You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘wrongful conviction’ tag.
Wrongful convictions are a controversial topic. The media loves to jump on them and play the blame game almost as much as they like covering serial killers. As such, it may not be a topic that a lot of law enforcement agencies want to talk about because it calls into question our very ability to remember the past and get accurate, non-coerced confessions. At the same time, discussing the principles and practices that lead to false testimony and wrongful convictions can help us determine the tools law enforcement needs to use to change those practices.
In the session, Steven Drizin, Legal Director, Center on Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern University School of Law, pointed out 3 practices that lead to false testimony and wrongful convictions: misclassification, coercion, and contamination.
Misclassification
Although this is not true of all police officers, Drizin points out that many investigators have the attitude of “we only interrogate guilty suspects.” Simply put, investigators will often use verbal and non-verbal cues given by the suspect—the something’s-fishy factor—to assume that a suspect is guilty before interrogation. In essence, with this attitude, interrogators will misclassify a suspect as guilty and then work toward proving that assumption to get a confession or conviction. For example, in cases that Drizin cites, people have been assumed guilty both because the were not emotional enough, or were too emotional. The perception that a suspect reacts slightly differently than the officer expects might automatically classify that suspect as guilty in the mind of the officer.
As well, many suspects lie, but not always about their guilt. Officers can pick up on lies—especially bad ones— and assume that if a suspect lied about one aspect of a crime, then they must be lying about their guilt as well. Lies told by a suspect can also misclassify a suspect as guilty before the evidence actually plays out.
Coercion
Drizin spent little time on this aspect, except to say that coercion is increasing the pressure on a suspect to give the testimony or confession that the interrogating officer expects to get. Coercion usually take the form of threats or reward (i.e., “If you don’t confess, I’ll make sure you get the death penalty” or “If you confess now, I’ll make sure you don’t serve any more than 2 months in jail).
Contamination
Normally, when I think of contamination, I think of crime scene contamination; however, false confessions and false witness accounts can also be contaminated. Drizin points out that many times a false confession will contain information that only the perpetrator or the police would know. But that information can leak to suspects through media coverage, being present at the crime scene, or at the crime scene at another time, rumors, and from the police themselves. This type of contamination is facilitated by the power of suggestion. Drizin gives an example of a police chief who got a false confession from a suspect that contained details about the crime scene only the police knew about. In amazement, the chief went back to a videotape of the confession and realized that he had inadvertently fed information to the suspect, and the suspect then used that information in the confession. In fact, after a thorough review, the chief found that absolutely no original information came from the suspect at all. All information had been inadvertently given to the suspect through leading questions, and even a map drawn by the chief himself of the crime scene.
Solution: Video Recording Interrogations
Drizin was certainly an advocate and the other panelists whole-heartedly agreed that many of the problems currently associated with false witnesses and false confessions could be done away with through the practice of video recording interrogations.
Although some members of law enforcement are resistant to video recording interrogations, the entire panel was in agreement that not only did video recording simply give a record of an interrogation, but it also protected police officers. If there is a video of a confession, any defense attorney can examine the recording themselves and see that there was no misconduct and no coercion. In fact, once Illinois passed a law requiring video recorded interrogations, motions to suppress confessions dropped to almost zero, and allegations of misconduct and coercion lowered significantly.
As well, Drizin points out that video recording helps catch the real bad guys, by providing law enforcement with a way to review their own work. If a confession is not caught on video, officers cannot look back at it, glean new information or make sure that they were not leading the witness or suspect to say certain things.
If our goal is to catch the guilty party, and not just to put someone in jail, video recording interrogations may be the best tool law enforcement has to double-check itself, provide transparency, and prove to courts that everything they did in the interrogation was legal and ethical.
Panelists:
Rob Warden, Executive Director, Center on Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern University School of Law
Steven Drizin, Legal Director, Center on Wrongful Convictions, Northwestern University School of Law
Thomas P. Sullivan, Retired U.S. Attorney
Lt. Jonathan Priest, Denver Police Department
Get on the crime map at CrimeReports.com
Stumble It!
The Crime Map 