a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

In my post discussing the demise of Miranda, I approvingly quoted the author’s mention of videotaping confessions as a possible solution. Scott writes today and warns us not to get too invested in videotaped confessions and why they may not be the answer. He is correct in that videotaped confessions are not very helpful and may end up providing the final nail in the coffin of a factually innocent defendant who goes to trial.

Scott’s post seems to focus only on confessions, as opposed to videotaping the entire interrogation(s). That’s the mistake. If we tape the entire interrogation instead, though, these reservations may not exist. Here’s a report from The Justice Project which argues that entire interrogations must be videotaped. After all, it is the interrogation that Miranda seeks to safeguard. So why should its “replacement” focus only on the confession?

It is the interrogation that needs to be videotaped to provide a complete picture of the voluntariness of a confession. Of what use is a confession only? That is principally the same as a written statement. By that point, the defendant has been broken down and tricked, cajoled or threatened into confessing. If he seems resigned on videotape while delivering his confession, it may be a product either of his guilt overwhelming him or of fatigue and submission.

A google search for videotaped interrogations provides a wealth of information: some as far back as 2002 from Chicago and some more recently from California.

There is, of course, the initial hurdle of resistance from law enforcement to overcome, but as with lineup and ID procedures, the wall is slowly starting to crumble. As of April, 2006, there were 450 law enforcement departments nationwide that required videotaping of interrogations. From Northwestern Law, here [pdf] is a list of agencies in the country today employing some form of videotaping and here [pdf] is a fantastic report (that I intend to read in-depth) from 2004 chronicling police experiences with videotaping interrogations. The New York County Lawyers’ Association has published this report [pdf] calling for interrogations to be videotaped. It analyzes statutes and regulations in various states.

In Connecticut, a pilot program was approved last year for certain jurisdictions. I haven’t heard anything about it or how it is working. Anyone who knows want to chime in? Did any jurisdictions actually sign up for the pilot program? [Previous coverage here and here.]

Once concern from law enforcement is that it may be difficult to videotape interrogations in all circumstances. I don’t think that’s true. If a suspect is arrested in a remote area, cops have two options: (1) use the in-car video system or (2) wait till you get to a police station. What am I missing here?

If the entirety of an interrogation is recorded - videotaped - then it certainly would give the viewer an accurate picture of the voluntariness of an eventual confession.

The only obvious problem that I can see is defining when such a recording must commence. Is “custody” too late in the game? What if there is an audio recording of initial contact and then video recording of an interrogation? I guess the answer will depend on what studies show to be first time that coercive tactics are used. I haven’t done enough research to provide a reasonable answer, but I think it is one that can be answered.

Videotaped interrogations may not be a panacea, but I think they will be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

photo credit: werewegian

For a while now, we have heard about exonerations obtained due to DNA testing. The current number from the Innocence Project stands at, I believe, 208. One of the more common refrains you hear from champions of innocence is that there are thousands more in jail that are innocent and have no way of proving it. In some cases, there is no DNA evidence and in some, it is lost.

The Denver Post did a terrific series last month on lost evidence, which they called “Trashing the Truth“. (I apologize if its been covered in the blogosphere before - I just stumbled across it.) The Post engaged in a detailed investigation of evidence rooms across the country and profiled several cases where DNA evidence has been lost or destroyed - willfully or otherwise - and innocence bids are foreclosed.

Authorities across the country have lost, mishandled or destroyed tens of thousands of DNA samples since genetic fingerprinting revolutionized crime solving 20 years ago.

Evidence from cold cases goes misplaced across Colorado.

Delicate traces of human biology sit stuffed into pizza and fried-chicken boxes in rat-infested New Orleans evidence vaults.

And specimens are dumped by the truckload in Los Angeles, Houston and New York - sometimes soon after high-profile exonerations.

In a country whose prime-time TV lineup glorifies DNA forensics, many real-life evidence vaults are underfunded and mismanaged, struggling to keep up with technological advances and lagging behind most corner groceries in the way they track valuable crime-scene items.

Facing real-world training and space challenges, even the best-intentioned clerks commonly toss DNA samples, especially from old cases, in what one expert calls the “sledge-o-matic approach to clearing out evidence rooms.”

“You can’t keep everything,” said Arthur Morrell, Orleans Parish clerk of Criminal Court.

The Denver Post examined purges in 10 states and found that authorities destroyed biological evidence in nearly 6,000 rape and murder cases during the past decade, rendering them virtually unsolvable. Over the past three decades, the loss or destruction of DNA evidence in 28 states has undermined efforts by at least 141 prisoners to prove their innocence, The Post has found.

In this age of high profile DNA cases, it is incumbent upon states to reorganize their storage procedures and provide high-tech facilities. If the criminal justice system is indeed a pursuit of the truth and of justice, then it cannot simultaneously aid injustice by destroying evidence.

There are just far too many instances and far too many inmates profiled by the Post. I strongly recommend that you take this Sunday afternoon to read through some of them, available at the link above. One of the higher profile innocence bids is that of Tim Masters, who was convicted with virtually no evidence, but primarily on some sketches that he had done (he was 15) and an FBI profile that was never created.

Edit: Another one to look at is this piece on Clarence Moses-El, who was first suspected of raping a woman because his name came to her in a dream. (I kid you not.) The three people she initially named (right after the incident) were never interviewed by police. Finally, years after his conviction, a judge ordered DNA testing. One month later, the evidence was destroyed by the police department.

Some of the comments in these stories by law enforcement officials and prosecutors are just disgusting. The arguments they put forth in opposing motions for DNA testing are very very disturbing and make you wonder if they really are seeking justice.

I’ve been remiss in not mentioning EyeID’s terrific coverage of the debunking of a highly-publicized study out of Illinois that claimed to have raised questions about some of the procedural reforms being adopted around the country to improve the handling of eyewitness evidence.

The study, taking the form of a pilot project spearheaded by Chicago police across three counties, purported to reveal that current identification procedures protected against mistaken identifications better than reforms (PDF) proposed by respected social scientists, based on extensive research on eyewitness memory. In other words, the Chicago police were happy to report that, notwithstanding the 19 wrongful convictions recorded in Illinois that resulted from faulty eyewitness evidence, everything was just fine and no pesky (scientific) reforms were needed.

Two immediate red flags: The report was not subjected to peer review and it was authored by a lawyer for the Chicago Police Department. EyeID notes sadly that the study’s findings “were trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times and have since served as serious impediments to reform in Legislatures around the country.”

Then some scientists decided to take a look. They released their own analysis [pdf] of the CPD report and found

“the design [of the Illinois study] guaranteed that most outcomes would be difficult or impossible to interpret,” and the study’s fundamental flaw has “devastating consequences” with respect to its scientific merits.

Then the Chicago Tribune runs this curious story, suggesting that the best lineup format has yet to be identified. This is utter nonsense. As EyeID rightly notes,

The first problem is that the “disagreement” is one of conflicting agendas, not unresolved questions of science. Scientists, with their well-known bias in favor of facts, are in general agreement that sequential lineup procedures are less likely to put innocent people in prison. Every peer reviewed study on the topic bears out this finding. A meta-analysis (PDF) was conducted by leading psychologists to extrapolate the comparative accuracy rates of the two types of procedures, and the clear finding was that sequential lineups are far less likely to result in an innocent person being identified. When “moderator variables” are considered, the two methods are also largely equivalent in their likelihood of bringing about a correct selection of the actual perpetrator, when he is present in the lineup. The general consensus among scientists is that “sequential lineups are superior.”

To the extent that there is disagreement on this point, it is not a disagreement among scientists or any sort of conflict in empirical findings. Rather, it is an objection by prosecutors at the audacity of scientists who dare to suggest that science should inform criminal justice policy. After all, the Chicago Police Department has been doing lineups for decades. Who are these scientists to tell them their procedures are flawed? It’s like a bunch of M.D.s telling cigarette manufacturers that smoking causes cancer.

While the Illinois study may have stalled ID reform in some states, or made others question the validity of their pilot programs in the short term, it has also resulted in an explosion of interest in the area of ID reform. This can only be a good thing. As more and more people become aware of these proposed reforms and there are more studies confirming their effectiveness, states will have to take notice and ID reforms will gain more acceptance. As the study I reported about earlier noted, “the leading cause of the wrongful convictions was erroneous identification by eyewitnesses, which occurred 79 percent of the time.” It should be in everybody’s interests to significantly reduce that number.

See, I told you there was so much I had missed in just one day.

EyeID points to this article about two upcoming studies on wrongful convictions:

The first, “Judging Innocence”, is soon-to-be-published in the Columbia Law Review, conducted by University of Virginia Professor Brandon Garrett. Professor Garrett’s study systematically examined all of the DNA exonerations and concluded that “the leading cause of the wrongful convictions was erroneous identification by eyewitnesses, which occurred 79 percent of the time. In a quarter of the cases, such testimony was the only direct evidence against the defendant.” Other leading causes of wrongful convictions were faulty forensic evidence, unreliable snitch testimony and false confessions.

You must read the study [pdf] to get the full sense of the various problems found. Here’s a sample:

There were false confessions in 16 percent of the cases, with two-thirds of those involving defendants who were juveniles, mentally retarded or both.

Here’s the zinger:

Garrett’s study strongly suggests, then, that there are thousands of people serving long sentences for crimes they did not commit but who have no hope that DNA can clear them.

The second is by Professors Samuel Gross at Michigan Law School and Barbara O’Brien of Michigan State. It, too, reached similar conclusions. Specifically:

“The main thing we can safely conclude from exonerations is that there are many other false convictions that we have not discovered,” the Michigan study said. “In addition, a couple of strong demographic patterns appear to be reliable:

Black men accused of raping white women face a greater risk of false conviction than other rape defendants; and young suspects, those under 18, are at greater risk of false confession than other suspects.”

CapDefWeekly has more. Grits has a lot on snitching. Scott Greenfield feels vindicated. I will have more on this later.

EyeID has a fantastic follow-up post to the post discussing the Judge Hoffman editorial, entitled “Stages of denial: The numbers are on our side too“. You must read it. It traces the history of skepticism of wrongful convictions and the shifting arguments employed to counter the growing evidence that wrongful convictions do occur. Here’s a brief glimpse:

In the pre-DNA era, they disdainfully dismissed works like the Radelet study — a pre-DNA study that concluded that 23 innocent capital defendants had been executed in the past 85 years — pointing to its supposed flaws such as its reliance on “one-sided” materials like newspaper articles.Then the DNA exonerations came. And it was good. But not enough for the skeptics. At that point, it obviously became impossible for any rational person to deny that the criminal justice system convicted the wrong person. But when reformers then began to demand that the system take simple steps to fix what was now an identified and undeniable problem — by, for example, reforming demonstrable problems in eyewitness identification procedures — the skeptics began to question the scope of the problem, now demanding that reformers not only demonstrate the existence of the problem and its causes, but also its precise scope.

Read the whole post. Absolutely terrific! Bravo! What a blog!

Previous coverage:

• The Innocence Myth

Technorati Tags: innocence, wrongful conviction

Connecticut is set to join several other states considering videotaping interrogations. Only four states thus far require it (AK, MN, ME and DC). The appropriations committee has set aside 100K a year for ‘08 and ‘09 to test it out. Videotaping of interrogations has become increasingly important what with the explosion of false confession claims over recent years.

“Electronic recording of interrogations will assure protections to the innocent,” said Amanda Melpolder, a policy advocate for the Innocence Project, which has helped exonerate 198 people since it was established in 1992.”Less than ideal interrogation procedures have contributed to or been the main factor in nearly one in five wrongful convictions of individuals later exonerated through DNA evidence,” Melpolder said. “In each of these cases, the true perpetrator remained at large. … The mandatory recording of interrogations is a reform whose time has come.”

Of course, not all agree, especially law enforcement. Their main concern is that it will “hinder the investigators’ interview techniques”. As opposed to ensuring there are no false confessions.

Public Safety Commissioner John A. Danaher III said in his testimony for a recent legislative hearing on the matter. “Defense attorneys may use the tape in an attempt to divert the focus of the jury’s attention in a criminal trial from the accused to criticism of an investigator’s interrogation techniques.”

Good job by the legislature and I hope the pilot program will convince them that this needs to become law in Connecticut.

Technorati Tags: connecticut, videotaped interrogations

Scott Henson reports on a bill pending in the Texas “lege” that would allow hearsay evidence in sexual assault cases where the victim is 14 or younger. He writes:

I don’t get this - Texas has seen a rash of wrongful convictions uncovered, but rather than pass legislation that would reduce the number of innocent people convicted, these bills are essentially what I’ve called “anti-innocence” initiatives, proposals that make it more likely that flawed or biased testimony generates a wrongful conviction.

This bill invites false testimony that cannot be cross examined, and expands the use of hearsay testimony to imply intent regarding offenses that were never even committed.

As I’ve said before, these bills are very dangerous, but they seem to be gaining steam across the country.

Previous coverage:

• Tender years exception to hearsay
• Tender years II
• Tender years III

Another significant news event seems to have slipped by me (I must be getting old): New Jersey’s legislature has approved a moratorium on the death penalty!

New Jersey lawmakers voted Monday to suspend executions while a task
force studies the fairness and costs of imposing the death penalty.

The measure now heads to Gov. Richard J. Codey, who has indicated he will sign it before leaving office on Jan. 17.

Under the measure, a 13-member commission would have until November
to report on whether the death penalty is fairly imposed and whether
alternatives would ensure public safety and address the needs of
victims’ families.

New Jersey will become the first state to suspend executions through an act of the legislature. Illinois has an executive moratorium.

California is also considering a similar move:

On Monday, a group of current and former California prosecutors,
including the author of the state’s 1978 death penalty initiative, sent
a letter to state Assembly members calling for a moratorium on
executions in the state.

The Assembly is scheduled to hold the first hearing Tuesday on a
bill that would halt executions until Jan. 1, 2009, while the
California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice studies
wrongful convictions.

For more on the California proposal, see this article.

Hat tip: Prof. Berman