After a wrongful conviction, shouldn’t there be a reinvestigation?

“As far as we know, not a single effort has been made to apprehend the actual perpetrators of that homicide. Including an admitted confession from a perpetrator, who after having been named as a perpetrator in this offense – law enforcement made no effort to apprehend him – he went ahead and killed another person. He is currently incarcerated in Nevada for having shot and killed a taxi driver there. I don’t understand law enforcement’s abdication of their responsibility here.” Linda Starr, Legal Director of the Northern California Innocence Project (NCIP) was referencing the case of Maurice Caldwell in an interview with Rina Palta of NPR’s KALW local public radio in San Francisco.

In about 45 percent of DNA-proven wrongful convictions, the real perpetrator is also identified. But, what about cases in which the DNA excludes the wrongfully convicted but does not find a match in state or national criminal DNA databases? Or what about cases such as that of Maurice Caldwell, who spent 20 years in prison before Superior Court Judge Charles Haines, ruling that Caldwell had been represented by ineffective counsel, ordered a new trial. His attorney has since been disbarred for his conduct in other cases.

Caldwell, who steadfastly maintained his innocence, was convicted of murder on the testimony of a sole witness, now deceased. The identification procedure was seriously flawed. Police brought Caldwell to the door of the witness, but she did not identify him. Two weeks later she identified him from a photo lineup. Best practices in criminal justice require that a suspect not be shown twice to a witness, because multiple exposures can contaminate the original memory. There are many cases of DNA-proven wrongful conviction in which the witness identified the wrong person only after being shown the suspect the second time.

The witness in this case was honored for her bravery and given a medal of merit, San Francisco’s top civilian honor. This kind of reinforcement has been shown to increase confidence in an identification and would make recantation embarrassing and difficult.

The NCIP investigated and found new post-conviction evidence in the case: two witnesses who observed the murder. They said Caldwell was not involved. Another man confessed to the murder, and he provided the NCIP a sketch of the scene. The only surviving victim said that the sketch was an accurate depiction, even though it differed from details provided by the incriminating witness. The confessed killer also said that Caldwell was not involved.

And yet, no investigation was prompted by the new evidence.

Instead, District Attorney George Gascón refiled charges against Caldwell. When the judge ruled that the deceased witness’s testimony from two decades ago would be inadmissible, Gascón dismissed the case.

But, what about the new evidence?

The man who confessed to the crime has been convicted of a subsequent murder and is in prison in Nevada. Lawyers for the NCIP believe that Caldwell should be entitled to state compensation for his 20 years of wrongful imprisonment, but in California, one must be confirmed as factually innocent to receive state compensation.

“As far as we know, not a single effort has been made to apprehend the actual perpetrators of that homicide…” And one would think Linda Starr would know. It would be logical for any reinvestigation to start with a look at the new evidence obtained by the NCIP. As citizens we should expect that the district attorney, who’s first moral and professional duty is to seek the truth, would take off the advocacy hat and work to determine the significance of the new evidence.

Imagine the savings in human and financial resources if prosecutors would elevate seeking the truth above winning or protecting convictions in cases in which significant post-conviction evidence is discovered.

Unfortunately, many disincentives discourage reinvestigating a bungled case. It’s not rare even in cases of DNA-proven wrongful conviction for public officials to refuse to apologize for or even acknowledge an error. In some cases they are willing to let a cloud of guilt hang over an innocent person or even stoop to perpetuating the conviction error by expressing a lingering confidence in the exonerated person’s guilt. A wrongful conviction is not good for conviction statistics; it doesn’t engender confidence in the system; it can result in costly compensation payments at taxpayers’ expense; and it might even impact a re-election.

However, as is feared in this case, not apprehending the real perpetrator can be a deadly mistake. The Innocence Project reports that in 289 exoneration cases, while the wrongfully convicted languished in prison, the real perpetrators committed a known 19 murders and 56 sexual assaults.

Often when a convicted person is exonerated, a crime remains unsolved. As citizens we need to be alert to this and demand an authentic reinvestigation to identify the actual perpetrator and to achieve true justice, even if it’s long overdue.