Cooperative Model for Preventing Wrongful Convictions

• NCJ Number: 204686
• Journal: Judicature Volume: 87 Issue: 4 Dated: January-February 2004 Pages: 159-162
• Author(s): John A. Stookey
• Date Published: January 2004
• Length: 4 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Conference Material
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article discusses initiatives to reduce wrongful convictions in the United States.

Abstract

The Preventing the Conviction of Innocent Persons Conference was held in January 2003, and brought together teams from jurisdictions around the country to consider the causes of and potential solutions to wrongful convictions. Wrongful convictions are failures of the American adversary system of criminal justice. Teams from 11 jurisdictions gathered to discuss how to address this problem. Teams were composed of police officers, defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, victims’ rights advocates, forensic and crime lab investigators, and legislators. Each team was designed to explore reform in a cooperative fashion, setting aside the traditional barriers imposed by the adversarial process. The participants identified four myths about the adversary system that help to explain the existence and extent of wrongful convictions: (1) the myth of equal combatants; (2) the myth that a full and fair investigation of crimes informs the adversarial process; (3) the myth that the adversary system will test witness credibility; and (4) the myth that only the guilty confess. Considerable time was spent on the improvement of the quality of indigent representation through both training and increased funding. The two major specific reforms discussed centered on defendant confessions and eyewitness identifications. A case was presented for using sequential identification procedures with blind testing as a means of preventing eyewitness identification mistakes. Under blind testing, the office administering a lineup should not know who the suspect is. The establishment of study and innocence commissions was recommended. Other recommendations were to address compensation issues for all involved in the criminal justice system; improve the photographic lineup process; institute a project for double-blind sequential lineups; and establish a study commission to look at causes of wrongful convictions.