Wrongful Conviction Also Victimizes Victims

Convicted murderer Charles Wilhite has an unusual advocate: the niece of murder victim, Alberto Rodriguez. Marialyn—who requested that the Boston Globe not reveal her last name due to safety concerns—rallied in support of Wilhite on Saturday, May 5, 2012, in Springfield, Massachusetts, because she believes Wilhite was wrongfully convicted of killing her uncle.

As reported here, a key witness in the trial now claims that a Springfield detective and the assistant district attorney pressured his testimony. The witness has recanted his identification of Wilhite as the killer. A decision on whether or not his original testimony will stand is expected today from Hampden Superior Court Judge Peter A. Velis.

Both Wilhite’s and Rodriguez’s family members rallied to support true justice. “This is not justice for Alberto’s family. This is not justice for Charles Wilhite. This is not justice for Springfield,” said Wilhite’s uncle.

Hampden District Attorney Mark Mastroianni, appointed after Wilhite’s conviction, is not objecting to the pursuit of truth in the hearing,”…let’s put the witness on the stand and see what the real story is,” he said.

The article is indication of growing recognition that wrongful conviction’s pain extends beyond the unfortunate person convicted of a crime not committed. Wrongful conviction strikes unintended blows to others also very undeserving of additional hardship: Victims of crime and their families.

In this case, the victim’s family members last Saturday were doing the hard work of drawing attention to a possible wrongful conviction, which has denied them the opportunity to move beyond their family tragedy.

Even worse for a victim is unintended participation in a wrongful conviction. Imagine identifying your rapist, testifying in court, prompting his conviction and incarceration, only to learn years later through DNA testing that you fingered the wrong person. Perhaps the best-known account of this nightmare is that of Jennifer Thompson, who co-authored Picking Cotton, with Ronald Cotton, the innocent man sent to prison as a result of her unintentional misidentification.

Unfortunately, Jennifer Thompson’s case is not the only such incident.

One of the more difficult jobs of a law enforcement officer or district attorney is telling a rape victim that she was mistaken in her eyewitness identification and unintentionally sent the wrong man to prison. The quilt associated with this error is intensified by the possibility that the real perpetrator may have gone on to commit more violent crimes.

Concern for victims should motivate private citizens, law enforcement, and district attorneys to embrace the implementation of criminal justice reforms, procedural best practices, and opportunities for DNA testing that could either confirm guilt or reveal a wrongful conviction.

Unfortunately, this too often has not been the case. In fact, a curious myth that sometimes surfaces in arguments to oppose post-conviction DNA testing is that it dishonors the victim to question a conviction.

“We think it would be devastating to victims everywhere, not just this victim,” said a Fairfield County (Ohio) assistant prosecutor in opposing DNA testing for a paroled rapist.

The Columbus Dispatch in a series called “Test of Convictions” worked with the Ohio Innocence Project to identify Ohio cases most worthy of post-conviction DNA testing, which was to be provided free of charge. In too many of these cases, the county prosecutor resisted the testing.

One case involved a request to test the semen-stained underwear of a child rape victim. The district attorney, in opposing the testing, said, “I think it would be devastating for her. It just dredges up a lot of memories. She was a brave little girl to come in and testify.”

This argument is preposterous. Incarcerating the wrong person does nothing to serve the victim. It brings only flawed and possibly temporary closure and a false sense of the security provided in believing that the perpetrator has been removed from the streets.

Criminal justice procedures that increase the opportunity for the victim’s participation in convicting an innocent person can prompt guilt associated even with an unintentional error that steals an innocent person’s freedom, reputation, resources, and important life experiences.

According to the Innocence Project, in nearly 45 percent of the first 253 DNA-proven exonerations, the real perpetrator was also identified, and nearly half of these true perpetrators had gone on to commit (and were convicted of) other crimes while the innocent person was in prison. Imagine how this recognition feels to anyone—including the victim—who contributed to the wrongful conviction.

Wrongful conviction never serves victims and often causes pain that can rival that of the initial crime. Efforts to pursue best procedural criminal justice practices and to correct wrongful convictions are the only responses that truly serve victims. Doing all that we can as a society to get verdicts right the first time honors all crime victims and protects them and other innocents from further victimization.

9 responses to “Wrongful Conviction Also Victimizes Victims

  1. This is Charles’ aunt. We are still waiting for justice since Judge Velis has missed his self-imposed deadline to reach a decision. Please stay tuned and get in touch, http://www.justiceforcharles.org.

    • I not to mention my firneds were found to be examining the great pointers on the blog and then then got an awful suspicion I never expressed respect to the web blog owner for those techniques. All the people ended up as a result very interested to study them and now have actually been taking pleasure in those things. We appreciate you really being simply considerate as well as for settling on these kinds of remarkable ideas most people are really desirous to discover. My personal sincere regret for not expressing gratitude to you sooner.

  2. Judge Velis came out with a seventeen page decision Monday, May 14, 2012 granting Charles with a new trial!

    From an Associated Press article by legal affairs reporter Denise Lavoie (Boston Globe, May 15, 2012): “Hampden District Attorney Mark Mastroianni said his office will weigh various options as a result of the judge’s decision, including appealing the ruling, preparing for a new trial or dropping the charges against Wilhite.”

    Justice for Charles hopes the DA will stick to his words: “There’s no interest in going after anyone — not Charles Wilhite or anyone — that the evidence wouldn’t support.”

    Meanwhile, Justice for Charles will continue to monitor the DA’s progress in the thirty days from May 14th he is allowed to weigh his options before coming out with a decision. We have cautious optimism that this DA who has inherited this case, will be able to lend objectivity and fairness to the facts, to the truth, to justice, and agree with what the court decided. We hope he will go further and do the right thing in his power, and drop the charges. Charles has not known freedom since the day of his arrest on September 17, 2009. He has a daughter who is five years old, Iesha Wilhite, who visits him regularly at a maximum security prison about an hour and a half drive from her home; faithfully attends weekly Justice for Charles meetings, rallies and community events; speaks to press, and inspires us all to commit to bringing her Dad home.

  3. I understand the point of your article, however, while sensitive to the victim and victim families, our attention should be focused on giving these innocent people a chance to recover their lives. A terrible crime has been committed, injustice served, and a guilty perpetrator is still out there. I tend to have the strongest sympathy for the wrongfully accused. No one supported him during and after trial, in fact many in the justice system seem to resist the release of the truth. Thank God for the Innocence Project, without them, so many people languish behind bars while DA’s, judges, and an apathetic public allow this to continue. Is it better to resist a correction to placate a damaged victim?

  4. Charles Wilhite won a re-trial which begins January 7, 2013. Supporters plan to show strong court solidarity.

  5. Hi there Vira Cage,

    How did Charlie’s trial turn out?? 🙂

  6. MA Hampden County District Attorney’s office goes after state’s witnesses who both alleged police coercion–indicting them with perjury in a capital case after a stunning loss in Commonwealth vs. Charles Wilhite, the retrial. Possible life sentences for these witnesses because they couldn’t deliver for the state, really? And can we expect this same office to bring a case against the police?


  7. Docile Jim Brady – Columbus OH 43209

    One case involved a request to test the semen-stained underwear of a child rape victim. The district attorney, in opposing the testing, said, “I think it would be devastating for her. It just dredges up a lot of memories. She was a brave little girl to come in and testify.

    ¿ Is the DA assuming the girl is wearing the underwear during the test ?

    What if the accused is innocent and the true predator were to sexually assault a loved one of the DA?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s