There are a host of factors that contribute to false convictions.  The following list includes some of the problems plauging our current system as well as solutions to restore justice.

Problem 1: Mistaken eyewitness identification.

• More than 75% of wrongful convictions result from eyewitness misidentification.
• “It’s become clear that eyewitnesses are fallible,” said Lt. Kenneth A. Patenaude, a police commander in Northampton, Mass., who is an expert on witness identification techniques.
• This occurs in cases in which witnesses:
  • Make an identification even though visibility was very poor, thinking they are being helpful.
  • Substantially changed their description of the offender after being shown photos.
  • Make a hesitant identification after seeing multiple panels of photos.
  • Are influenced by the environmental and emotional factors at the crime scene and by interactions with law enforcement

Solutions which will make witness identifications more accurate:

• Use “double blind” lineups so that the police officers administering the photo lineups are unaware of the suspects’ identities in order to avoid influencing witnesses.
• Use people in the line-up that resemble the description of the perpetrator
• Give better instructions to witnesses viewing the lineup, emphasizing that it is not a problem if they cannot make a positive identification.
• Ask the witness to assess the level of their confidence in the accuracy of their identifications.
• Record the identification process on videotape.
• Use sequential line-ups in which police officers show witnesses photographs of one suspect at a time. Studies have shown that witnesses tend to compare photos when they are shown them simultaneously, a tendency that can lead to errors.

North Carolina, Wisconsin, and New Jersey have policies that include these reforms.

Problem 2: Coerced False Confessions

• False confessions play a part in more than 25% of cases of wrongful conviction
• There are many reasons that people may confess to things they didn’t do: coercion, misunderstanding about the situation, mental impairment, or to get lesser sentences

Solution that will reduce coerced, false confessions:

• Interrogations should be recorded so the circumstances of confession can be reviewed by others. Over 500 jurisdictions require recording of interrogations, and the Supreme Courts of Alaska and Minnesota require it as due process.

Problem 3: Lying Jailhouse Informants

• In nearly 15% of cases, informants provided false testimony – often in return for promises of cash or early release.

Solutions that will reduce false testimony by jailhouse informants

• Require the prosecutor to reveal before trial the promises made to the jailhouse informant, including compensation arrangements and other information that might bear on the witness’ credibility.
• Mandatory pretrial hearing on the reliability of a jailhouse informant.
• Require that jailhouse informant testimony be corroborated by evidence which independently connects the defendant with the crime,.
• Instruct the jury as to the inherent unreliability of informant testimony.

Problem 4: Use of false testimony about lab results and use of unreliable tests

• Evidence at many labs is often poorly collected, tested, stored, and handled or is destroyed
  • 26 states have no statutes that mandate preservation of evidence.
  • Some state statutes preserve biological evidence for only certain crimes.
  • Some states have no penalties for people who destroy evidence.

• Some lab experts have falsely testified about “dry lab” results, i.e. tests that were never run
• Some testimony is based on techniques that have no scientific basis. For instance, bite marks are inherently unreliable. Examiners in one study falsely identified an innocent person as the biter 63 percent of the time.
• The Houston Crime Lab had so many problems, including false testimony and lost evidence, that it was closed, with many of the convictions that its experts had supported being freed.
• States that receive federal grant money under the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program are required to have oversight mechanisms, but many states accept these funds without complying.
• Many inmates are denied aceess to DNA testing.
  • Alabama, Alaska, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota do not have laws that guarantee DNA access.
  • States that do have access laws often fall short of fully protecting access.

Solutions to preserve evidence and improve accuracy of testimony about crime lab results.

• The Innocence Protection Act grants DNA testing to federal inmates claiming innocence. The Act also gives states funding if they give inmates access to DNA testing.  States should pursue this funding.
• Oversight mechanisms must be in place for states receiving grants under the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program.
• Require full, fair, and prompt responses to DNA testing petitions.
• Eliminate expiration dates for post-conviction DNA testing
• Preserve all biological evidence.

Problem 5: Prosecutorial misconduct

While most police and prosecutors are honest, some have been involved in serious misconduct that has led to wrongful convictions. This misconduct includes:

• Suppression of evidence
• Undue suggestiveness with witnesses
• Fabrication of evidence
• Coercion of witnesses and defendants
• Knowingly using false testimony

Solution to prevent misconduct by government officials:

• Develop of official policies and procedures, and train officials in ethics.
• Provide copies of all documents and information that could be exculpatory when they are received.
• Document all contact between prosecutors and jailhouse informants.
• Establish review boards to investigate instances of unethical conduct and impose sanctions as appropriate. Provide that all attorneys are subject to bar discipline.
• Establish training and education programs for new and practicing prosecutors with a special focus on the causes of wrongful convictions and how prosecutors can help prevent them.

Problem 6: Ineffective Defense Counsel

The stories of ineffective defense counsel are truly horrifying. Some documented failures by defense attorneys include:

• Falling asleep or being drunk during trial
• Failing to investigate alibis
• Failing to call or consult forensics experts
• Failing to show up for hearings
• Being disbarred shortly after finishing a death penalty case

Solutions to Ensure Adequate Counsel

• The Michigan Campaign for Justice provides principles for an effect public defense delivery system:
  • The public defense function should be independent of political influence
  • Counsel should be provided within 24 hours of arrest, detention or request.
  • Defense counsel should receive sufficient time and confidential space with which to meet with clients.
  • Defense counsels’ workload should be small enough to allow quality representation.
  • Defense counsel’s expertise should match the complexity of the case.
  • The same attorney should continuously represent the client until the case is completed.
  • Defense counsel should have access to the same resources as the prosecution and should be considered an equal partner in the justice system.
  • Defense counsel should be provided with and required to attend continuing legal education.
  • Defense counsel should be supervised and systematically reviewed for quality and efficiency according to established standards.

• Establish Innocence Commissions in each state. North Carolina provides a model.
• Adequately compensate those who are wrongly condemned.

Problem 7:  Insufficient compensation

• Twenty-five states do not have compensation statutes for people who are exonerated.

• Some states allow no compensation if the exoneree presented a false confession – this should be changed.

Solution to ensure adequate compensation