Graham Stuart Stafford Case Summary

The factors of social impression of discrepancy, the impact of the media, and the misinterpretation of investigating police and prosecution played a significant role in the resulting failure of justice

Forcelli explains his displeasure of our broken criminal justice system when he states, “The sad part is that getting an innocent man out of jail is way, way, way harder than putting a guilty man in jail.” When detectives are constantly pressured to close cases and produce high conviction rates it can cause in accuracies in convictions. Garry’s case is a perfect example of how a case with minimal evidence can result in an innocent getting placed in prison. Garry has sat in prison for over 20 years waiting to appeal his case and plead his innocence. The ease of convicting an innocent man should be consistent with difficulty of exonerating an innocent man. In Garry’s case he awaits a decision from a judge where the judge has three options, to exonerate him, grant a retrial, or

“The only two people that know I am innocent, is myself and the killer.” Imagine being blamed for a crime you did not commit, and nobody would believe you no matter what you said. Steven Truscott had forty-two years of his life taken from him for being charged with a crime he did not commit. He was charged at only the age of fourteen for murdering and raping twelve year old Lynne Harper. He then became the youngest death-row inmate after one of the most famous trials in the history of Canada. Steven Truscott should never have been convicted for the murder and rape of Lynne Harper due to the fact the forensic evidence was questionable the

Nelson Hart is a Newfoundland man who was convicted in 2007 of drowning his 3 year old twin daughters. The 45 year old was held in prison for more than 9 years before being released in 2014.

This flaw affects an individual’s life drastically because it causes them to loose so many years of their life behind prison bars for a crime they did not commit. There are many reasons for why the Canadian Court system has the flaw of wrongful convictions such as: eyewitness misidentification, where the witness may claim to have seen something but their minds understand the situations wrongs, or like in Milgaard’s case, witnesses may give false eyewitness identification, just like John did, stating he had seen Milgaard stab the nurse. Error in forensic science is another reason for wrongful convictions. Just like in Truscott’s case, during the time, there was not enough science knowledge to investigate Lynne Harper’s body, and the found information was false evidence. False testimony is a major factor in wrongful convictions because when someone gives false testimonies, they make the case even more difficult for the wrongly accused person. In Milgaard's case, his friends who gave false testimony, switching up the story of what had actually happened the night of the murder, was a major reason why Milgaard had to serve sentence for a crime he did not commit. Tunnel vision was a major factor in Truscott’s case that caused him to be sentenced. The police only focused on him as a suspect and did not regard anything else or try to investigate upon anything

This case is of interest to both myself and society because Truscott was wrongly convicted based on the limited scientific knowledge available in 1959, and the police’s tunnel vision. They were so adamant on finding the killer that they became fixated on Truscott as the only suspect, and did’t bother widening their search. Because of this, evidence was tampered to frame Truscott. What happened to Truscott was a miscarriage of justice, which affects society’s confidence in the legal system, and it undermines the criminal justice system’s legitimacy.

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

For a society that is greatly influenced by Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Minds and Bones, a confession of the offender is seen as an ultimate checkmate of the case because it implies the guilt of the confessor. Thus, a confession, especially the ones with detailed account and perfect representation of emotions (Leo, 2008), outweighs the evidences of innocence and stirs the case against the accused (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). People believe that they are open-minded about the possibility of false confession but in reality, the public, law enforcers and justice officials have biases that often infer guilt to the suspect instead of investigating for the truth, which leads to wrongful conviction. According to Leo and Drizin (2004), false confession is the primary cause of law miscarriage (Leo and Drizzin, 2004). False confessors lived many years in jail before being exonerated while others remain imprisoned (Leo and Drizzin, 2004).

“Wrongful convictions happen every week in every state in this country. And they happen for all the same reasons. Sloppy police work. Eyewitness identification is the most- is the worst type almost. Because it is wrong about half the time. Think about that.” (Grisham). Wrongful convictions can happen to anyone, at anytime. Grisham implies wrongful convictions happen for the same reasons, careless police work as well as eyewitness identification. An eyewitness identification is a crucial aspect in detective work because it essentially locates the person at the crime scene. This is the worst cause of wrongful convictions because it is wrong half the time.

Innocent until proven guilty is a phrase that applies to our judicial system in modern times; however, when the play Doubt by John Patrick Stanley was written this phrase did not always apply. The play is a parable that makes you think about how gossip and rumors can cause havoc and potentially ruin someone’s career. In the play the rumors that are flying are rumors about whether or not Father Flynn is innocent or guilty to the crime of molesting a young boy named Donald Muller. Critics still argue whether he was innocent or guilty to the crime today, and no answer is known. However, based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play Doubt: A Parable, one could conclude that Father Flynn is innocent due to the fact that he had reasonable evidence

We hear in the news about police misconduct, use of excessive force, embezzlement, but one thing I found while researching what I should write this paper on is the Wrongful convictions of innocent men and women, that spend years in prison being innocent, and there is nothing that gets done till it’s too late. Some wrongful convictions are honest mistakes, but many times law enforcement and prosecutors lose sight of the obligation of ensuring truth and justice, and are focused on their conviction rates. As with any job, they are honest people and ones that just don’t care and are corrupt, this exists in the criminal justice system. One way to prove someone is innocent now is through DNA testing, but even at all levels of a criminal investigation there could be misconduct or mishandling of evidence, which then causes the evidence to become compromised.

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

As humans, we believe in myths that the police, or anyone working for the justice system, will say the truth. This is a given, since they work for the justice system. Nevertheless, the Serial podcast hosted by Sarah Koenig questions this criminal justice system people whole heartedly trust. Serial is about a 1999 case where a Muslim teenage boy, Adnan Syed, is convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee – 17-year-old Korean teenager. I have listened to the Serial podcast and took a significant amount of interest toward it. However, when I continued to listen to the podcast, I could clearly see that throughout Adnan’s trial and the investigation process, there were many flaws in the justice system. This has confirmed the criminal justice system to be flawed and ineffective, which is seen through the defense, investigation team, as well as the prosecution.

The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.

    A review of false convictions that involved forensic science and can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results, render conclusions, and testify in court from the national institute of justice.