 |
|
Ohio
Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction.
|
That was what Eddie Vernon said after recanting his
eyewitness testimony that sent an innocent man to prison for 39 years. You read
it correctly – 39 years! Until a few months ago, Ricky Jackson, was locked up
in prison for a murder he did not commit. How did he get convicted for such a
crime? Based on the eyewitness testimony of a 12 year old boy who admitted
years later that he lied to everyone – including the prosecutors, the judge,
the police, and the jury. What he said he saw on May 19, 1975 built the entire
case against Jackson, who is now 57. Vernon was eager to please the police and
only learned about the details of the murder by what they told him. "All
the information was fed to me,”
he now says. There was no physical evidence in this case. No DNA to exonerate
this man. It took a witness to recant his story and correct a horrific wrong,
in order to free a man he wrongly accused of murder decades ago.
Take the case of Derrick Hamilton,
who was cited in the New York Daily News on November
15, 2014. Imprisoned for 20 years due to a faulty eyewitness testimony, he
spent the prime of his life behind bars. He always maintained his innocence and
blamed famous NY detective, Louis Scarcella, of setting him up. Whether
Scarcella set him up or not, the prosecutors were quick to prosecute and the
jury was quick to believe the testimony of a single witness.
 |
[Bobby Poole (the man who actually committed the crime) and Ronald Cotton].
Retrieved here
|
Even witnesses who don’t lie and sincerely
believe they have identified the correct person, such as the famous case of
Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson, play a huge part in swaying the jury
towards a guilty verdict. In Ronald’s case, Jennifer truly believed she had
correctly identified the man who raped her and that was a powerful enough testimony
to send Ronald
to prison. Without the DNA evidence that would later exonerate him, Ronald would
still be sitting in jail today.
 |
|
Iwabu,
T.[Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton].
Retrieved here
|
All three stories are unique in their own way but what they share in common happens to also be the deciding factor that put these innocent people in prison in the first place – that being the testimony of an eyewitness. More times than not, all a jury needs to hear is that someone witnessed the crime take place and it’s enough to render a guilty verdict.
For this blog post, I simply provided stories whereby eyewitness testimony was a deciding factor for members of a jury. I made no mention of how easily influenced the human memory is or the lengthy research surrounding such testimonies. I even opted to exclude how police can improve their eyewitness procedures to obtain better results. All these areas will be discussed in later blog posts. Indeed, the jury should care about human memory, research, and police procedures in obtaining the direct evidence, and maybe we will one day head in that direction, but for now, let’s just start from the foundation, which happens to be the power of the eyewitness in swaying a jury of their peers.
So now to you...If you were a member of a jury and there was no substantial physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime, would the eyewitness testimony be enough for you to consider the person guilty?
The attention you bring to this subject is very necessary. The problem is that we only hear about the ones that over how many years are proven to be wrong. There are probably many that have never been corrected and an innocent person has gone to prison for a crime that he or she did not commit. As for those that are eventually proven innocent, they have most likely wasted the best part of their lives in prison. How will a person find a job and start a life after they have been set back 20 years or so? There is no way that someone could possibly live a positive life after these situations.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more!
DeleteI am doing my blog assignment on the Innocence Project, something I think you would find extremely valuable in learning about criminal exonerations and the like. Eyewitness testimony, as you suggested, is an extremely dangerous concept and it shocks me how this is even admissible in a court of law. I enjoyed how you tied three different stories together. The eyewitness test website was an excellent tool to prove how flawed this system is, and I hope psychologists and criminologists can appeal to lawmakers to reduce this judicial issue. The embedded pictures were a nice touch that I think I will start to use.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback!I love the Innocence Project and I got my stats from their website for my first blog post. I will certainly check out your blog today.
DeleteInteresting presentation and facts while it is troubling results. Prosecutors will uncover anything to strengthen their case and convict the person in question. The juries, on the other hand, have huge responsibilities to execute on behalf of the public by remaining neutral and examining the facts deeply. Relying on single eyewitness which is difficult to rely on it for accuracy to the degree of beyond reasonable doubt, to convict and send an individual to prison is very troubling. Another problem is, the quality of defense. Most of these people are not too rich to afford high profile lawyers to match the state’s prosecutors to fight and prove their innocence.
ReplyDeleteI thought the quick eye witness test was interesting. When I was looking at the lineup I didn't think he was there, but there was no option for that so I just chose one. I can see how people in real life might think they also have to from the people in a line up. They have probably assumed that the police have done their jobs correctly and have included the guilty party.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I'm just now reading your blog -- it's fantastic! To think, I started today cursing that I could only find 24 of my 25 comments and would have to comment again. Quite the blessing in disguise.
ReplyDeleteYes, eyewitness testimony is a ludicrously imperfect science. In addition to the many items you mentioned here, there are a few others to note. 1) people have more difficulty distinguishing individuals of a different race from their own. Lots of people are improperly identified due to this. 2) People want to be helpful. Seriously, this is a massive problem. Witnesses don't want to disappoint cops, so they feel compelled to point the finger at someone. 3) I've made this point on other blogs, but the police are incentivized to close cases. As such, they may push witnesses to make identifications they may not otherwise be comfortable doing.
The list, frankly, goes on. It's a terrible way to convict people -- and one that should stop being given so much credit.
If I was on a jury and there wasn't any physical evidence, I don't think I could send someone to jail just based on an eye witness. Most people would assume that this person is telling the truth, and they might use this to help them decide to make the person guilty. But I am always suspicious of people becuase they can lie for any number of reasons, so without any real evidence to back up the witness I don't think I could send someone to jail. What if the witness was lying or had made a mistake? This is exactly what you talk about in your blog, so I'm amazed that courts don't have rules where physical evidence needs to be there to send someone to jail for life.
ReplyDeleteThe two men look very similar even the way they look down their noses and their eyes and mouthed are the same
ReplyDelete