Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Week 3: So, What's an Innocence Project?

It's week three already! This week, I thought it'd be nice to give more of an explanation of what an Innocence Project looks like and what the Innocence Movement is. The MOOC also explores that subject this week, so I'll be referencing the course throughout.


Essentially, Innocence Projects are pro-bono student-staffed legal clinics that operate throughout the U.S. and the world to overturn wrongful convictions and thus right the wrongs done by the criminal justice system. The original Innocence Project is headquartered at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University and was created by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in 1992. Since then, similar clinics have formed across the country and the globe; these clinics together make up the Innocence Network, which was officially established in 2005 and now has 65 members. Many of these Projects function in different ways, with different organizational structures and criteria for accepting cases. The Arizona Innocence Project is unique because it is headquartered at Northern Arizona University, which doesn't have a law school. At most other clinics, law students conduct case research, but at AIP a select group of undergraduate students perform case research. AIP investigates both DNA and non-DNA cases with claims of actual innocence. 

The Innocence Project over time has also grown to become a policy advocacy organization, advocating to reform the criminal justice system to prevent wrongful convictions. 

Resources provided by Innocence Projects include: experts, investigators, legal representation, money required to conduct DNA testing, etc. 

Many independent attorneys work with Innocence Projects to litigate cases. 




In 2004, Congress passed the Justice for All Act. Title IV of this Act is an Innocence Protection Act, which provides some federal grants for innocence work through the National Institute of Justice. These grants, even in combination with state grants and community donations, are not long term sources of funding nor are they sufficient. This means that many Projects are forced to spend vast amounts of time scrambling for funding rather than performing innocence work.

Every time someone is exonerated, it saves the government $40,000-60,000 a year in housing costs. 






Innocence Projects give students hands-on experience with case investigation and allow them to gain a greater understanding of the ins-and-outs of the criminal justice system. 

The cases litigated by Projects highlight flaws within the criminal justice system and can provide powerful platforms for systematic reform. 

It should be clear that the work performed by Innocence Projects is absolutely critical and life-saving. A recent study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimates that one in twenty-five death row convicts were convicted wrongfully:
"The rate of erroneous conviction of innocent criminal defendants is often described as not merely unknown but unknowable. There is no systematic method to determine the accuracy of a criminal conviction; if there were, these errors would not occur in the first place. As a result, very few false convictions are ever discovered, and those that are discovered are not representative of the group as a whole. In the United States, however, a high proportion of false convictions that do come to light and produce exonerations are concentrated among the tiny minority of cases in which defendants are sentenced to death. This makes it possible to use data on death row exonerations to estimate the overall rate of false conviction among death sentences. The high rate of exoneration among death-sentenced defendants appears to be driven by the threat of execution, but most death-sentenced defendants are removed from death row and resentenced to life imprisonment, after which the likelihood of exoneration drops sharply. We use survival analysis to model this effect, and estimate that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely, at least 4.1% would be exonerated. We conclude that this is a conservative estimate of the proportion of false conviction among death sentences in the United States." 

I hope that gives more information about what Innocence Projects are, what they do, and why they're so important. Look for another post soon! 




Sunday, February 22, 2015

Week 2: Bad Science and More


The Nation Registry of Exonerations has released an infographic detailing the 125 exonerations that occurred during 2014.
Here are some important takeaways:
1. The longest incarceration of a 2014 exoneree was 39 years.
2. There were no exonerations in Arizona during 2014. Arizona has had 15 total exonerations
3. Pima County, AZ got a Conviction Integrity Unit. These divisions, called CIUs, are units within prosecutors' offices that investigate post-conviction claims of innocence.

The National Registry of Exonerations: 2014 Year in Review

Recent activities:
Meeting with Marianne Nielsen, Chair of the NAU Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice and editor of Criminal Justice in Native America (see previous post), to discuss project.
Identifying other criminal and social justice organizations that could assist in project.
Data review: Arizona Department of Corrections.
Began to work on informational letter to send to individuals incarcerated in Arizona that could potentially benefit from AIP's services.
Massive Open Online Course: The Innocence Movement.

Literature review, recent focus:
                           

  1. Jeffery Ian Ross & Larry Allen Gold, Native Americans and the Criminal Justice System (Paradigm Pub. 2006).
  2. Brandon Garrett, Convicting the Innocent, (Harvard Univ. Press 2011).

This week I'd like to talk about one of the biggest reasons people are wrongfully convicted in our criminal justice system: Bad science. Really bad science. 


This issue is discussed in week three of my MOOC, and I'd like to highlight some main points here:
  • Expert testimony is incredibly powerful, and juries are inclined to believe experts, often blindly. DNA evidence is especially powerful. 
  • Suspect forms of science that may not be as reliable as many juries have been lead to believe: bite mark comparison, voice recording comparisons, hair microscopy, shoe print analysis, firearm tool mark analysis, among others. 
  •  Ray Krone, exonerated in Arizona in 2002 after serving 10 years
    • These disciplines were invented by forensic analysts while the analysts were working on cases and are often not widely accepted by outside scientific communities. 
    • Very little quality assurance and quality control. 
  • Analysts often offer testimony that goes beyond the evidence. 
  • New science often reveals that old science is incorrect; the criminal justice system takes a long time to catch up with these changing standards. 
  • Many state laws do not require adequate preservation of evidence that may contain DNA
  • DNA collection, investigation, and analysis are subject to human error. 
  • Ray Krone: wrongfully convicted in Arizona due to bite mark evidence. After his exoneration, Krone said, "Junk science convicted me but real science saved me."
Watch this video for specific instances where bad science has been used to convict innocent individuals

DNA: the impact on wrongful convictions and subsequent exonerations
  • Most cases are not resolvable by DNA
    • The trend has been that fewer and fewer exonerations have actually involved DNA evidence
    • Many crime scenes do not yield analyzable DNA evidence (in fact, only ~10% do)
  • Contaminated DNA evidence 
    • Faulty preservation or collection tactics leading to cross-contamination or degradation
  •  Kirk Bloodsworth: first DNA-based death row exoneree 



Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Criminal Justice in Native America, Edited by Marianne O. Nielsen and Robert A. Silverman. (Univ. of Arizona Press 2009).

As I continue my lit review, I will try to feature my summaries and analyses of articles and books on this blog. This post features Criminal Justice in Native America, edited by Marianne O. Nielsen and Robert A. Silverman. (Marianne O. Nielsen & Robert A. Silverman. Criminal Justice in Native America (Univ. of Ariz. Press 2009)).

The introduction of the book explains clearly why it is important to address the disadvantages faced by many Native American populations, saying, “History and current living conditions of Native Americans contradict this country’s ideals of equality of opportunity and justice” (pg. 4).

Native Americans are overrepresented in terms of their population in the criminal justice system, and also in terms of the length and severity of their sentences. From 1984 to 2005, the Native American crime rate decreased, but was still higher than white population and total population. However, Native American overrepresentation is often overlooked by scholars and policymakers, and overshadowed by the overrepresentation of African American and Hispanic populations.

Many of the disadvantages Native American populations face stem from their colonization by European-based societies. Colonizers used social Darwinism and paternalism to justify the cruel treatment and marginalization of Native Americans. The impacts of colonialism (stemming from the loss of societal control) are severe and are felt strongly today.

The book identifies a few main causes of crime in Native American societies, including: lack of social integration, marginalization leading to poverty, social isolation, drug and alcohol abuse, and high rates of unemployment. Additionally, special problems arise while dealing with the criminal justice system due to historical and contemporary marginalization. The book identifies these problems:
·         Individuals may not be familiar with Euro-based laws and justice
·         Individuals may lack education about the criminal justice system
·         Individuals may not know about legal assistance
·         Individuals may lack money to pay lawyers, fines, or bail
·         Individuals may lack knowledge of resources to help with criminogenic conditions such as alcoholism and unemployment
·         Individuals may be discriminated against at one or more levels of the criminal justice system from arrest to parole

In solving the issues that face Native American populations, we must emphasize their rights to sovereignty (“inherent right or power to govern”) and self-determination (“catch-all term that covers a variety of concepts including tribal restoration, self-government, cultural renewal, reservation resource development, self-sufficiency, control over education, and equal or controlling input into all policies and programs arising from the American Indian-federal government trust relationship”). This means that we must allow tribes and indigenous communities to regain control of criminal justice administration, and we must ensure the availability of urban Native American criminal justice services that can serve indigenous populations outside of tribal governance.

With self-determination and sovereignty, Native American populations will be able to balance old and new justice values and pursue justice practices that work for them. In this process, however, many problems are faced by indigenous communities. These problems are highlighted in the book's conclusion, written by Marianne Nielsen. One of the most prominent of these issues is lack of financial resources, including lack of control of resources. For example, since 1887 the Department of the Interior has misused or lost nearly $100 billion of Native American trust money. Other issues faced by indigenous communities include lack of facilities, lack of skilled staff (community members with cultural and field expertise to operate specialized programs like drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, support networks for victims of sexual assault, etc.), lack of service support networks (ie., community resources to help mentally ill offenders), and lack of legitimacy, both with state and federal governments and with tribal populations.  

The book ends emphatically with a quote that could not be more true: “Native American crime and incarceration are not ‘Native American problems’; they are ‘societal problems’. The cost in the waste of human life and potential is shared by us all” (pg. 222). 

This was just a brief summary of some of the book’s contents, arguments, and ideas; I would encourage anyone interested to read the book itself. Here’s the Google Books link: https://books.google.com/books?id=aS15OpUQ6r0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=criminal+justice+in+native+america&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OaXaVP7MMI3woATv2oK4CA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=criminal%20justice%20in%20native%20america&f=false

Marianne O. Nielsen & Robert A. Silverman. Criminal Justice in Native America. (Univ. of Ariz. Press 2009).


Week One!

Week One Overview:

I’m well into my first few days as a research intern with the Arizona Innocence Project (AIP), an actual innocence clinic which investigates cases of wrongful conviction in Arizona. The AIP is a founding member of the Innocence Network, an affiliation of organizations that provide pro-bono representation to people seeking to overturn a wrongful conviction. To read more about the Innocence Network of the Arizona Innocence Project, visit the following links: http://www.innocencenetwork.org/ and http://nau.edu/Arizona-Innocence-Project/.
As a research intern at the AIP, I will be primarily investigating the unique disadvantages some members of indigenous populations face while navigating the criminal justice system. I will attempt to expand the AIP so that it is more accessible to indigenous populations and will reach out to Native American inmates in the Arizona Department of Corrections system that I identify as having a potential to benefit from the project’s services.

Recent reading material:

Criminal Justice in Native America, Marianne O. Nielsen and Robert A. Silverman (University of Arizona Press, 2009. )
Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, Brandon L. Garrett (Harvard University Press, 2011.)

Other Activities:

            Online Course. I’ve begun taking an open online course that explores the Innocence Movement and is put on by the University of Illinois Springfield. All of the videos can be found on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAoogzkDh5wxjdFn-QakSXcyOVA2nBMRJ ).
The first week of the course served as an introduction and explored the issue of wrongful convictions in general. One of the videos for the first week featured specific cases of wrongful convictions and subsequent exonerations, and it is definitely worth a view:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySrhpCgtjA0&list=PLAoogzkDh5wxjdFn-QakSXcyOVA2nBMRJ#t=199
The second week of the course examined specific systematic reasons for wrongful convictions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tZzjvtX9tg ). Some of these causes may include (but of course are not limited to):
·         “Tunnel vision” in police investigation—focusing on only one suspect
·         Eyewitness misidentification (this problem is exacerbated in cases of cross-racial identification)
o   Offering clues during suspect line-up.
o   Implication that suspect must be in line-up.
·         False confessions, omissions in confessions, coached confessions
o   Approximately 25% of DNA exonerations include instances where the defendant  confessed to the crime
o   The Supreme Court has not excluded confessions resulting from “psychological or mental torture”
·         Government and prosecutor misconduct
·         Lack of proper defense representation
·         Falsified, misconstrued, or incorrect forensics investigation
o   Issues of racial profiling, “all-white juries”,
o   Inability to pay expert witnesses

Accomplice Liability

On Thursday, I had the opportunity to sit in on a criminal justice class about accomplice liability. In the U.S. legal system, accomplice liability requires that an accomplice receives the same charge and sentence as the actual perpetrator of the crime, regardless of the extent of the accomplice’s involvement. This is relevant to Innocence Project work because although it is reasonable to believe that an accomplice is innocent of physically committing the crime (ie., he didn’t pull the trigger), according to the legal definition of an accomplice, an accomplice can be liable for acts he didn’t commit so long as he somehow assisted in the execution of a crime and intended to assist in the execution of a crime.  Because of this definition, it is virtually impossible for Innocence Projects to accept cases of accomplices, unless the accomplice and the perpetrator have reason to claim actual innocence.


National Registry of Exonerations

As per its own description, “The National Registry of Exonerations is a project of the University of Michigan Law School. It was founded in 2012 in conjunction with the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The Registry provides detailed information about every known exoneration in the United States since 1989—cases in which a person was wrongly convicted of a crime and later cleared of all the charges based on new evidence of innocence.” As of February 10, 2015, the registry contains 1,543 exonerations.  This list only encompasses cases that have resulted in charges being fully vacated and does not include, for example, cases in which the defendant plead out for time served. Of these exonerations, 15 have occurred in the jurisdiction of the state of Arizona, and three have occurred within federal jurisdiction in Arizona. Furthermore, thirteen exonerations have already occurred in 2015. Of the 1,543 exonerees, six have been Native Americans. Combining this fact with the knowledge we have of racial and ethnic bias in the criminal justice system, there is good reason to believe that there are more innocent Native Americans serving time for crimes which they did not commit. The Death Penalty Information Center reports that the incarceration rate of Native Americans is 38% higher than the national rate (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/native-americans-and-death-penalty).

Detailed information about the six Native Americans who have been exonerated can be found at the following links:






It is important to note that in the Registry, as in the state and federal databases, race is self-identified and therefore it is possible that the number reported is not totally accurate or all-encompassing.

Approximately 5.1% (~2,145) of prisoners in the Arizona Department of Corrections system identify as Native American, compared with 1.9% (3,973) in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system.


Well, that was a brief glimpse at my first few days at the AIP. I am looking forward to continuing my research, so stay tuned!