Six Convicts

Clarence Harrison and David Ranta cases are similar due to the fact that it shows the main goal for our criminal justice system is to seek justice. Harrison was wrongly convicted of a crime due to a flawed eyewitness testimony and DNA blood test. His armed robbery conviction at the age of nineteen also played a major part in his case, because it allowed his face to be put into a lineup of suspects. The victim who was sexually assaulted picked out Harrison as the man who attacked and raped her at the Marta Bus station. Sophisticated DNA blood testing was not even available during the time of Harrison’s conviction. The blood test administrated could only rule that Clarence was one of the eighty-eight percent of the population who could have committed the sexual assault. Unfortunately, Harrison had no clear alibi, and eyewitness testimony the jurors found him guilty of rape where he served seventeen years before he was later exonerated.

Imagine spending a quarter of one’s life in prison for a crime one didn’t commit. This is what happened to Michael Morton back on February 17, 1987, when he was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife even though there wasn’t real evidence linking him to the murder. There was no scientific evidence, no eyewitness, no murder weapon, or a believable motive. He was their only suspect, and the only thing they had on him that made him look guilty was the statement of the medical examiner Dr. Roberto Bayardo who placed Christine Morton’s time of death at 1:15 AM that morning before Michael left for work. The medical testimony had convinced the jurors that the wife had died while Michael was still in the house. Christine died of eight

of the brutal slayings. It was concluded that both should be tried in an adult

Being wrongly accused of a crime and sent to prison for years is something people would not think of happening to them on any day. However, it does occur. Two men, Richard Alexander and Kirk Bloodsworth were accused of a crime and sent to prison. Both of these men were exonerated through genetic DNA testing years later.

The questionable forensic evidence, the untrustworthy witnesses and the insufficient investigation are all reasons why Steven Truscott should never have been charged with the rape and murder of Lynne Harper. Being charged with something you did not commit is something nobody wants to go through. Evidence, witnesses and the investigation portion is very important for a case to run correctly. It took Steven Truscott 42 years to finally get his name cleared. He went through many trials and hearings to finally get the news one day that he was free to go. Most of his life was taken from him that he will never get back. “They finally got it right after all these years. I am so used to fighting. Now we don’t have to fight anymore.”

It is almost impossible for justice to be served when the trail was a mess. There was a 12 hour police interrogation of Jessie Misskelley. He is intellectually disabled, causing him to give a false confession. The police should have known the psychology of false confession and shouldn't have interrogated Mr. Misskelley for 12 hours. The sentences were based on hearsay testimony of witnesses who heard the boys talk about the murders: “...the defendant had been motivated as members of a satanic cult” (Robertson 4). Hearsay doesn't prove anything in the court of law. The jury is supposed to know nothing about the case; but of course one juror already had his mind set on his conviction. This juror

Anderson’s lawyer at trial and on appeal provided obviously and grossly inadequate representation. The failures of defense counsel are overwhelmingly sins of omission, especially the failure to investigate. This is proven true as over half of the exonerees from the innocence project claim government misconduct throughout their trials. This also ties in with government misconduct. Common forms of misconduct made by prosecutors are : withholding exculpatory evidence from defense, deliberately mishandling, mistreating or destroying evidence, allowing witnesses they know or should know are not truthful to testify, pressuring defense witnesses not to testify, relying on fraudulent forensic experts, making misleading arguments that overstate the probative value of testimony. Government misconduct took on a major role throughout the entire case in prosecuting Anderson. The innocence project mentions this, “In the years after Anderson’s conviction, when DNA testing had become widely available, Anderson sought to prove his innocence of the crime. After his lawyers were told by the police, prosecutor, and court that the rape kit and its contents had been destroyed, Anderson contacted the Innocence Project and his case was accepted in 1994.” All the evidence had been destroyed, wonder how that happened? It is undeniable that foul play is present within

Using the example of the case of Damon Thibodaux, he was taken for questioning after a girl who they were last seen with went missing. She was found strangled and naked (Leo, 2008). A homicide officer took over the case, and Thibodaux was interrogated for several hours. Although Thibodaux repeatedly said he knew nothing about the murder, the interrogation kept going, eventually the officer was able to record a statement from Thibodaux pleading guilty of consensual and non-consensual sex with the victim, beating, and assassinating her. Thibodaux was condemned to death, and was to spend fifteen years on death row and sixteen years in jail before DNA examination confirmed that he was not guilty (Kassin, 2013). Thibodauxs exoneration proceeding concluded that fatigue and exhaustion from the overnight search for the girl, the long interrogation, psychological vulnerability, and fear of the death penalty led to the false confession by Thibodaux (Leo, 2008). This case is a great example of

Take the case and trial of Glenys Heyward, a Mount Gambier woman who’s former, estranged, partner, youngest son and ex-worker were found guilty of murdering her on July 23rd 2007. Before her murder Ms. Hayward has suffered years of abuse from her de facto husband, Neil Hayward and were in a property dispute at the time of the murder. She was in hiding at the time as she was scared of her former partner. Having evidence given of how she was abused, scared and tortured before death can be hard for anyone to hear, especially those who have experienced it before. This can also be a place of bias thought. In this case Mr. Heyward committed suicide whilst waiting trial and could not provide evidence, the connection of past abuse and current conviction could be falsely applied by the jury. Seeing past abuse may leave resenting feelings towards abusers and a want to see them punished. Having and relying on past feelings and experiences has no place within a professional legal system based on

Miscarriages of justices occur due to many variables including faulty or wrong confessions, faulty identifications, wrongful DNA evidence, and the police’s overreach of power. On February 9, 1978, a student from the College of William and Mary, located in Williamsburg, Virginia was sexually assaulted at gunpoint. When the police arrived at the scene, she described her assailant as an African-American male about 5’6 in height and weighing around 145. Having gathered this information, the victim agreed to identify her assailant through photo arrays at the police station. Bennett Barbour was identified arrested and in the span of about two months was charged with rape on April 14, 1978. Despite having an alibi, not matching the victim’s description, and having brittle bone disease Barbour was declared guilty by a jury. Barbour’s case is representative of the many cases in which wrongful eyewitness testimony produces miscarriages of justice. Bennett Barbour served 5 years in prison and 29 years of parole until he was cleared of his charges due to DNA evidence when the Virginia Supreme Court cleared his charges.

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

One of several errors in the trial was a reckless omission by a forensic scientist who testified for the prosecution. Semen was found on the victim’s body, the scientist testified, and Dominguez’s blood type matched the semen sample, meaning he could have been the perpetrator. The scientist did not tell the jury, however, that two-thirds of men in America would have matched that sample. Dominguez was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison. He was released after serving four years and sought DNA testing at his own expense. The tests proved his innocence. His case is one of many in which limited forensic science or wrong forensic testimony has led to wrongful convictions.

In March of 1985, Bloodsworth was sentenced to death. Through it all Bloodsworth maintained his innocence and in 1993 with the help of a new technique used to test for DNA, Bloodsworth got his chance to prove he was innocent. Bloodsworth became the first person ever to be exonerated from death row by DNA evidence. (Jain, 2001) In one

Before the 1985 trial, the lead detective in the case, John Sam, resigned in protest, because he believed the three men were innocent. This alone seems to