Blind Justice: Juries Deciding Life and Death With Only Half the Truth
A 2005 study by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), Blind Justice: Juries Deciding Life and Death With Only Half the Truth, illustrates that juries in capital cases are often not provided with the whole truth in order to make their life-and-death decisions.
The study enumerates the sources of some of these half-truths, including prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence or presenting questionable scientific evidence as undeniable evidence of guilt. Additionally, defense lawyers can be unqualified, incompetent, and underpaid, thus compromising the defendant’s right to a thorough defense.
DPIC reported that prosecutorial misconduct played a significant role in 62% of the convictions overturned since 2000, stating that the pressure to solve a murder can lead prosecutors and detectives to portray a suspect as clearly guilty and deserving of death even with evidence to the contrary. According to DPIC, prosecutors can also withhold vital evidence of innocence, and there is no real punishment for those who do so.
DPIC also asserted that the state can present DNA evidence as infallible evidence of guilt, even when concerns are growing about contaminated, mishandled, or misinterpreted DNA evidence in labs around the country. In addition, the study documented cases wherein prosecutors based their case on testimony from jailhouse informants, even if they have lied in the past, without informing the jury of the incentives given to these informants.
The study also presented cases of defendants being represented by underpaid and unqualified defense attorneys and argued that there are numerous cases of lawyers sleeping in court or failing to investigate or present all the evidence.
DPIC concluded that “states have not provided effective lawyers for capital cases because they have been unwilling to supply the resources that such representation demands…most capital defendants go to trial heavily outgunned by the prosecution.”
