Last month, Frank Sterling was exonerated by DNA evidence after being incarcerated 18 years for a crime he did not commit. Sterling was wrongfully convicted of murdering an elderly woman in Rochester, New York in 1988. His conviction was based entirely on a false confession. In the meantime the actual killer remained free, and six years later he murdered four-year-old Kali Poulton. This tragedy leaves no question that addressing the flaws in our criminal justice system that lead to wrongful convictions is a public safety imperative.

Sterling confessed to the murder after a twelve-hour interrogation that followed his 36-hour truck driving shift. Almost immediately, he recanted his confession. Police focused on Sterling from the outset because of his brother’s troubled relationship with the victim years earlier. In doing so, they disregarded evidence that implicated another man, Mark Christie. Sterling had no prior criminal record; however, once the case was brought to trial the confession sealed a conviction. DNA testing later revealed that Christie was the true perpetrator.

While many find it hard to fathom, false confessions are a well-documented reality. Approximately 25 percent of the first 200 individuals exonerated by DNA evidence falsely confessed to crimes they did not commit. A confession can be the most powerful evidence at trial, and can overwhelm evidence pointing to the defendant’s innocence. Electronically recording interrogations provides access to a reviewable record that helps judges and jurors clearly evaluate a suspect’s statements and gives them the information they need to intelligently assess voluntariness and reliability.

Many police and prosecutors who work in jurisdictions that record interrogations have recognized that recording helps to both develop the strongest evidence and convict the guilty while protecting against false or coerced confessions which can lead investigators away from the true perpetrator. The Justice Project details the best practices for recording interrogations, and provides a comprehensive rationale for changes in procedure in the policy review Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations.

Hundreds of police departments around the country electronically record interrogations. Additionally, a growing list of states, including Alaska, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, New Mexico, Maine, Wisconsin and Illinois, have mandated electronic recording in order to strengthen the quality of evidence available for criminal prosecutions. Other states must join this growing list to help prevent wrongful convictions like Frank Sterling’s. Modernizing police work with readily available recording technology is the best way to ensure that a false confession will not shut down a police investigation while the true perpetrator remains at large.

On April 5^th Ohio Governor Ted Strickland signed a reform bill that will help reduce wrongful convictions and improve the fairness and accuracy of our criminal justice system. Among the measures included are safeguards to improve the eyewitness identification process by requiring police to use a more accurate protocol for administering live and photo lineups. The new protocol reflects the growing awareness that eyewitness evidence is fragile, and much like trace physical evidence must be collected very carefully, or it may become tainted.

Ohio joins a growing trend of states acting to prevent wrongful convictions through implementation of eyewitness identification best practices that are the fruit of decades of scientific research. A handful of states have passed bills that implement or encourage more reliable procedures. Some states, such as California and Texas, have come close, and efforts there continue. Similar legislation has also been introduced in other states from Hawaii to New Hampshire.

This encouraging trend has been a long time coming. The criminal justice system’s inertia, combined with skepticism about reform ideas that come largely from scientific researchers rather than law enforcement itself, has made progress slow. Almost without fail, the objections to new procedures are based on worry about the unknown, rather than on experience. Further, some in law enforcement may be concerned that by making changes today they are implicitly admitting that they have been doing things badly heretofore.

Only in recent years, however, have law enforcement leaders been made aware of workable alternatives to traditional procedures. What is finally happening is that law enforcement is modernizing their procedures based on the latest research. It is never easy to change the settled ways of bureaucracies, and law enforcement is no different. With progress in Ohio we are seeing at long last that much needed change is coming.

To remind us of the urgent need to act, we need only look at the victims of eyewitness error that may well have been preventable: Freddie Peacock, James Bain, and Forest Shomberg. They spent years in prison for crimes they did not commit because of erroneous eyewitness testimony, yet none of the states that wrongfully convicted these men have implemented eyewitness reforms.

The reforms passed by the Ohio legislature, which mirror key reforms highlighted in The Justice Project’s publication, Eyewitness Identification: A Policy Review, are based on scientific research about practices that lead to eyewitness misidentification. For example having the officer conducting the lineup be unaware of which person in the lineup  is the suspect (or a functionally equivalent method) can prevent inadvertent influencing of the witness and thus improve the evidentiary value of an identification. Documenting a witness’s degree of certainty at the time of identification can help address the well-documented manipulation of witness confidence due to reinforcing feedback, thus providing jurors with a clear picture of the circumstances of an identification. These and other reforms greatly improve the reliability of eyewitness evidence with only modest changes in procedure.

Fortunately, as more and more jurisdictions implement the needed reforms, their experience provides the definitive response to the worries expressed by those resistant to change. In big cities and small, from New Jersey to North Carolina to Wisconsin, the actual experience of jurisdictions that have implemented reform has demonstrated that it is pragmatic, inexpensive, and most importantly, improves the reliability of evidence in our criminal justice system. Now that we know better, failing to act to implement the reforms we know will reduce wrongful convictions becomes nothing less than reckless indifference.

San Francisco’s top public defender, Jeff Adachi, recently called for the city’s crime lab to become independent of the police department. This announcement comes on the heels of a series of scandals in the San Francisco Police Department’s forensic laboratory initiated by the discovery that a criminalist was stealing cocaine from evidence storage facilities. What initially seemed to be a problem with one unethical employee has led to the unearthing of myriad problems within the lab, including two cases of tainted DNA samples. Moreover, a troubling audit was released showing an improper maintenance of chain of custody of evidence, inadequate record keeping, and a lack of cleanliness in the overall facility. Multiple legal challenges raised in the aftermath of the scandal, including a murder case, have pointed to the possibility that police and prosecutors withheld vital information about the drug thefts from defendants’ attorneys.

Adachi is right to push for an independent crime lab. The majority of publicly operated crime labs are part of a law enforcement agency. As a result, crime lab employees may come to see themselves as part of a crime fighting team, rather than objective agents of science. Given that many forensic examinations involve subjective interpretations of data, the risk for bias is greater when the lab is structurally part of law enforcement. Independent crime labs help to ensure that analysts operate an impartial environment to ensure accurate, unbiased and reliable testing. The National Academies of Science recognized these concerns when they recently recommended that laboratories become independent of law enforcement agencies.

Independence alone, however, will not guarantee objective, reliable science. Substantive and consistent oversight plays a key role in ensuring that crime labs maintain high standards of accuracy, reliability, and objectivity. Each state has a compelling interest in maintaining stringent scientific standards, and relying on private accreditation programs with infrequent site reviews does not provide the level of oversight necessary when so much is at stake.

Heightened oversight of forensic laboratories is one of the most important recommendations The Justice Project makes in its policy review, Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science. States need an independent oversight commission for forensic crime labs that can set and enforce quality standards and provide more rigorous, ongoing oversight of forensic testing to ensure that the labs operates with the highest scientific standards. Such a commission could ensure that all lab employees have the proper training and appropriate professional certifications. Furthermore, the commission could implement safeguards against inadvertent bias in forensic analysis which would promote the objectivity and reliability of forensic testing and analysis.

Given the increasing use and importance of forensic evidence in the criminal justice system, it is imperative that the crime labs function accurately, objectively, and reliably. Both independence and ongoing quality oversight of forensic laboratories will increase the fairness and accuracy of the criminal justice system and help reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. Forensic science can be a powerful tool. Only by implementing meaningful structural reform will we acknowledge the importance of what is at stake.

]]> http://www.thejusticeproject.org/blog/crime-labs-need-independence-and-robust-oversight-to-ensure-justice/feed/ http://www.thejusticeproject.org/blog/jailhouse-snitches-sabotage-justice-with-unreliable-evidence/ http://www.thejusticeproject.org/blog/jailhouse-snitches-sabotage-justice-with-unreliable-evidence/#comments Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:40:54 +0000 WebAdmin http://www.thejusticeproject.org/?p=761 By John F. Terzano

Earlier this month, Orleans Parish District Judge Lynda Van Davis granted a new trial for Michael Anderson, who was convicted of murder and sentenced…

Most recently, the Houston Chronicle reported that an audit of the Houston Crime Lab’s fingerprint division identified problems in more than half of the 548 cases selected for review. The problems discovered were serious enough to lead the authorities to require that more than 4000 violent crime cases from the past six years be reanalyzed… >>Continue reading

After seventeen years, Gregory Taylor was finally freed on February 17th when the three judge panel of the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission unanimously ruled to exonerate him. North Carolina created the commission to investigate and evaluate post-conviction claims of innocence in 2006 and is the first of its kind in the United States. Taylor, wrongfully convicted of first degree murder in 1993, is the first person to be exonerated by the commission.

Over 250 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States. Many others, like Taylor, did not have the benefit of DNA evidence that could clearly identify the perpetrator. These cases demonstrate the importance of keeping our courts open to all credible evidence that a mistake has been made. Unfortunately, in most jurisdictions, barriers of legal procedure too often keep similarly situated defendants from having their claims of innocence considered.

With the creation of the Innocence Inquiry Commission, the judiciary and legislature in North Carolina rightly recognized the need for a mechanism to identify wrongful convictions and exonerate individuals like Taylor who languish in prison for crimes they did not commit. In addition to taking steps to exonerate the wrongfully convicted, it is critical that jurisdictions evaluate the causes of these miscarriages of justice, and take steps to increase the fairness and accuracy of the criminal justice system. Each wrongful conviction teaches us important lessons about how the system is prone to error, and what can be done to fix it.

For example, Gregory Taylor was wrongfully convicted in large part due to inaccurate forensic testimony. Trial testimony to the effect that blood was found on Taylor’s SUV near the scene of the crime on the night of the murder was contradicted by a later test conducted by State Bureau of Investigation that found no blood was present. That finding, however, was never provided to prosecutors, defense attorneys or the court. The result of that failure was devastating.

False or misleading forensic expert testimony is a leading factor contributing to wrongful convictions. The Justice Project offers recommendations and solutions for improving the practices and standards of forensic science in Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science: A Policy Review. The reforms recommended in the policy review are designed to implement systemic and necessary changes to the practice and use of forensic science, including the requirement that all forensic science labs develop internal structures and policies to prevent bias in testing and analysis, and to better manage the flow of information between law enforcement investigators, analysts, and prosecutors. These kinds of improvements can dramatically improve the quality and reliability of forensic evidence, preventing the kinds of errors that led to Gregory Taylor’s wrongful conviction.

Each wrongful conviction evinces the urgent need to reform our criminal justice system. A fair and accurate system not only prevents wrongful convictions, it more effectively identifies the guilty and strengthens public trust in our system of justice.

On March 1 Texas Governor Rick Perry officially pardoned Timothy Cole, who was wrongfully convicted over two decades ago. Tragically, the DNA tests that proved Cole’s innocence came too late: he died in prison in 1999 while serving time for a rape he did not commit. A faulty lineup led to inaccurate eyewitness evidence in Cole’s case, which serves as a reminder of the urgent need for eyewitness identification reforms that increase reliability and reduce the risk of mistakes. Cole’s case was one of the thirty-nine Texas wrongful convictions exposed by DNA profiled in The Justice Project’s report Convicting the Innocent: Texas Justice Derailed.

Eyewitness identification reform is one of the issues being addressed by the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions, created by the Texas Legislature in 2009 to make recommendations on the prevention of wrongful convictions. One reality the Cole Advisory Panel is confronting is the complete lack of statewide standards for the conduct of identification procedures in the vast majority of jurisdictions in Texas. The numerous eyewitness mistakes that have been identified so far have led to a great deal of scientific research on eyewitness memory and how it can go wrong. The upshot of this research is that we must collect eyewitness evidence with the same care that we collect trace physical evidence, according to carefully designed protocols, in order to prevent the evidence from becoming tainted or ruined. Researchers have identified a number of changes to lineup procedures that can substantially cut the risk of misidentification and produce more reliable evidence. Unfortunately, most police departments and sheriff’s offices have no written policies for conducting lineups at all, and of those that do, only a small fraction include best practices that increase accuracy.

As the Cole Advisory Panel and our legislators once again grapple with this issue, there are two key benchmarks for a successful solution they should keep in mind. First, the state must require that scientifically sound best practices are followed in the conduct of lineups. To merely suggest, educate or recommend changes has proven inadequate and the accuracy of eyewitness evidence is too important to be optional. Second, the solution must address all known sources of inaccuracy in existing procedures, including: suggestive lineup composition, inadvertent cueing of witnesses, and the natural tendency on the part of some witnesses to identify someone in the lineup based on the assumption that the perpetrator must be present. In short, we need to be sure that the solution is comprehensive and is strong enough to ensure that good procedures are enacted and followed.

Governor Perry’s pardon is long overdue because of technical legal concerns related to pardoning a deceased person. Those concerns have finally been addressed. Now is the time for all stakeholders in the criminal justice system to work through the remaining details of eyewitness reform. They must do so in a way that guarantees that police across Texas implement the changes that will increase the reliability of evidence. Until then, pardon or not, we will not have fully honored the memory of Timothy Cole.

Concerns about the validity of forensic evidence have come to the fore in recent years following a series of wrongful convictions and other scandals across the country. The National Academies of Science (NAS) identified a number of systemic flaws that demand attention in their 2009 report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Yet today, hardly any states have laws providing meaningful oversight of the forensic laboratories that analyze crucial evidence upon which many criminal cases depend.

In California, this lack of lab oversight was highlighted when San Diego County sheriff’s deputies began questioning test results. The errors they found eventually led to a review of hundreds of toxicology tests done by a private lab. A total of eleven people were released from jail, and at least seven of them saw their criminal cases dismissed. Mistakes such as these threaten to seriously undermine confidence in the criminal justice system.

A report released in late 2009 by the California Crime Lab Review Task Force, An Examination of Forensic Science in California, made some recommendations for improvements. For example, The Task Force highlighted the importance of requiring accreditation of forensic labs, as well as the need for forensic analysts to be certified by relevant professional organizations. The perennial need for additional funding was also emphasized. By mandating both employee certification and lab accreditation and by increasing funding, the state will improve forensic practice in the state. But the integrity of forensic evidence is too important to outsource oversight and quality standards entirely to professional trade organizations. Accreditation and professional certification are important first steps, but the responsibility for setting and ensuring quality standards, objectivity and independence ultimately resides with the state itself. A full solution will need to include more structural reform.

One of these crucial steps is the creation of an independent oversight commission, staffed and funded to more closely supervise the work of forensic labs. This type of commission could set statewide quality standards that could build on the baseline afforded by professional associations, and could provide more rigorous, ongoing oversight to ensure that labs actually operate in a way that is consistent with the standards that exist on paper. Shifting forensic labs out from under the control of law enforcement agencies would address the subtle biases that can emerge when forensic workers see themselves on the law enforcement “team” instead of dispassionate and objective scientists. These safeguards and others are outlined in The Justice Project’s policy review Improving the Practices and Use of Forensic Science, and will help to ensure the objectivity and reliability of forensic testing and analysis.

Reliable forensic science is vital, and by making sure that the evidence is objective and valid, we will have a more efficient criminal justice system. Fixing these problems on the front end will reduce the chances that the state will have to spend more money and resources to correct the mistakes and injustices caused by forensic errors. At a time when California, along with the rest of the nation, is dealing with financial restraints, it is all the more imperative that legislators in all states make these improvements a priority. Forensic science can be a powerful tool, and meaningful structural reform is the only way to ensure that the best science is used in our courts.

On the last day of 2009, federal district court judge Ricardo Urbina dismissed homicide charges against five former Blackwater security guards involved in a shooting that killed fourteen Iraqi civilians in 2007. Judge Urbina’s decision cites egregious prosecutorial misconduct by the federal prosecutors handling the case as the reason for the dismissal. The dismissal comes at the end of a year that saw at least a dozen cases of federal prosecutorial misconduct, including the well known Ted Stevens fiasco. These cases and others reinforce an emerging consensus that we must do more to ensure that our prosecutors live up to the standards of professionalism and fairness on which our system depends.

Like the Ted Stevens case, the Blackwater case has received considerable media attention. A recent Washington Post article examined in detail the actions of the experienced and well-respected lead prosecutor Kenneth Kohl. The Post reported that despite documented warnings of a consulting prosecutor about the inadmissibility of statements made by the defendants, Kohl utilized the statements to obtain search warrants of the defendant’s homes and referred to them during grand jury proceedings. Because the case was mishandled from the start, Judge Urbina was forced to dismiss the charges before a trial could take place to determine the guilt or innocence of the Blackwater guards and bring finality and justice to a sensitive and tragic case.

The prosecutorial misconduct in the Blackwater case goes to the heart of a nationwide problem described in The Justice Project’s policy review, Improving Prosecutorial Accountability. In the face of enormous pressure to obtain convictions, prosecutors at the state and federal level all too often abuse their power and deliberately violate their obligations with impunity. Prosecutors’ offices regularly fail to provide prosecutors with clear guidelines on the appropriate use of their broad discretionary powers, judges seldom report acts of misconduct, and when reports are made, sanctions are rarely, if ever, imposed. As a result, prosecutors face almost no incentive to uphold their legal and ethical duties when seeking convictions. Nowhere is this “convict at all costs” culture more apparent than in the actions of the federal prosecutors responsible for the Blackwater case.

It is critical for the Department of Justice to respond with a prompt investigation by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and appropriate sanctions for the offending prosecutors. Only through enacting an effective system of accountability can the Department of Justice—or any prosecutor’s office in the nation—hope to ensure prosecutors uphold their legal and ethical obligations. In spite of promises OPR made nearly one year ago to investigate the misconduct in the Ted Stevens case and possibly impose sanctions against the prosecutors at fault, none of the prosecutors involved in that case have faced any sanctions, nor have the results of any investigation been released.

To their credit, DOJ has recently taken some measures to prevent prosecutorial misconduct through increased training and oversight of prosecutors. For example, DOJ released several memos earlier this year providing more direction to prosecutors on their obligations to disclose evidence during the discovery process. Inadvertent misconduct can be significantly curtailed through this kind of increased guidance and training at the front end of criminal cases. However, holding prosecutors accountable for the kind of intentional violations of legal and ethical obligations apparent in the Stevens and Blackwater cases can only be achieved through meaningful sanctions and effective disciplinary mechanisms.

Prosecutors are the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system; they have enormous control and discretion over the course and outcome of criminal cases. The Blackwater case reveals the far-reaching consequences that the actions of just one prosecutor can have on the fair and accurate administration of justice. In order to prevent cases like this from occurring in the future, the Department of Justice must take more steps to improve prosecutorial accountability by investigating and imposing meaningful sanctions on the prosecutors responsible for the breakdown of this important case. Failing to do so only invites more misconduct by overzealous prosecutors.

Two remarkably similar cases recently prompted the Chicago Tribune to ask, “What causes people to give false confessions?” In 2005 police elicited a confession from Jerry Hobbs to the murder of his young daughter and her friend in Lake County, Illinois. Recently, however, DNA results contradicted Hobbs’ confession and identified another man, currently incarcerated for sexual assault in Virginia. Several years earlier, Kevin Fox was exonerated by DNA after police persuaded him to confess to the killing of his 3-year-old daughter in Will County, IL. The cases raise grave questions about the risks of widely used interrogation techniques and highlight the need for more safeguards to help prevent false confessions, and, when they occur, to identify them before they subvert justice.

A growing number of states have recognized that electronic recording of interrogations yields many benefits, including the prevention of wrongful convictions caused by false confessions. By creating a reviewable record, prosecutors are better able to identify problems early, and judges and juries have the full picture when they need to assess the voluntariness and reliability of suspect statements.Read more about the advantages of recording here.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

On July 2 Florida’s new state Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Canady created the Florida Innocence Commission. The Commission will study issues related to wrongful convictions over the next two years and issue a report with reform recommendations. The panel includes judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officials and some of Florida’s top lawyers.

Florida is now one of eleven states that uses or has used some sort of innocence commission to address common causes of wrongful convictions. Wrongful convictions teach us important lessons about where the criminal justice system is prone to error. Learn more about The Justice Project’s reform initiatives, which are designed to prevent wrongful convictions and increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Fort Collins Police Lt. James Broderick, the lead detective in the investigation of Tim Masters, wrongfully convicted of murder in 1987 and exonerated in 2008, was indicted on eight counts of felony first-degree perjury this week.

Masters’ wrongful conviction was obtained due in large part to misconduct of the lead prosecutors, Terrance Gilmore and Jolene Blair, who withheld key pieces of exculpatory evidence. In order to prevent wrongful convictions, prosecutors must ethically fulfill their duties by adhering to proper procedures, including disclosing all exculpatory evidence. Click here to learn more about the principal responsibilities of prosecutors and TJP’s suggested reforms to ensure they are held accountable.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Following the conviction of former Chicago Police Lt. Jon Burge, many criminal justice stakeholders in Illinois, including prosecutors and police, are calling for an expansion of the current electronic recording mandate from recording custodial interrogations in homicide cases to recording all felony cases.

Nationwide hundreds of police departments realize the benefits of electronic recording and have adopted this practice. Electronic recording has emerged as a powerful fact finding tool that helps our criminal justice system get the truth and reach just outcomes. Click here to learn more about the benefits of electronically recording suspect interrogations.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Former Lt. Jon Burge of the Chicago Police Department was charged with federal perjury and obstruction of justice charges for lying about his use of torture to obtain confessions. Burge’s misconduct led to four wrongful capital convictions all based on false confessions, and demonstrates the need for electronic recording of custodial interrogations, which Illinois has since implemented.

Learn about other cases of wrongful conviction and how electronically recording custodial interrogations acts as a critical safeguard that can prevent false confessions.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Retired New Jersey judge Geoffrey Gaulkin has released a report after reviewing three decades of research regarding eyewitness reliability, which makes recommendations to improve the reliability of eyewitness testimony in trials.

Eyewitness misidentification is the most frequent cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75 percent of convictions overturned through DNA testing. Double-blind, sequential lineups are among TJP’s recommended reforms for improving the reliability of eyewitness evidence. Read more about TJP’s recommendations on eyewitness identification procedure reforms.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The New York Bar Association is advocating for a law to require corroborating evidence for non-accomplice informant testimony. In addition to corroboration, judges would also have to instruct juries they must cautiously consider witness credibility in light of any benefit they’d get.

Testimony from in-custody informants is widely regarded as one of the least reliable forms of evidence in the criminal justice system. The motive for in-custody informants to fabricate testimony dramatically increases when the state offers incentives for the incarcerated person in exchange for testimony.  Click here to learn more about TJP’s recommended reforms for improving the reliability of in-custody informant testimony.

Friday, June 18, 2010

The California Crime Lab Task Force, a state panel of various experts who oversee forensic analysts and recommend improvements to the legislature, has voted to disband itself. This decision comes on the heels of a series of crime lab scandals across the state, and has caused concern among public defenders and other actors in the criminal justice system.

Despite disbanding, the Task Force did release a report last year with recommendations to enhance the accuracy and reliability of the forensic science in the criminal justice system, including adjusting improving training and increasing staffing. These recommendations mirror some of those put forth by The Justice Project. Read more about TJP’s suggested reforms for enhancing the quality of forensic science.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Virginia State Crime Commission is studying eyewitness identification procedures, including lineups, and considering a bill that would mandate double-blind, sequential lineups and photo arrays statewide.

Eyewitness misidentification is the most frequent cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75 percent of convictions overturned through DNA testing. Double-blind, sequential lineups are among TJP’s recommended reforms for improving the reliability of eyewitness evidence. Read more of TJP’s recommendations on eyewitness identification procedure reforms.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

A fingerprint misidentification that occurred in the Houston, Texas crime lab in 1996 is raising questions about whether the lab should extend an investigation into the fingerprint analysis unit beyond the initial review of cases from 2004 to 2009.

Without proper safeguards, carelessness, unintentional bias, and misconduct can undermine the accuracy and reliability of forensic science. Consistent oversight plays a key role in ensuring that crime labs maintain high standards of accuracy, reliability, and objectivity. Read TJP’s recommendations and solutions for improving the standards of forensic science.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer refuses to grant clemency to William Macumber, despite the fact that another man confessed and that the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency unanimously recommended to Ms. Brewer that Mr. Macumber be released after thirty-five years in prison “to correct a miscarriage of justice.”

Wrongful convictions teach us important lessons about where the criminal justice system is prone to error. Learn more about The Justice Project’s reform initiatives, which are designed to safeguard against wrongful convictions and increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

Monday, June 14, 2010

The case of Marcus Lyons, exonerated of rape in 2007, demonstrates the fallibility of composite sketches and the need to improve eyewitness identification procedures.

Eyewitness misidentification is the most frequent cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75 percent of convictions overturned through DNA testing. Read TJP’s recommendations for enhancing the reliability of eyewitness evidence.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Judge Dora L. Irizarry, a federal Judge in New York’s Eastern District berated the Brooklyn district attorney’s Office Tuesday for failing to take responsibility for its prosecutors’ alleged misconduct in the murder case of Jabar Collins. Collins and his attorneys accused lead prosecutor Michael Vecchione of Brady violations, withholding evidence, witness coercion, and misleading the jury.

Prosecutors are arguably the most powerful figures in the American criminal justice system. Because prosecutors have such power, they must face timely sanctions when they neglect their duties either intentionally or inadvertently. Moreover, anytime a judge finds that the prosecutor committed misconduct, whether deliberate or inadvertent, the misconduct should be reported to an attorney disciplinary agency or a separate prosecutorial review board. Learn more about TJP’s recommended reforms to hold prosecutors more accountable.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Members of the Task Force for Indigent Defense will vote Wednesday in Austin on whether to approve a $27.7 million grant that would expand statewide a pilot program of public defender’s office for capital murder cases that has been operating in West Texas for two and a half years.

Capital cases are the most complicated to try, and almost all capital defendants are indigent. Too often, though, the quality of legal representation that states provide to indigent defendants is woefully inadequate. Bad defense lawyering has been a factor in many wrongful convictions. Click here to learn about TJP’s recommended reforms to adequate counsel, which could help prevent poor lawyering from resulting in wrongful convictions.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

The New York State Bar Association has proposed a series of legislative changes to protect against wrongful convictions. Among the suggested reforms, which come from the state bar’s Task Force on Wrongful Convictions, are policies to improve eyewitness identification procedures, to enhance the reliability of informant testimony, and to improve prosecutorial accountability by expanding discovery requirements.

Wrongful convictions teach us important lessons about where the criminal justice system is prone to error. Learn more about The Justice Project’s recommendations designed to prevent errors that undermine the fairness and accuracy of our criminal justice system.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Tyrone Jones was released from prison last week after spending twelve years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Prosecutors in the original case failed to disclose to Jones’ defense that the eyewitness who identified Jones had told police earlier that she had not seen anybody.

Prosecutors are arguably the most powerful figures in the American criminal justice system. In order to prevent wrongful convictions, prosecutors must ethically fulfill their duties by adhering to proper procedures and conduct, including disclosing all exculpatory evidence. Click here to learn more about the principal responsibilities of prosecutors and TJP’s suggested reforms to ensure they are held accountable.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Law enforcement officials in Lubbock, Texas, have shown little interest in reviewing the case of Timothy Cole, who died in prison before being exonerated for a wrongful conviction based on faulty eyewitness identification. The officials claim that technology, case law and years of experience had made the lessons of the 1985 case irrelevant.

Gary Wells, an Iowa State University professor and expert on police lineup procedures, refutes this sentiment and notes that each police department is responsible for implementing the most advanced and reliable eyewitness identification procedures. Read more about TJP’s recommendations for improving the reliability of eyewitness identifications, which can help prevent wrongful convictions like that of Tim Cole.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

New York State has adopted new guidelines and best practices for photo array and lineup procedures that determine whether an individual is implicated in a crime, in order to minimize false identifications.

New York has taken a critical step to improving the fairness and accuracy of their criminal justice system. Eyewitness misidentification is the most frequent cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75 percent of convictions overturned through DNA testing. Read TJP’s recommendations for enhancing the reliability of eyewitness evidence.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

David Kofoed, former Douglas County chief crime scene investigator, has been sentenced to 20 months to four years for evidence tampering.

While the patent transgressions of Kofoed may be rare, many of the same safeguards against the more pervasive problem of inadvertent error can also protect against intentional misconduct.  Read more about steps needed to ensure that forensic evidence is objective, valid and reliable.

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

The Rhode Island State Senate has approved a bill to require electronic recording of custodial interrogations in cases that could result in life imprisonment of the accused. This is the second year the Senate has approved such a bill; last year Governor Carcieri vetoed it.

Nationwide hundreds of police departments realize the benefits of electronic recording and have adopted this practice. Electronic recording has emerged as a powerful fact finding tool that helps our criminal justice system get the truth and reach just outcomes. Click here to learn more about the benefits of electronically recording suspect interrogations.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

On Wednesday the United States District Court in Brooklyn began an evidentiary hearing to explore the misconduct of prosecutors from the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office in the case of Jabbar Collins, currently serving 34 years for murder. Judge Dora Irizarry has indicated she intends to vacate Collins’ conviction based on prosecutors’ withholding of evidence favorable to the defendant.

Prosecutors are arguably the most powerful figures in the American criminal justice system. For the fair administration of justice, it is critical that prosecutors discharge their duties responsibly and ethically by adhering to proper procedures and conduct. Learn more about the principal responsibilities of prosecutors and how to make sure they are held accountable.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Texas has had more exonerations by DNA testing than any other state in the nation. However, many wrongfully convicted people do not have the benefit of DNA evidence that could clearly identify the perpetrator. For this reason, the conviction integrity unit in Dallas County is now shifting its focus toward cases where there is no DNA evidence, but where questions remain about an inmante’s guilt or innocence. Each wrongful conviction uncovered with or without DNA evidence teaches us important lessons about how the criminal justice system is prone to error and evinces the urgent need for reform. Learn more about The Justice Project’s reccommendations designed to prevent errors that undermins the fairness and accuracy of our criminal justice system.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Shawn Massey –wrongfully convicted of kidnapping and armed robbery in North Carolina—was exonerated after spending 12 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Massey was convicted because of eyewitness misidentification and was released after it was revealed that the victim expressed doubt about her identification.

According to the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, Massey is among 19 people in North Carolina whose sentences have been vacated during the past 15 years due to wrongful convictions. Twelve of those individuals had been mistakenly identified by eyewitnesses. Much like trace physical evidence, eyewitness evidence must be collected carefully, according to scientifically sound protocols, or its accuracy can be tainted or ruined. Read TJP’s recommendations for improving the reliability of eyewitness evidence.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Chaunte Ott, who spent 13 years in prison for a murder he did not commit, was recently paid $25,000 in compensation by the state of Wisconsin according to a State Claims Board decision released Tuesday.  The payment is the maximum allowed under Wisconsin law, and amounts to less than $2000 per year of wrongful incarceration in Ott’s case. Ott was released in 2009 after no physical evidence connected Ott to the crime, and DNA evidence found on the victim’s body matched a suspected serial killer who has yet to be charged with the murder. Addressing the flaws in our criminal justice system that lead to wrongful convictions is a public safety imperative. Click here to read other cases of wrongful conviction that expose the common errors in our criminal justice system.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Today, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office hosts the 2010 Justice Summit. The Summit will gather over 300 public defenders, prosecutors, judges, elected officials, media, and community leaders and will focus discussion on exposing and preventing everyday injustices.

The Justice Project’s President, John Terzano, is included as a guest panelist at the Summit and will speak on the impact prosecutorial misconduct has on our criminal justice system and the importance of holding prosecutors accountable. Click here to learn more about how states can improve prosecutorial accountability.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

On Monday, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $16 million jury award to Theodore White Jr. who was wrongfully imprisoned for five years on a false molestation conviction. In August 2008 a federal jury in Kansas City found that knowledge of an affair and conspiring relationship between White’s wife and the case detective was withheld by prosecutors during trial.

Prosecutors are arguably the most powerful figures in the American criminal justice system. Learn more about their principal responsibilities and how to ensure they are held accountable.

Monday, May 10, 2010

William Autrey, a confessed robber, cooperated with the Dallas County District Attorney’s office and helped get indictments in a number of cases in exchange for a plea deal to ensure he would not spend more than 15 years in prison. After negotiating the deal, Autrey was out of prison on bond and committed a number of other burglaries.

Aside from the risk of informants committing additional crimes, testimony from in-custody informants is widely regarded as the least reliable form of evidence in the criminal justice system. The motive for in-custody informants to fabricate testimony dramatically increases when the state offers incentives for the incarcerated person in exchange for testimony.  Despite this fact, prosecutors often utilize jailhouse informants. Click here to learn more about how states can improve the standards for admissibility of such testimony and help ensure that the most reliable evidence is making it into the courtroom and before the jury.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Ray Towler, a man wrongfully convicted of rape and kidnapping, was exonerated on May 5^th after DNA testing proved his innocence. Towler’s defense lawyers along with the Cuyahoga County, Ohio Prosecutor’s Office asked the court Wednesday to vacate his conviction and order his immediate release.

Towler spent nearly 29 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Click here to read other cases of wrongful conviction that expose the common errors in our criminal justice system.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Wednesday, Police Chief George Gascón announced that the San Francisco Police Department will close the scandal-marred narcotics section of its forensic lab permanently and use outside testers to analyze narcotics evidence. After uncovering myriad problems in the lab, Gascón stated the department would be better served by having independent labs conduct drug testing. Other sections of the police crime lab are unaffected by the decision.

Most publicly operated forensic labs are run by police agencies, but the National Academy of Science recently recommended that labs be made independent of law enforcement agencies. Independent crime labs and oversight bodies help to ensure that analysts operate in an impartial environment to ensure accurate, unbiased and reliable testing. Click here to read more of TJP’s recommendations and solutions for improving the practices and standards of forensic science.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Today, The Justice Project released the May edition of the TJP monthly newsletter! Please take some time to read our newsletter and browse our website to learn more about the troubling stories of wrongful convictions, the encouraging work taking place around the nation, and to learn what you can do to help.

Friday, April 30, 2010

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office in Wyoming has recently begun to electronically record interrogations. In the past, the Sheriff’s Office has come under fire for not taping interrogations. The issue came to the forefront in a trial in September 2008 when a woman was found not guilty of molestation charges after testifying that her confession had been coerced—there was no video or audio recording to argue otherwise.

Nationwide hundreds of police departments realize the benefits of electronic recording and have adopted this practice. Electronic recording has emerged as a powerful fact finding tool that helps our criminal justice system get the truth and reach just outcomes. Click here to learn more about the benefits of electronically recording suspect interrogations.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

On April 29^th, New York State Judge Thomas Van Strydonck vacated the 1992 murder conviction of Frank Sterling after lawyers on both sides agreed that DNA evidence excluded Sterling as the killer and instead implicated another man.

Sterling was wrongfully convicted based on a false confession and spent 19 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Learn about other cases of wrongful conviction and how recording suspect interrogations is a critical safeguard that can prevent injustices caused by false confessions.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Frank Sterling, who was convicted of murder in Rochester, New York in 1988, is set to be exonerated today because of DNA testing that implicated another man as the actual perpetrator. Sterling was convicted based on a false confession given during 12 hour interrogation, and after he had worked a 36 hour trucking shift.

Cases such as Sterling’s demonstrate the real threat of false confessions. Learn how electronically recording suspect interrogations is a critical safeguard that can prevent injustices caused by false confessions.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

On April 26^th San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris addressed the scandals that were uncovered in the San Francisco crime lab and how those events have significantly impacted a number of drug cases. Harris asserted that this series of missteps has amounted to “devastating violations of the public’s trust in a critical part of our criminal justice system.” She also suggests that reform is needed to restore integrity of the city’s crime lab.

Without proper safeguards, carelessness, unintentional bias, and misconduct can undermine the accuracy and reliability of forensic science. Substantive and consistent oversight plays a key role in ensuring that crime labs maintain high standards of accuracy, reliability, and objectivity. Read TJP’s recommendations and solutions for improving the practices and standards of forensic science.

Friday, April 23, 2010

The Texas Forensic Science Commission is meeting met today in Irving, Texas. This was the first meeting since last year to discuss actual cases, including the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. The Willingham case was put on hold at a key juncture in the investigation in October 2009 when Governor Rick Perry replaced commission members, including the chairman.

Willingham’s case is a troubling example of the kinds of forensic failures documented in the 2009 report of the National Academies of Science. Even as forensic evidence is increasingly relied upon, the this case forces us to recognize that, too often, evidence is coming out of a system that, according to the NAS, is “badly fragmented,” and lacks the oversight, independence, objectivity and quality standards needed to ensure reliability. Read The Justice Project’s recommendations for improving forensic standards.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

After discovering faulty work by a now fired Colorado Springs Police Crime Lab employee, the police department and prosecutor’s office have retested over 7,000 cases and are addressing the cases with error.

The errors uncovered in this Colorado crime lab illustrate the need for meaningful oversight of the operations in forensic science labs. Substantive and consistent oversight plays a key role in ensuring that crime labs maintain high standards of accuracy, reliability, and objectivity. Read more recommendations and solutions for improving the practices and standards of forensic science.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

On April 19^th new DNA evidence led Circuit Judge Charles Curless to order Kenneth York to be released from prison. York was wrongfully convicted of rape in Vernon County, Missouri and sentenced to life without parole in 1994.

York’s wrongful conviction traces to the victim’s misidentification of him in a photo lineup. Eyewitness error is the leading cause of wrongful convictions, but accuracy can be enhanced by implementing best practices for the conduct of live and photo lineups.  Read more about TJP’s recommendations for eyewitness identification procedures.

Monday, April 19, 2010

After the closing of the Detroit police crime lab in 2008, the workloads have shifted to the state police labs and burdened the already at-capacity lab system with 20 to 25 percent more cases. Police officials and state legislators note that additional funding would be necessary to hire enough employees to reduce the growing backlog of DNA cases.

States must allocate sufficient funding for crime labs, but more money alone cannot ensure that our criminal justice system has access to reliable, efficient forensic services. Robust oversight and structural reform are needed as well. Read The Justice Project’s recommendations for improving forensic standards.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Anthony Robinson served over nine years in prison for a crime he did not commit in large part because of mistaken eyewitness identification. In this article Robinson recalls his case, and remarks on the fallibility of eyewitness identification and the problem of wrongful convictions in Texas. With 41 DNA exonerations to date, Texas leads the nation in the number of exonerations, and 85 percent of those wrongful convictions have involved mistaken eyewitness identifications.

To address this problem the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel was created in 2009 to study the causes of wrongful convictions and make reform recommendations to the legislature. Click here to learn more about the Panel and The Justice Project’s efforts to increase the fairness and accuracy in the Texas criminal justice system.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

In recent months, a series of scandals in the San Francisco Police Department forensic laboratory have been uncovered after the initial discovery that a criminalist at the lab was stealing cocaine from evidence storage facilities. What initially seemed to be a problem with one unethical employee has led to the unearthing of myriad problems within the lab, including two cases of tainted DNA samples. Moreover, a troubling audit was released showing an improper maintenance of chain of custody of evidence, inadequate record keeping, and a lack of cleanliness in the overall facility. Click here to read The Justice Project’s latest blog post and learn more about the San Francisco forensic lab and the importance of improving the practice use of forensic science.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Matthew Livers spent months in prison after falsely confessing to a murder he did not commit. The recorded 11 hour interrogation of Livers, a “mildly mentally challenged” man, exposed the unrelenting coercion tactics of two investigators that lead to his false confession.

Cases such as Livers’ demonstrate the real threat of false confessions. Learn how electronically recording suspect interrogations is a critical safeguard that can prevent injustices caused by false confessions.

Friday, April 9, 2010

The problems at the San Francisco Police crime lab continue to grow. On Thursday the San Francisco Police declared that the department had rid itself of an embarrassing feral cat problem discovered in the lab’s evidence storage area, but they also emphasized other systemic problems that need to be addressed that will likely require more resources.

These problems demonstrate the need for forensic science reform through meaningful oversight and improved practices and standards. Read more about steps needed to ensure that forensic evidence is objective, valid and reliable.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

On April 7, a federal appeals court upheld the verdict that Kevin Fox had been falsely arrested and charged in Will County, Illinois for his daughter’s murder. Fox spent eight months in jail after falsely confessing to the crime during a coercive interrogation that lasted for more than 14 hours. Fox will receive $8.1 million in damages for the traumatic ordeal.

Full electronic recording of interrogations is one of the most essential safeguards that can help ensure the reliability and voluntariness of confession evidence.  Recording also helps protect police from false claims of abuse or coercion. Read The Justice Project’s recommendations for electronically recording custodial interrogations.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

On April 5 Ohio Governor Ted Strickland signed a reform bill that will help reduce wrongful convictions.  The reform package includes measures to preserve and enhance access to DNA testing, require more accurate lineup procedures, and pushes police to record custodial interrogations. Learn more about the reforms designed to eliminate common, preventable errors that undermine the fairness and accuracy of our criminal justice system.

Monday, April 5, 2010

An Orleans Parish District Court Judge declared a mistrial in a murder case when prosecutors in the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office twice refused court orders to turn over evidence to the defense. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeal agreed with the judge, stating that “prosecutors so obviously and purposely violated the trial court’s order.”

Prosecutors are arguably the most powerful figures in the American criminal justice system. For the fair administration of justice, it is critical that prosecutors discharge their duties responsibly and ethically by adhering to proper procedures and conduct. Learn more about the principal responsibilities of prosecutors and how to make sure they are held accountable.

Friday April 2, 2010

The San Francisco Police Department has now widened the investigation of its crime lab and must determine whether thefts, sloppy evidence handling and other problems documented as having existed at the crime lab in 2009, actually began several years earlier. While this sort of misconduct uncovered in San Francisco may be rare, many of the same safeguards against the more pervasive problem of inadvertent error can also protect against intentional misconduct.  Read more about steps needed to ensure that forensic evidence is objective, valid and reliable.

Thursday April 1, 2010

Today, The Justice Project released the April edition of the TJP monthly newsletter! Please take some time to read our newsletter and browse our website to learn more about the troubling stories of wrongful convictions, the encouraging work taking place around the nation, and to learn what you can do to help.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Today Florida State Senator Mike Haridopolos will seek funding from the legislature, through state budget amendments, for a commission to study wrongful convictions and incarcerations. Research on the exonerations of innocent people has identified many of the primary causes of wrongful convictions. A number of states have already created similar commissions that use case studies and research to make meaningful recommendations to enact safeguards through legislation.  Learn more about the reforms designed to eliminate common, preventable errors that undermine the fairness and accuracy of our criminal justice system.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Despite The Justice Project’s statewide study last year highlighting the lack of written eyewitness identification procedures and best practices among Texas law enforcement agencies, the Houston Chronicle reports that many departments still have not adopted policies or procedures that can reduce faulty eyewitness identification. While important progress has occurred in Dallas and Austin, most jurisdictions lag behind in the implementation of best practices.

Eyewitness misidentification is widely recognized as the leading causes of wrongful convictions, playing a role in more than 75 percent of DNA exonerations nationwide and about 82 percent of DNA exoneration in Texas. The Justice Project has outlined recommendations for policy improvements that will enable law enforcement to obtain the most reliable evidence from eyewitnesses for use in a criminal investigation.

Monday, March 29, 2010

San Francisco prosecutors may be forced to drop an additional 1,400 cases because of the growing scandal at the San Francisco crime lab. Last month officials discovered that a long-time crime lab technician had stolen and used cocaine held as evidence. The lab was shut down on March 9^th by Police Chief George Gascón. While the sort of blatant misconduct uncovered in San Francisco may be rare, many of the same safeguards against the more pervasive problem of inadvertent error can also protect against intentional misconduct.  Read more about steps needed to ensure that forensic evidence is objective, valid and reliable.

Friday, March 26, 2010

On March 25^th Broward County, Florida circuit court judge declared Anthony Caravella fully exonerated.  He was wrongfully convicted of a 1983 rape and murder based on a false confession.

Caravella spent 26 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Learn about other cases of wrongful conviction and how recording suspect interrogations is a critical safeguard that can prevent injustices caused by false confessions.

Photo from South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Thursday, March 25, 2010

David Kofoed, the chief criminal science investigator of Douglas County, Nebraska, was recently convicted of evidence tampering for planting blood evidence during a murder investigation. This conviction calls into question the legitimacy of other cases on which he worked and has spurred calls for a review of Kofoed’s past cases.

While the sort of blatant misconduct uncovered in Omaha may be rare, many of the same safeguards against the more pervasive problem of inadvertent error can also protect against intentional misconduct.  Read more about steps needed to ensure that forensic evidence is objective, valid and reliable.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Oklahoma’s commissioner of health recommended Tuesday that more funding and new headquarters be provided to the embattled Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to help it regain its national accreditation and reduce a backlog of more than 1,000 incomplete autopsy reports. It is important that states allocate sufficient funding so that our criminal justice system has access to reliable, efficient forensic services. Read The Justice Project’s recommendations for improving forensic standards.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

The Vermont Senate has passed legislation that asks a law enforcement advisory committee to study the implementation and costs of electronic recording of custodial interrogations as well as expanded preservation of forensic evidence. Electronically recording custodial interrogations ensures the availability of strong and reliable evidence, and is a proven method of reducing wrongful convictions. Click here to learn more about the benefits of electronically recording interrogations.

Friday, March 19, 2010

On March 18^th a Connecticut Superior Court judge ruled Ronald Taylor and George Gould actually innocent of a 1993 murder, overturned their convictions, and ordered their immediate release from prison. The judge’s ruling came after a star eyewitness recanted her original testimony and DNA analysis eliminated Taylor and Gould as the culprits.

Both Taylor and Gould spent 16 years in prison for a crime they did not commit. Click here to read other cases of wrongful conviction that expose the common errors in our criminal justice system.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

The Detroit Police Department Crime Lab closed in 2008 after an audit showed erroneous weapons ballistics tests in a number of criminal cases.  Now the Detroit City Council has approved funding for a special unit to review years worth of evidence that was processed by the lab and used in criminal trials. A county prosecutor stated Tuesday that five cases already are slated to be retried as a result of the tainted evidence. Unfortunately, carelessness, inadvertent bias and misconduct in crime labs have compromised the reliability of forensic evidence, largely because of a lack of meaningful oversight and quality standards. Read more about steps needed to ensure that forensic evidence is objective, valid and reliable.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

A Rhode Island State Senator recently introduced a bill that would establish uniform procedures and requirements for eyewitness identification lineups. The bill also calls for the creation of a task force to identify and recommend policies and procedures to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identification.

Eyewitness evidence is critical to our criminal justice system. Decades of research on eyewitness memory have demonstrated that eyewitness evidence, much like trace physical evidence, must be collected carefully, according to scientifically sound protocols, or its accuracy can be tainted or ruined. Read TJP’s recommendations for improving the reliability of eyewitness evidence.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

In Nebraska, Douglas County’s chief crime-scene investigator is on trial for the second time.  This time he is charged with one count of evidence tampering for allegedly planting evidence in a 2006 murder, which was used against two men who were wrongly charged and imprisoned.

Unfortunately, forensic misconduct, carelessness, and inadvertent bias in crime labs have compromised the reliability of forensic evidence. Read more about steps needed to ensure that forensic evidence is objective, valid and reliable.

Monday, March 15, 2010

The Ohio State Legislature will likely vote this week on a bill that would require more accurate lineup protocols, encourage video-recording of interrogations, and improve access to DNA evidence. Supporters of the bill say that it includes vital components that will improve criminal investigations.

Read The Justice Project’s recommendations to improve eyewitness identification, increase access to DNA-testing, and promote electronic recording of custodial interrogations.

Friday, March 12, 2010

In a letter to the Broward County, Florida public defender, Broward County State Attorney Michael Satz explained his new office policy regarding the disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence concerning police officers under investigation for misconduct.   Previously, individual prosecutors used their discretion to determine whether such information was material to a defendant’s case.  Now, notices of police officers under investigation will be automatically disclosed to the defense.

Learn more about the need for prosecutors’ offices to adopt and enforce clearly defined, uniform policies and procedures, and the importance of an open discovery process to ensure fairness in criminal cases.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Hundreds of cases may be dismissed pending allegations that a long-time crime lab technician tampered with evidence at the San Francisco crime lab. In light of these events, San Francisco public defender Jeff Adachi is calling for a larger independent investigation into operations at the lab.

It is important that an independent body oversees the operations of forensic science labs in order to develop and enforce quality standards. Read more recommendations and solutions for improving the practices and standards of forensic science.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Two Virginia prosecutors will face Virginia State Bar misconduct hearings regarding alleged Brady violations in the 1998 capital murder trial of Daryl Atkins. Defense attorneys alleged that the two prosecutors coached Atkin’s co-defendant during a pretrial meeting to make his testimony better conform to physical evidence, and withheld information during trial.

Prosecutors are arguably the most powerful figures in the American criminal justice system. Learn more about their principal responsibilities and how to ensure they are held accountable.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

An Orleans Parish Criminal District Court judge today granted a new trial for Michael Anderson, saying that prosecutors acted improperly at his August trial. In a seven-page ruling the judge found prosecutors’ withholding of a videotaped interview with the sole eyewitness, and a jailhouse informant’s plea deal, could have blindsided his defense attorneys.

Learn more on the principal responsibilities of prosecutors and how to ensure they are held accountable.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Prompted by the recent exoneration of Gregory Taylor, North Carolina’s Attorney General has ordered an independent review of the state’s crime lab. The questionable practices of the state lab became a critical issue in Taylor’s case and were a major factor in his wrongful conviction.

Learn more about steps states should take to improve the reliability of forensic evidence.

Friday, March 5, 2010

According to prosecutors, it was mistaken eyewitness testimony that led to the wrongful conviction of the two men in 1997.  Read The Justice Project’s blog to learn more about this case, and learn about recommendations for the state of Texas to improve their eyewitness identification procedures and to ensure accurate and reliable testimony.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

A Pennsylvania Senate advisory committee is reviewing eyewitness identification practices for photographic lineups that may lead to misidentifications, and plans to produce a report late spring. Senators are also considering mandating procedures across the state.

Eyewitness identification is a critical tool for apprehending and prosecuting criminals. Yet, eyewitness misidentification is widely recognized as one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions. The Justice Project outlines recommendations for policy improvements that will enable law enforcement to extract the most reliable evidence from eyewitnesses for use in a criminal investigation.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

On March 2^nd a Criminal District Court judge blasted the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office for wiping clean a prolific jailhouse snitch’s record after his testimony helped send defendant Michael Anderson to death row.

Testimony from in-custody informants, often referred to as “jailhouse snitches” has been widely used in the American criminal justice system. The motive for jailhouse snitches to fabricate testimony dramatically increases when the state offers incentives for the incarcerated person in exchange for testimony.  Unfortunately prosecutors often utilize jailhouse snitches despite their testimony being widely regarded as the least reliable form of evidence in the criminal justice system.

Click here to learn more about how states can improve the standards for admissibility of such testimony and help ensure that the most reliable evidence is making it into the courtroom and before the jury.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

On March 1 Texas Governor Rick Perry officially pardoned Timothy Cole, who was wrongfully convicted over two decades ago, and died in1999 while serving prison time for a rape he did not commit. Cole’s case was one of dozens profiled in The Justice Project’s report, Convicting the Innocent: Texas Justice Derailed. Cole’s case is a powerful reminder of the need for eyewitness identification reforms that increase the reliability of evidence and can help prevent tragic mistakes.

Eyewitness identification reform is one of the issues being addressed by the Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions, created by the Texas Legislature to make recommendations on the prevention of wrongful convictions.

Monday, March 1, 2010

North Carolina’s Attorney General ordered a review of thousands of old cases that included evidence from a forensic lab to determine whether any evidence may have been withheld from defendants by the State Bureau of Investigation.  The decision comes after the exoneration of Gregory Taylor. The Attorney General’s decision also highlights the need for significant forensic oversight.  To learn more about the importance of forensic oversight, read The Justice Project’s policy review, Improving the Practices and Use of Forensic Science: A Policy Review.

Friday, February 26, 2010

The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS)  is meeting in Seattle this week to address the  National Academies of Science (NAS) 2009 report, an attempt to improve the validity and accuracy of forensic science. To learn more about improving the practice and use of forensic science, read The Justice Project’s solutions and recommendations.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Prosecutors are the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system with the duty to protect the innocent and guard the rights of the accused.  Unfortunately, cases continue to emerge that demonstrate a lack of accountability when these duties are disregarded. Earlier this week, a Massachusetts District Judge ruled not to impose sanctions on Boston a federal prosecutor for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence in a timely fashion.

Read The Justice Project’s recommendations and solutions for improving prosecutorial accountability.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Despite the high expectations many Americans have for crime labs and the field of forensic science–what specialists call the “CSI effect” –crime labs across the country struggle under backlogs and shortage of resources, threatening to make credible crime scene analysis a lost art, according to law enforcement officials and forensic specialists.

Read The Justice Project’s recommendations and solutions for improving the practices and standards of forensic science.

A spate of recent news reports has called into question the objectivity of some forensic evidence and highlighted the need for effective oversight mechanisms for the nation’s crime labs. Fingerprint analysts told The Missouri Lawyer that when police officers have access to the labs, they often pressure the fingerprint examiners to secure arrests. In December, the New York State Inspector General released a report revealing that forensic analyst Gary Veeder falsified hundreds of results over a fifteen year period. The Phoenix, Arizona Police Department announced plans to investigate claims that lab technicians in the crime lab undermine the integrity of criminal investigations by leaving evidence behind at scenes and disposing of fingerprint evidence. In December, Donald Gates walked free from prison after his exoneration for a rape and murder he did not commit when it was revealed that FBI lab technician Michael Malone provided false testimony and inaccurate testing results.

Forensic lab accreditation through organizations such as the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) is an important first step that all labs should undertake. However, the New York lab at which Gary Veeder worked was accredited by ASCLD/LAB, and yet it took over fifteen years and hundreds of result falsifications for Veeder’s problematic work to be discovered. As ASCLD/LAB itself acknowledges, accreditation is only part of a “laboratory’s quality assurance program”. Some states are beginning to recognize the need to augment private accreditation with more ongoing oversight and additional quality standards in order to ensure that only accurate and reliable forensic evidence is utilized in criminal proceedings.

The Justice Project’s policy review, Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science, outlines several steps states should take, including creation of an independent oversight commission to more closely supervise the work of forensic science laboratories. This commission would set statewide quality standards for all labs and would provide more rigorous, ongoing oversight of forensic testing to ensure that labs operate in a way that is consistent with the highest scientific standards. The commission would also adopt standards and regulations regarding the training and certification of all lab employees and safeguards against inadvertent bias in forensic analysis. These safeguards will help to ensure the objectivity and reliability of forensic testing and analysis.

When held to stringent, scientific standards forensic evidence can be a powerful tool for seeking justice. However, until our forensic oversight goes beyond accreditation, forensic evidence will continue to be mishandled, and jurors will be prevented from hearing reliable evidence. Placing forensic labs under the purview of an independent oversight commission will increase the fairness and accuracy of the criminal justice system and help ensure that fewer wrongful convictions occur because of shoddy forensic work. We must implement appropriate oversight and safeguards to prevent innocent defendants from convictions based on flawed forensics.

As advocates of justice, prosecutors play a unique and powerful role in our justice system. Yet too often, prosecutors fall prey to a pervasive “convict at all costs” culture, and neglect their ethical duty to protect the innocent and guard the rights of the accused. The recent actions of Santa Clara District Attorney Dolores Carr demonstrate this troubling culture. Carr has directed her office to boycott the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Andrea Bryan, who barred the retrial of a case overturned due to Santa Clara prosecutor Troy Benson’s prosecutorial misconduct. The finding of misconduct against Troy Benson presents an opportunity for Santa Clara prosecutors to examine what may have led to Benson’s misconduct, and take steps to ensure abuses of power do not take place again in the future. However, instead of addressing her colleague’s misconduct, which Judge Bryan called “grossly shocking,” Carr is calling for open criticism of the judge responsible for upholding her constitutional obligation to reverse convictions prejudiced by egregious prosecutorial misconduct.

Prosecutors have sole responsibility for deciding whether to file charges, what charges to bring, what sentence to seek, what plea bargain to offer, and what evidence to present to a jury during trial. These varied and unique duties render prosecutors the most powerful actors in our criminal justice system. Yet despite their power, prosecutors are rarely held accountable for violating their ethical obligations. This lack of accountability fosters a problematic culture that plagues prosecutors’ offices around the country and contributes to wrongful convictions.

Prosecutors’ obligation to ensure public safety and convict the guilty must coexist with the overriding goal of justice. The Justice Project’s policy review, Improving Prosecutorial Accountability outlines suggested reforms that can help create a culture that prioritizes fairness and accuracy over high conviction rates. For example, prosecutor’s offices should establish training programs and official office policies on the prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence to the defense and the proper use of prosecutorial discretion – a move that The Department of Justice recently took in response to the Ted Stevens case. Moreover, prosecutors who intentionally abuse their power to secure a wrongful conviction must be investigated and disciplined for their actions. Jurisdictions should also establish prosecutorial review boards with the power to investigate and sanction prosecutors who perpetrate acts of misconduct as a means of recognizing the unique power prosecutors hold. Implementing these reforms will foster a more ethical culture in prosecutors’ offices and increase transparency in prosecutorial decision-making.

In June of 1993, Kirk Bloodsworth’s case became the first capital conviction in the United States to be overturned as a result of DNA testing. On July 25, 1984, a    nine-year-old girl was found dead in a wooded area. She had been beaten with a rock, sexually assaulted, and strangled. An honorably discharged former Marine and Maryland resident, Bloodsworth was convicted of sexual assault, rape, and first-degree premeditated murder. He was convicted and sentenced to death on March 8, 1985. The ruling was appealed a year later on the grounds that evidence was withheld at trial, and Bloodsworth received a new trial. He was found guilty again and sentenced to two consecutive life terms.

After years of fighting for a DNA test, evidence from the crime scene was sent to a lab for testing. Final reports from state and federal labs concluded that Bloodsworth’s DNA did not match any of the evidence received for testing. On June 28, 1993, a Baltimore County circuit judge ordered Bloodsworth released from prison due to the results of his DNA test, and in December 1993, Maryland’s governor pardoned Bloodsworth.

By the time of his release, Bloodsworth served almost nine years in prison, including two on death row for a crime he did not commit.

On September 5, 2003, almost a decade later, Bloodsworth heard the news he had been waiting to hear for 20 years: the state of Maryland finally charged someone with the rape and murder of young Dawn Hamilton after matching DNA evidence with information from state and federal databases. The evidence matched the DNA of a man named Kimberly Shay Ruffner, who had been arrested on charges of robbery and attempted rape and murder a few weeks after Bloodsworth’s arrest in 1984. He pled guilty on May 20, 2004 to the murder for which Bloodsworth had been wrongfully convicted.

Today, Bloodsworth is involved in efforts for criminal justice reform and is an ardent supporter of the Innocence Protection Act (IPA). The IPA, which was signed into law by President Bush on October 30, 2004 as part of the larger Justice for All Act of 2004, established the “Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program,” which will help states defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing.

Over the years, Bloodsworth has been a national spokesperson educating the public on issues surrounding wrongful convictions and innocence and helping other wrongfully convicted death row exonerees readjust to society.

Prosecutor’s Evidence at Trial
The prosecution based its case on several points:

· An anonymous caller tipped police that Bloodsworth had been seen with the girl earlier in the day.

· A witness identified Bloodsworth from a police sketch compiled by five witnesses.

· The five witnesses testified that they had seen Bloodsworth with the little girl.

· Bloodsworth had told acquaintances he had done something “terrible” that day that would affect his marriage.

· In his first police interrogation, Bloodsworth mentioned a “bloody rock,” even though no weapons were known of at the time.

Testimony was given that a shoe impression found near the victim’s body was made by a shoe that matched Bloodsworth’s size.

Post-Conviction Challenges
In 1986 Bloodsworth’s attorney filed an appeal contending the following:

• Bloodsworth mentioned the bloody rock because the police had one on the table next to him while they interrogated him.
• The “terrible” thing mentioned to acquaintances was that he had failed to buy his wife dinner as he had promised.
• Police withheld information from defense attorneys relating to the possibility of another suspect.

The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned Bloodsworth’s conviction in July 1986 because of the withheld information. He was retried, and a jury convicted him a second time. This time, Bloodsworth was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.

After an appeal of the second conviction was denied, Bloodsworth’s lawyer moved to have the evidence released for more sophisticated testing than was available at the time of trial. The prosecution agreed. In April 1992, the victim’s panties and shorts, a stick found near the murder scene, reference blood samples from Bloodsworth and the victim, and an autopsy slide were sent to Forensic Science Associates (FSA) for Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing.

DNA Results
The FSA report, issued on May 17, 1993, stated that semen on the autopsy slide was insufficient for testing. It also stated that a small semen stain had been found on the panties.

The report indicated that the majority of DNA associated with the epithelial fraction had the same genotype as the semen due to the low level of epithelial cells present in the stain. It was an expected result, according to the report. Finally, the report concluded that Bloodsworth’s DNA did not match any of the evidence received for testing. FSA did, however, request a fresh sample of Bloodsworth’s blood for retesting in accord with questions about proper labeling on the original sample.

On June 3, 1993, FSA issued a second report that stated its findings regarding Bloodsworth’s DNA were replicated and that he could not be responsible.

On June 25, 1993, the FBI conducted its own test of the evidence and discovered the same results as FSA. In Maryland, new evidence can be presented no later than one year after the final appeal. Prosecutors joined a petition with Bloodsworth’s attorneys to grant Bloodsworth a pardon. A Baltimore County circuit judge ordered Bloodsworth released from prison on June 28, 1993. Maryland’s governor pardoned Bloodsworth in December 1993. Bloodsworth served almost nine years of the second sentence, including two years on death row.

Texas has seen more than its share of controversy surrounding forensic science in recent months.

Most recently, the Houston Chronicle reported that an audit of the Houston Crime Lab’s fingerprint division identified problems in more than half of the 548 cases selected for review. The problems discovered were serious enough to lead the authorities to require that more than 4000 violent crime cases from the past six years be reanalyzed—a process that no doubt will be very costly for the city of Houston. According to the Chronicle, the Latent Prints Comparison Unit suffers from “significant deficiencies with staffing, a lack of proper supervisory review, inadequate quality control, technical competence inconsistent with industry standards, insufficient training and inadequate standard operating procedures.” The Houston Police have confirmed that a criminal investigation into misconduct by at least one employee of the fingerprint unit has been opened. In addition to the shoddy work that was done, the unit faces a backlog of some 6000 cases.

These revelations come at a time when a much-needed review of forensic oversight in Texas has been postponed indefinitely.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission had been planning a series of “roundtable” events around the state at which criminal justice stakeholder groups would discuss a recent critical report by the National Academies of Science (NAS), Improving Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, and the implications of the report for forensic science in Texas. That report identified a number of significant shortcomings in the nation’s forensic science system that threaten to undermine the accuracy and integrity of forensic evidence in our courts, including issues of training, bias, resources and a lack of independence and oversight. These same issues are at the heart of the evidence debacle in Houston.

This critical review of the Texas forensic system is on hold because of the Forensic Science Commission has found itself at the center of yet another forensic controversy surrounding its investigation into false arson evidence used against Cameron Willingham, who was executed in 1994. Governor Rick Perry, who turned down a clemency request that included a leading expert’s report that the trial evidence was scientifically invalid, abruptly replaced four commissioners just two days ahead of a meeting at which they were to hear from the state’s arson expert, whose findings confirm that the forensic evidence could not support a finding of arson. That meeting was cancelled by Perry’s new chairman, who is delaying any further action pending the adoption of new rules and policies for the commission he says are needed.

If there could be any doubt that there is an urgent need to act on the NAS report, it was erased by the latest revelations from the Houston Crime Lab. One of the questions that the Commission’s roundtables could be addressing is why Texas law explicitly exempts fingerprint analysis from forensic oversight. Most forensic evidence is only admissible in Texas courts if it is analyzed by an accredited lab, but that is not the case with fingerprints. The latent prints unit in Houston was not accredited, though other divisions in the lab were. While only the beginning of quality assurance, accreditation at least requires some baseline for good quality control policies and management practices (though it does not provide much in the way of ongoing oversight and monitoring of the actual work being done in the labs).

In fact, much fingerprint processing is not associated with a crime labs at all, which is part of the reason Texas law explicitly exempts it from the accreditation requirement. Latent prints forensic work also does not fall under the purview of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, the mission of which is very narrowly applied to investigating allegations of forensic negligence or misconduct in accredited forensic labs. This means that a huge portion of forensic evidence is largely unregulated in Texas.

Texas must recognize that there are serious gaps in its system of forensic oversight. These problems have resulted in innocent people being imprisoned for many years, and they have impeded our ability to convict criminals. The Willingham case raises troubling questions about how forensic methodologies should be validated, and how new scientific developments should be communicated within the criminal justice system. The fingerprint problems encompass many flaws, and show the need for independent laboratories, more robust ongoing oversight, and higher standards for analyst training and certification, among other reforms.

Texas must also recognize that relying on private accreditation programs is an incomplete solution, and that the mission of the Forensic Science Commission is defined in an overly narrow and reactive way. The changes needed are complex and structural—independent laboratories, a commission empowered to set and enforce meaningful quality standards for starters—but we will not be able to meet the challenges until we start the sort of comprehensive review that the Forensic Science Commission had planned. In the meantime, it remains to be seen how many criminal investigations were damaged by the failures in Houston, how many crimes went unsolved, and how many victims might have been denied justice because of a lack of forensic oversight and accountability.

Forest Shomberg walked free from a Wisconsin prison last month after serving six years for a crime he did not commit. Thanks to post-conviction DNA testing and increasing awareness of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard announced that the county will not retry the case. Every time I hear about people like Forest, I have deeply mixed emotions. As the first death-row inmate to be exonerated by DNA evidence. I know firsthand what it is like to spend time in prison for a crime I did not commit.

Forest overcame the longest of odds to win his freedom in a system that was convinced of his guilt. Imagine the patience and persistence that took. Imagine the hardships he endured being isolated from friends and family. Imagine never knowing if the truth would come out. Somehow, Forest and his loved ones found the strength to persevere. For this I am extremely happy.

But exonerations like Forest’s are also deeply unsettling to me because they demonstrate the very serious problems confronting our criminal justice system. The fact is we still get it wrong far more often than we should. Some of the same errors that caused me to spend almost nine years in prison for a crime I did not commit also led to Forest’s wrongful conviction.

In both cases, an innocent man was arrested because he looked similar to a sketch compiled by police from eyewitness accounts. In both cases, an innocent man was convicted based on eyewitness testimony. And in both cases, an innocent man went to prison while the real perpetrator went unpunished.

Initially, the judge in the case did not let the defense present expert testimony about the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Only after post-conviction DNA testing revealed that Forest’s DNA did not match the DNA on the victim’s clothes did the powerful evidence about the factors that can lead witnesses to misidentify a perpetrator, including police sketches, seem to make a difference.

Fortunately, the State of Wisconsin has since developed model procedures for police sketches and conducting lineups. Like the recommendations in The Justice Project’s publication, Eyewitness Identification: A Policy Review, the Wisconsin Department of Justice recommends that sketches be used “cautiously, if at all,” and that police use sequential, rather than simultaneous, lineups and photo arrays. Because eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions, every state should enact these procedures to make sure that people like Forest and people like me do not have to endure the tragedy of being imprisoned for someone else’s crime.

We must take the necessary steps to prevent eyewitness misidentification. States can implement simple, common sense best practices to protect against eyewitness misidentifications. Forest Shomberg’s story and my own story are only two of the many cases of wrongful conviction based on eyewitness identification that prove such reforms are desperately needed.

Shoddy forensic science has led to a major setback in a murder investigation that could close the door on efforts to bring the killer to justice. The family of murder victim Suzanne Jovin was recently informed that the DNA evidence in her case was useless because it was contaminated by a lab technician. A DNA sample collected from under Jovin’s fingernails after her 1998 murder was found to match that of the lab worker that processed the evidence, not her killer as was previously assumed.

In recent years, forensic science has become a staple of criminal prosecutions. Jurors increasingly expect trials to include conclusive forensic evidence pointing to the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Although forensic testing has a reputation for producing accurate and objective evidence, it is not flawless. In fact, a lack of quality standards in forensics labs and of adequate training for technicians has resulted in potentially important evidence being rendered worthless or just plain wrong far too often. Moreover, since most states lack any type of meaningful oversight of its crime labs, mistakes continue to occur and problems remain uncorrected.

Many forensics labs around the country have taken important steps to ensure accurate forensic work, including seeking accreditation from organizations such as the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). But the fact that problems still exist in accredited labs like the Connecticut State Department of Public Safety, the lab charged with processing evidence in the Suzanne Jovin case, shows that we must do more to ensure that effective forensic quality standards are being followed. As ASCLD/LAB itself acknowledges, accreditation is only part of a “laboratory’s quality assurance program”. Some states are beginning to recognize the need to augment private accreditation with more ongoing oversight and additional quality standards in order to ensure that our courts rely on the best forensic evidence possible.

The Justice Project’s policy review, Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science, outlines several steps states should take , including creation of an independent oversight commission to more closely supervise the work of forensic science laboratories. This commission would set statewide quality standards for all labs and would provide more rigorous, ongoing oversight of forensic testing to ensure that labs operate in a way that is consistent with the highest scientific standards. The commission would also adopt standards and regulations regarding the training and certification of all lab employees and safeguards against inadvertent bias in forensic analysis. These safeguards will help to ensure the objectivity and reliability of forensic testing and analysis.

Forensic science can be a powerful tool for seeking truth and justice. However, until our forensic oversight goes beyond accreditation, forensic evidence will continue to be mishandled, and jurors will be prevented from hearing reliable evidence. Good science leads to good justice, something in which we all have a vested interest.

All too often, prosecutors’ offices fall prey to a culture of conviction-seeking at all costs. Prosecutors who become singularly focused on conviction rates often neglect their ethical duty to protect the innocent and guard the rights of the accused. The Kern County District Attorney’s Office in California provides a clear example of this pitfall, boasting that under District Attorney Ed Jagels’ supervision, the office “has had the highest per capita prison commitment rate of any major California County.” What the office fails to highlight is the startling twenty five wrongful convictions that the office has accrued during Jagels tenure as District Attorney. Jagels recently announced his retirement, and despite his appalling record, he hopes to personally select his successor.

The troubling culture apparent in the Kern County office is not the exception. Due in large part to the public pressure to convict and the widespread failure of state bars and disciplinary agencies to hold prosecutors accountable for ethical violations, this culture of “convict at all costs” is a nationwide problem.

With the unique role as both advocates and ministers of justice, prosecutors are the most powerful actors in our justice system. Prosecutors have sole responsibility for decisions regarding what charges to bring against an individual, what sentence to seek, what plea bargain to offer, and what evidence to present to a jury during trial. Yet despite their power, they are rarely held accountable for violating their ethical obligations. This lack of accountability promotes the problematic culture that plagues prosecutors’ offices and contributes to wrongful convictions.

The pervasive culture of conviction-seeking in prosecutors’ offices must be tempered by an overriding goal of justice. The Justice Project’s policy review, Improving Prosecutorial Accountability outlines suggested reforms that can help create a culture that values fairness and accuracy over high conviction rates. For example, prosecutor’s offices should establish training programs and official office policies on the prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence to the defense and the proper use of prosecutorial discretion. Furthermore, prosecutors who intentionally abuse their power to secure a wrongful conviction must be investigated and disciplined for their actions. The Justice Project also recommends that jurisdictions recognize the unique role of prosecutors through the establishment of prosecutorial review boards with the power to investigate and sanction prosecutors who perpetrate acts of misconduct. Enacting these reforms will foster a more ethical culture in prosecutors’ offices and increase transparency in prosecutorial decision-making.

Creating a culture of accountability in prosecutors’ offices is critical to ensuring the fairness and accuracy of our justice system. Establishing training manuals and office procedures as well as implementing disciplinary measures provide the means of achieving such a culture. These measures will encourage prosecutors to better fulfill their simultaneous and critical roles of convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent.

John Terzano’s written testimony