Prosecutorial Misconduct

Eyewitness evidence has always been considering critical information when it comes to court trials and convictions. But how reliable are eyewitnesses? Scientific research has shown that eyewitness’s memories are often not accurate or reliable. Human memory is very malleable and is easily changed by suggestion. Relying on eyewitness evidence instead of scientific data often leads to wrongful convictions. Scientific evidence is much more reliable, and should be more important in court cases than eyewitness evidence.

In a United States courtroom, evidence is king. There are all different kinds of evidence that can be brought into court, and these types of evidence are statistical, anecdotal, analogical, and testimony. Testimony is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth” (2014). During a trial, testimony is heard supporting both sides of the court, the prosecution and defense. Though some of that testimony is based on hard facts, or expert testimony (deemed an expert by the judge), some of it can be easily misconstrued, and some can be undeniable (such as expert testimony in relation to hard evidence such as DNA). But there remains one type of testimony that carries an unprecedented weight in a courtroom, and that is eyewitness testimony. Some of the problems associated with eyewitness testimony are that is it unreliable, and it is leading or suggestive to a jury. In this paper I am going to address these issues as well as explore some ethical issues around eyewitness testimony, how it can effect the presumption of guilt, and who should have the burden of proof under certain circumstances.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the Supreme Court began to recognize the issues of faulty eyewitness testimony and began to establish limited safeguards. Some of the safeguards introduced by the Supreme Court include allowing the defendant to have an attorney present at a lineup, allowing defendants to challenge identifications resulting from questionable police procedures, and establishing model jury instructions (Jost 862-863).

This paper takes a leap into the corrupted side of the criminal justice system. After analyzing several articles regarding wrongful conviction cases in the Unites States, it is apparent that wrongful conviction cases occur more often than society believed. It has come to surface in recent years that wrongful convictions are a big problem with our criminal justice system. Researchers have discovered the causes of wrongful convictions to be bad lawyering, government misconduct, informants, false confessions, flawed forensic science and eyewitness error. Furthermore, this paper explores the affects victims face due to a wrongful conviction. As society has begun to steadily realize that miscarriage of justice is a possibility, researchers have considered reforms to the criminal justice system.

While all of the topics that we have covered throughout this course have been troubling, the topic of prosecutorial misconduct is to me one of the most distressing; the mere thought of the possibility of misconduct by prosecutors gives me the chills, and the numerous examples featured within the assigned chapter readings, in addition to the online articles, only further my skepticism in the legal system and those individuals holding official positions. There appears to be a lot of similarities between prosecutorial misconduct and the topics that we discussed as possible reasons for faulty forensic science, such as a common trust bias in police officials, lack of universal standards, and other cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and belief perseverance.

The reliability if an eyewitness testimony is questionable. The witness may be so certain that the person that thy are pointing out is one hundred per cent the suspect or they could be so certain when it comes to retelling the incident, although these people are so sure on what it is they are doing, their testimony cannot always accurate. Due to the lack of accuracy with eyewitness

In the past decade, eyewitness testimonies have cast a shadow on what is wrong with the justice system in today’s society. Before we had the advanced technology, we have today, eyewitness testimonies were solid cold-hard facts when it came to proving the defendant was guilty. However, time has changed and eyewitness testimonies have proven to be the leading causes of wrongful convictions due to misidentification. The Thompson and Cotton case is a perfect example of how eyewitness testimonies can put an innocent man behind bars.

In Canada, the leading cause of wrongful conviction is due to the factor of eyewitness account. It has been proven that individual’s minds are not like tape recorders because everyone cannot precisely and accurately remember the description of what another person or object looks like. The courts looks at eyewitness accounts as a great factor to nab perpetrators because they believe that the witness should know what they are taking about and seen what occurred on the crime scene. On the other hand, eyewitness accounts lead to a 70 percent chance of wrongful conviction, where witnesses would substantially change their description of a perpetrator.

“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.

Criminal justice systems must ensure the review of the forensic science by providing standardization of the interpretation of evidence. Trusting that the system at hand which relies upon an adversary system can ensure adequate protection from faulty forensic science is unrealized (Gershman, 2007). Most importantly is the lack of checks and balances in a judicial system where according to the Bureau of Justice Department (2011), 90 to 95% of criminal cases in state and federal level are resolved by plea bargain (3). Forensic science should be validated before its use through empirical standardized, and the court system must subscribe to the ethical use of forensics to serve justice (Garrett & Neufeld, 2009). Prosecutorial misconduct contributes significantly to wrongful convictions (Joy,2006). Examples are not isolated nor rare, and conclusion coupled with unprincipled motivation requires a more stringent requirements ethics, transparency, and standardization (Joy,2006). Criminal justice systems do not identify innocent defendants, thereby losing significant factors that contribute to wrongful conviction (Gould, J. et al., 2013). Police and the courts continuously increase their reliance on forensic science to corroborate evidence, signifying the necessity for validation and standardization (Strom, K., & Hickman, M., 2015). However, we must embrace that flawed forensics impacts our criminal justice system and can contribute to the death of the innocent. Blind faith in a proven imperfect system jeopardizes

To say that one reason prosecutors engage in misconduct is because the U.S. criminal justice system favors convictions over justice is too vague of a term and it is not necessarily this way. There are other factors that needs to be taken in consideration and it is too skeptic to say it this way for all prosecutors. To encourage justice over convictions, one can participate by giving more training to prosecutors, investigate thoroughly before pressing any charges, and pursue the truth of the case instead of thinking ways to be promoted. Prosecutors are the administrators of justice at trial and they should uphold constitutional rights of everyone involved. The reactions would be overwhelmingly crazy and shocking if we started charging prosecutors

Many times, this lousy legal advice is caused by eyewitness misidentification, pressure from prosecutors, and deals that are offered by the judge and prosecution. Other causes for these improper court rulings include false information from informants, government misconduct, and invalidated or improper forensic science techniques. ("The Innocence

More shockingly the justice department and FBI have formally acknowledged that virtually every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which evidence was supplied against criminal defendants in the period of 20 years prior to 2000. In a group of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory 26 have been confirmed to overstating matches in microscopic hair comparison in favor of prosecutors. This was seen in 95 percent of the 268 trials that have been reviewed so far in accordance to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project. The errors in the FBI’s conduct does not mean that there was no other evidence of the convict’s guilt, however federal and state prosecutors

Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.