidence (Godsey & Alou, 2011). The increased demand for scientific evidence that Shelton (2008) refers to as the ‘CSI effect’, according to one district attorney, now requires the prosecution to present fingerprint evidence for nearly all cases, which may not be possible when investigating officers cannot access the necessary equipment.

Shelton together with Young Kim and Gregg Barak, who both serve as criminology professors at Eastern Michigan University, surveyed 1026 jurors after assuring them that their responses would remain anonymous. The primary objective of the study was to question judges regarding their demands and expectations for scientific proof and their TV-watching habits (Shelton, 2008). The goal of the exercise was to determine whether there is any connection behind the commonly held perception that the demand for forensic evidence by judges and their demand for it as a requirement for conviction are connected to watching law-related films (Shelton, 2008). The survey indicated that 46% would want to see some scientific evidence in nearly all criminal cases, 22% expected the presentation of DNA evidence, while 36% wanted to see evidence from ballistic or firearm tests (Shelton, 2008). The study showed that a higher percentage of those who have watched CSI demand more scientific evidence, and which was more likely to be related to a particular criminal act than judges who have not watched the show (Godsey & Alou, 2011). Even though the study confirmed certain films on crime and law could influence how juries determine cases based on scientific evidence, it does not mean all judges who are conversant with the developments in technology will acquit a defendant in cases that lack such proof.

Many judges seem to rely on forensic analysis and evidence to convict suspects but still some result in wrongful convictions. A good example of such a case is that of Lana Canen who was charged and sentenced in 2002 for the killing of her neighbor, Helen Sailor, in Indiana, US. The court convicted Canen for being an accomplice in the robbery, beating, and execution of Sailor, but the judgment was later reversed when a case of faulty fingerprint analysis emerged (Chinn, 2012). Detective Dennis Chapman narrated at trial that the fingerprints found on a pill bottle picked at the scene of crime matched that of Canen. Chapman had only carried out basic analysis that identified the main similarities between the print collected at the scene and Cane’s fingerprint.  One of the reasons forensic analysis generates much controversy is criminal analysts conduct such evaluations in law enforcement settings rather than a scientific laboratory that has all the necessary equipment to yield the desired outcome (Giannelli, 2010). Furthermore, the issue of corruption and bribery seem to be the major challenges in achieving transparency when delivering the outcomes of forensic analysis. These challenges usually affect defendants who are not financially disposed to bribe their way.

Possible ways of Achieving Proper and Fair Convictions

Some people go to jail following the revelation of flawed forensic investigations and false eyewitness testimonies. This trend requires relevant stakeholders to embrace approaches that would reduce the rate of wrongful convictions. A suitable way to ensure that only guilty people serve jail terms is to promote training of officers dealing with various cases, and to equip them with skills in identifying false witnesses and possibly flawed forensic investigations (Hardy, 2017 and Raymond, 2001). It is encouraging that the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) already offers international development aid that supports both foreign policy goals and national security (The United States Department of Justice, 2019). ICITAP works with foreign states to create transparent and professional law enforcement institutions that safeguard human rights, prevent corruption, and lower the threat of transnational terrorism and crime. ICITAP partners with the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, and U.S. Agency for International Development, which provide funding for its activities (The United States Department of Justice, 2019). The group employs various approaches to equip individuals with skills on how to achieve transparent and professional law enforcement, including assessment, program implementation, and management. As part of the empowerment program, the people attend workshops, seminars, classroom trainings, and other initiatives that seek to offer new insights into their profession. ICITAP, for example, ended its training at the Annual Conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police on October 29, 2019 where more than 20,010 law enforcement professions from more than 100 nations around the world were present (The United States Department of Justice, 2019). Developing such courses and others will improve investigations, and will reduce the number of innocent people who go to jail. 

Apart from encouraging officers to improve investigation practices, it is essential to adopt more effective ways of presenting eyewitnesses such that they do not present information that could result in wrongful convictions. The National Academy of Sciences released a report titled ‘Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification in 2014’, to reveal the nature of the problem regarding wrongful convictions that emanate from false eyewitness accounts (Roberts, 2018). The report made it clear that the issue creates serious problems, embedded in human psychology, which influence the police and courtroom activities. The report proposed the use of one suspect per identification procedure even in scenarios that involve multiple suspects. Lineups are created to be a test of the complainant or eyewitnesses’ memory, and arraigning more than a single suspect for identification increases the possibility that a defendant is identified by mere speculation (Hurley, 2017). The recommendation equally applies to paper lineups where the witness has to identify the culprit from a group of photos, as well as to the traditional style of actual lineups of people. The report further recommends for effective selection of fillers whereby the suspects included in the lineup are of the same age range and race and generally meet the perpetrator’s description (Hurley, 2017). It is also important to offer unbiased instructions to the witness and to remind the eyewitnesses that the true perpetrator may not be part of those presented in the lineup. Another way to select culprits in the correct manner rather than merely relying on the description the eyewitness gives is to observe the double blind approach, meaning that neither the officer in charge of the identification process nor the witness knows the real suspect (Hurley, 2017). This approach is important because human beings can unconsciously and subtly pass information, as it could happen by gesture, eye movement, or other body movements.

It is also important that the officer in charge of the identification process records the level of confidence of the witness upon identifying the suspect, because studies reveal that the level of confidence in the witness might sometimes go down in future with regard to their selection, which could cause serious legal repercussions (Hurley, 2017). The 2014 report discourages against using the traditional lineup of people or pictures, arguing that when using such a presentation style where all images are presented at once the identifier is left with no option but to compare and contrast and settle on one that they feel matches their memory. The report instead advocates for the sequential lineup, which it terms as being more reliable because the pictures or people are presented one at a time, thereby allowing the witness to pay attention to the image or person rather than enter into comparisons that would only create more confusion. It is advisable to always avoid the use of show-ups that are mostly used close to the scene of crime and are usually conducted shortly after the occurrence of crime (Pepper, 2010). The security officers would make a witness identify a single suspect who is picked from the vicinity of the incident (Jolicoeur, 2010). Such suspects could be handcuffed and may be showing other forms of distress such as trembling and sweating due to the fear that may come over them. Certainly such a situation forms a highly suggestive scenario in which the probability of misidentification is substantially heightened (Jolicoeur, 2010). Otherwise, failing to identify suitable ways of recognizing culprits through eyewitness could derail the attempts to reduce wrongful convictions.

So far, various groups have developed recommendations on how to advance the precision of eyewitness identification, and their findings seem to be of significant help to agencies dealing with the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. The Innocence Project, for instance, proposes several procedural reforms to ensure higher degrees of precision in eyewitness identification (Innocence Project, 2019). The reforms have been identified by security forces such as the police, the prosecution teams, and the judicial bodies, as well as justice organizations, including the American Bar Association and the National Institute of Justice. The advantages of the reforms are affirmed by more than 32 years of peer-reviewed in-depth research. The Innocence Project proposed the use of the double-blind approach whereby neither the eyewitness nor the administrator knows the suspect (Innocence Project, 2019). Such an approach prevents the officer in charge of the identification from giving intentional or inadvertent nonverbal or verbal cues to influence the eyewitness to select a particular individual or suspect. The Innocence Project also proposes the issuance of instructions, which refer to a series of directives issued by the lineup officer that prevents the eyewitness from feeling pushed or compelled to select a particular individual (Innocence Project, 2019). The approach also prevents the eyewitness from relying on the lineup officer for cues or feedback during the identification process. It is in such a scenario where the officer may inform the witness that the true culprit may or may not be part of those present in the lineup.

The Innocence Project also suggests the essence of composing the lineup in such a way that the selected photographs do not instigate or direct unreasonable attention to anyone. The group feels that it is critical to always select the live lineup members or non-suspect photos such that the culprit does not stand out among the others (Innocence Project, 2019). Law enforcement bodies based on the proposal by Innocence Project should identify fillers based on a blended technique that considers the entry’s resemblance to the description offered by the witness and their resemblance to the suspect the police identifies. Offering confidence statements and documenting the lineup procedures are some of the other approaches the Innocence Project proposes as being effective in achieving good outcomes when relying on an eyewitness (Innocence Project, 2019). The group proposes that, immediately after the lineup process, the eyewitness should offer a statement, in his or her words, that describes the level of confidence he or she has in the choice they made (Innocence Project, 2019). Also crucial is the need to record the lineup procedure electronically, and in situations where this is impossible, a written or audio record may be applicable (Appleby & Kassin, 2016). The identification processes, however, are likely to experience considerable challenges if the proposals by the Innocence Project are not put into action.

So far, several states have implemented the directives of the Innocence Project either through court action, voluntary compliance, or legislation. Some of the states that have implemented the reforms are Oklahoma, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Nebraska, California, Ohio, New Hampshire, Oregon, Texas, and Michigan, among several others (Innocence Project, 2019). The enactment of the proposals by the Innocence Project follows their testing and approval that they are effective and highly likely to yield the anticipated results (Innocence Project, 2019). The other states that are yet to implement the proposals need to select teams that first try out the suggestions before putting them into action, or simply learn from the groups that have already applied the recommendations.

More essentially, it is necessary to work towards developing competent and unbiased forensic services to advance the whole justice system. Clarke and Reno (2007) and Griner (2019) assert that there is widespread awareness across the country that forensic evaluations need transformation to meet the present expectations and demands, although views still vary on what the right role is for forensic analysis professionals such as crime scene investigators. It is necessary to develop adequate facilities where such tests take place to lessen the reliance on eyewitnesses (Peterson et al., 2010). Furthermore, it is important to invest in the latest technology as well as sensitize investigators on the essence of upholding integrity while conducting tests and presenting their findings to prevent scenarios where people without any wrongdoing go to jail.

People’s understanding of human memory and vision has grown exponentially in the recent past, creating much awareness on the possible weaknesses and benefits of eyewitness testimony. Despite the growth, the legal measure for incorporation of eyewitness evidence in court remains fixed to the ruling by the Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite (1977) (O’Toole & Shay, 2006). To safeguard the rights and freedom of persons charged, in line with the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court’s ruling stipulates a test for applicability of eyewitness evidence (O’Toole & Shay, 2006). Regrettably, the scope of the test borrows from judicial precedents and not modern science that is more reliable, and is based on the premise that reliability is the essence in judging admissibility of identification process (O’Toole & Shay, 2006). Although reliability is crucial, the Supreme Court’s test comprises of a checklist of factors that generally are not particularly effective signals of reliability.

More recent rulings by state courts on acceptability of eyewitness evidence have used science to a higher degree. Nonetheless, in accordance with newer scientific awareness of why eyewitnesses do not yield good outcome, the NAS committee came up with a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening the value of eyewitness testimony in the courtroom (Albright, 2017). These recommendations, which encompass the utilization of pre-trial judicial commissions and scientific expert evidence, are intended to put conditions that could cause bias, overconfidence, and uncertainty on the eyewitnesses’ part (Albright, 2017). The report by the NAS committee also emphasized that members of the jury should be aware of any identifications that happened prior to the trial, because expressed self-assurance at earlier points in time are more likely to reflect the precision of identification (Albright, 2017). Together, the suggested measures should make clear the probative weight of the proof or evidence such that the jury can either omit or include it. 

Conclusion

The analysis elaborates the need to improve reliance on eyewitnesses and forensic evidence to avoid wrongful convictions that seem to be on the rise based on the increased number of exonerations. Various studies have already found that the memory and visions of human beings are prone to change, which could result in wrong identifications of suspects. So far, many people have served prison terms for crimes they did not do, as it came out in the case of Mills who had to stay six months behind bars for an offense he did not commit. Many judges nowadays understand the weaknesses associated with merely relying on eyewitnesses, and even though some feel that law-related films have a role to play, the jury currently wants more scientific evidence, especially when dealing with serious crimes. Nonetheless, fears still exist that the forensic analyses could be flawed resulting in wrongful convictions. Some of the effective ways for achieving truthful convictions include training officers on suitable ways of carrying out investigations and identifying evidence that may be misleading, and advocating for proper ways of identifying suspects using the eyewitness approach. The study is significant in various ways; especially in the way it calls on prosecutors and judges to evaluate the evidence before them very well to ensure they are not flawed or false. It reminds the people handling criminal cases that the developments in technology does not provide surety that the evidence presented is the truth and does not contain any errors. Such revelations could be important for policy-making and may increase the desire to evaluate the evidence further before passing judgment. The findings from the study may also encourage various groups to come up and advocate for better and informed ways of using eyewitness evidence in the courtroom. The emerging groups that could work independently or together should address some of the issues that still make it hard to achieve truthful convictions where either wrong eyewitness testimony or flawed forensic practices lead to misinformed and misled trials and sentencing.

References

Albright, T. (2017). Why eyewitness fail. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(30), 7758-7764.

Anderson, R. (2018). The fallibility of forensic science: Crime-solving tool can lead to wrongful convictions – and belated exonerations. Retrieved from https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/dec/14/fallibility-forensic-science-crime-solving-tool-can-lead-wrongful-convictionsand-belated-exonerations/

Al Jazeera America & Films Media Group. (2017). Flawed forensics [Video file].

Appleby, K., et al. (2013). Police-induced confessions: An empirical analysis of their content and impact. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 111-128.

Appleby, K., & Kassin, S. (2016). When self-report trumps science: Effects of confessions, DNA, and prosecutorial theories on perceptions of guilt. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 127-140.

Carlson, C. A., & Carlson, M. A. (2014). An evaluation of lineup presentation, weapon presence, and a distinctive feature using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 45-53.

Clarke, G., & Reno, J. (2007). Justice and science: Trials and triumphs of DNA evidence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Chin, J. (2012). Fingerprint experts mistake leads to wrongful conviction in Indiana.  Retrieved from https://californiainnocenceproject.org/2012/10/fingerprint-experts-mistake-leads-to-wrongful-conviction-in-indiana/

Cornell Law School. (2018). Justice denied: A global study of wrongful death row convictions. Retrieved from https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/files/pdf/innocence_clinic_report_2018_R4_final.pdf 

Fraser, R. (2009). Some are guilty until DNA proves innocence. Philadelphia Tribune, 125(88), 10.

Giannelli, P. (2010). Independent crime laboratories: The problem of motivational and cognitive bias. Utah Law Review, 2, 247-266.

Godsey, M., & Alou, M. (2011). She blinded me with science: Wrongful convictions and the “reverse CSI-effect. Texas Wesleyan Law Review, 17, 481-498.

Griner, J. (2019). 10 years later, independence should be the future of forensics. Retrieved from https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2019/06/ten-years-later-independence-should-be-future-forensics

Hallcox, J., & Welch, A. (2009). Behind the yellow tape: On the road with some of America’s hardest working crime scene investigators. New York, NY: Berkley Books.

Hardy, S. (2017). Baton rouge DA, innocence project tangle over missing evidence in rape case. Retrieved from https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_4e4c9e3a-23c1-11e7-ac18-871f4bcb5ed3.html

Hurley, G. (2017). The trouble with eyewitness identification testimony in criminal cases. Retrieved from https://www.ncsc.org/microsites/trends/home/Monthly-Trends-Articles/2017/The-Trouble-with-Eyewitness-Identification-Testimony-in-Criminal-Cases.aspx

Innocence Project. (2019). Eyewitness identification reform. Retrieved from https://www.innocenceproject.org/eyewitness-identification-reform/

Jolicoeur, M. (2010). International perspectives on wrongful convictions: Workshop report. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

Leo, R. (2016). The criminology of wrongful conviction: A decade later. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, doi.org/10.1177/1043986216673013

Liebman, J., et al. (2014). The wrong Carlos: Anatomy of a wrongful execution. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Lindsay, L., & Wells, G. L. (2005). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564.

 Loftus, F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory,  12, 361-366.

Mickes, L., Flowe H. D., & Wixted, T. (2012). Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 361-376. 

Meissner, C., et al. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition,33, 783-792.

 O’Toole, T., & Shay G. (2006). Manson v. Brathwaite revisited: Towards a new rule of decision for due process challenges to eyewitness identification procedures. Valparaiso University Law Review, 41, 109-148.

Palmer M. A., & Brewer, N. (2012). Sequential lineup presentation promotes less-biased criterion setting but does not improve discriminability. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 247-255.

Pepper, I. (2010). Crime scene investigation: Methods and procedures. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Open University Press.

Peterson, J., et al. (2010). The role of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

Police Executive Research Forum. (2013). A national survey of eyewitness identification procedures in law enforcement agencies. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

Raymond, M. (2001). The problem with innocence. Cleveland State Law Review, 49(3), 449-463. 

Roberts, J. (2018). The innocence movement and misdemeanors. Boston University Law Review, 98(3), 779-836.

Shelton, D. (2008). The “CSI” effect: Does it really exist? Retrieved from https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/csi-effect-does-it-really-exist

Srihari, S. (2011). Analysis of footwear impression evidence. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/233981.pdf

The United States Department of Justice. (2019). About ICITAP. International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP). Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/criminal-icitap

Wells, G. L, et al. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440-448.

Wells G. L. (2014). Eyewitness identification: Probative value, criterion shifts, and policy regarding the sequential lineup. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 11-16.

Wixted, T., et al. (2015). 3rd Initial eyewitness confidence reliably predicts eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of American Psychology, 70, 515-526.