Kvadas 1

Raegan Kvadas

Mrs. DeBock

English 4

9 March 2017

The Reasons Behind Wrongful Convictions

Researchers at Ohio State University suggest that nearly 10,000 people are wrongfully

convicted in the United States each year (Wilcum). The judicial system is responsible for

determining the truth, but this has been hindered by the means of obtaining it. It is critical that

the methods for discovering the truth are accurate and fair. In the United States, the process of

convicting someone is heavily reliant on the evidence presented in court, so if the evidence is

inaccurate or altered, the credibility of the entire system diminishes. The United States judicial

system should determine if faulty forensic testing, prosecutorial misconduct, and witness

misidentification cause wrongful convictions.

Forensic science plays a crucial role in whether or not a person is convicted of a crime.

The use of forensic evidence in a criminal case is highly debated and the accuracy of the tests is

questioned. Since the creation of the Innocence Project, an organization that is dedicated to

exonerating people who were wrongfully convicted, more than two hundred and forty people

have been exonerated through the use of DNA testing. DNA testing is the most reliable test in

forensic science, but it is also the least common forensic evidence. According to Neufeld, DNA

evidence only appears in ten percent of all criminal cases, leaving ninety percent of the cases

without an accurate means of testing. Due to this lack of definitive testing, accurate and

conclusive results are hard to obtain. Other forensic tests are less accurate and are therefore less
 Kvadas 2

accepted when determining innocence or guilt. Neufeld states that non-DNA forensics tests, such

as trace evidence and bite mark comparisons, have no other application besides being used

during the conviction process. Non-DNA forensics tests have no true scientific backing like

DNA testing does, which means the scientists cannot claim the tests are valid. The results from

the tests do not have an underlying basis to ensure the accuracy and validity of them, causing

prosecutors to overplay the importance of the results and jurors to be misled into thinking the

results are definitive. Forensic testing is partially responsible for wrongful convictions, but it is

the limitations of the scientists that cause these inaccurate outcomes. Neufeld references a

National Academies of Science report, which argues that the integrity of forensic testing is

challenged by the shortcomings of scientists, including their education, training, certification,

and accreditation. It is important to address the origin of wrongful convictions and one of the

faults is the scientists themselves. All tests are susceptible to human error, but unless the

scientists are held to strict standards and the tests are proven by a scientific process, faulty

forensics will continue to have a major impact on wrongful convictions.

Prosecutorial misconduct and the misinterpretation of evidence are two vital contributing

factors to wrongful convictions. In the United States, the person who is accused is considered

innocent until he or she is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In some criminal cases, bias

impacts the decisions of the prosecutor and the detectives working the case. Wells explains that

when a person has prior convictions or is well-known by police officers, it may influence the

search for the suspect (1). The legal team responsible for finding the truth may lose objectivity

due to this bias, focusing solely on making the evidence match the suspect, or even leaving out

exculpatory evidence all together. This leads to an innocent man or woman being convicted
 Kvadas 3

while the person who is guilty of the crime continues to walk the streets. Exculpatory evidence

has the power to prove the innocence of a person, so it is detrimental to a case if the evidence is

not presented. One man knows the importance of exculpatory evidence and prosecutorial

misconduct all too well. Michael Morton was wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife,

Christine, and was sentenced to life in prison. According to Orr and Rodery, in Mortons case,

withheld evidence showed that someone else committed the crime, and new DNA evidence

identified the true killer (4). The prosecutor and detectives on the case left out evidence that

would prove Michael Mortons innocence, including a bandana that had an unidentified males

DNA and Christines DNA on it that was found at a construction site down the road from

Michael Mortons home. This misconduct cost a man twenty five years of his life. In an effort to

right this wrong, the Michael Morton Act was passed, recognizing the constitutional duty to

produce favorable evidence under Brady despite limited criminal discovery (Orr and Rodery 7).

This act ensures that all exculpatory evidence will be shared with the defense and is eligible to be

used in court. Once a person is convicted, it is difficult to exonerate him or her. During an appeal

hearing, the judge and prosecutorial team are affected by belief perseverance and hindsight bias.

Griffin states that decision-maker in a case, the judge, is influenced by the previous judgement

and is usually unaware that their perception has been influenced (7). Similar to a person beinging

a suspect because of prior convictions, belief perseverance influences how the members of the

judicial system view the case. Since the judge in the initial hearing determined the suspect was

guilty, the second judge is more likely to reach the same conclusion. The evidence allowed

during the appeal tends to be filtered to produce the same results. The judicial system faces

issues that are rooted in psychology and will not be changed easily. Hindsight bias needs to be
 Kvadas 4

limited as much as possible and all of the evidence in a case deserves to be presented, regardless

of if it is exculpatory or not.

Eyewitness testimony is a key piece of evidence in a criminal case and it can be hard to

distinguish fact from fiction when listening to a persons story. When a person misidentifies

someone else, it is usually an honest mistake. Wells states that an honestly mistaken

identification of a person increased the possibility of a wrongful conviction (2). In some cases,

witnesses purposely incriminate another person, forcing the investigation to follow the incorrect

lead. Identifications are followed up closely, so it makes sense that an innocent person who was

deliberately implicated would be less likely to be convicted when compared to an innocent

person who was misidentified. Witnesses who are called to testify about the events that occurred

in a crime are not the most reliable sources. According to Migueles and A-Bajos, people who

witness an event are susceptible to accepting false information when it is presented to them.

Detectives and lawyers often use a police lineup or picture array to get an identification from the

witness. The witness is influenced to believe that the criminal shares similarities with the people

being shown. The witness is more likely to trust this new information and unknowingly integrate

it into the memory of the crime. Witnesses are influenced by suggestion and phrasing as well.

Huangfu explains that how a question or statement is worded can influence how people react and

remember the information. By wording a question a certain way, it can cause the witness to

misremember and accept this altered memory as fact. Misidentifications are dangerous in a case

because what is believed to have happened might not have actually occurred.

While many aspects of the judicial process are questionable, the main three factors of

wrongful convictions include faulty forensic testing, prosecutorial misconduct, and witness
 Kvadas 5

misidentification. In order to improve the forensics tests or determine the reliability of a witness,

it is important to know where the errors came from. By addressing the issues associated with

wrongful convictions, preventing them is a much more realistic possibility in the future.
 Kvadas 6

Works Cited

Gang, Huangfu. "The Influence of Social Cues on Framing Effect." Social Behavior &

Personality: An International Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, Apr. 2014, pp. 371-377.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.2224/sbp.2014.42.3.371.

Griffin, Lisa Kern. "Criminal Adjudication, Error Correction, and Hindsight Blind Spots."

Washington & Lee Law Review, vol. 73, no. 1, Winter 2016, pp. 165-215.

Migueles, Malen and Elvira Garca-Bajos. "Recall, Recognition, and Confidence Patterns in

Eyewitness Testimony." Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 13, no. 3, June 1999, pp.

257-268.

Neufeld, Peter. "More Research in Forensic Science Is Needed to Prevent Wrongful

Convictions." Forensic Technology, edited by Sylvia Engdahl, Greenhaven Press, 2011.

Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,

Accessed 22 Feb. 2017. Originally published as "Testimony to the Senate Committee on

the Judiciary, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States," 2009.

Orr, Cynthia E. Hujar and Robert G. Rodery. "The Michael Morton Act:

Minimizing Prosecutorial Misconduct." St. Mary's Law Journal, vol. 46, no. 3, Sept.

2015, pp. 407-420.

Wells, Doris. "Wrongful Convictions: Causes, Prevention, Impact and Outlook for Corrections."

Corrections Today, no. 5, 2013, p. 126.

Wilcum, Greg. "10,000 Innocent People Convicted Each Year Study Estimate." Ohio State

Research and Innovation Communications. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.