Author Archives: Phil Locke

Rate of Wrongful Convictions – You Can’t Improve What You Don’t Measure – Six Sigma and the US Justice System

(Editor’s note:  some readers may find this post a little “dry”, but I believe it’s none the less relevant.)

Just what is the rate of wrongful convictions in the US?  Nobody knows for sure.

Estimates of the rate of wrongful convictions in the US span a range from 0.5% to 5.0%, based upon several recent studies done by law schools, and cited on this blog.  SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia happens to believe that it’s 0.027%, but he is clearly not connected with reality.  Anything in the 0.5% to 5.0% range is a staggering number, and would cry out for remedy.

What if we were confident that the justice system produced the correct result 99.99966% of the time, and we had the data to prove it?  Another way to say this is that the justice system would get the verdict ‘wrong’ only 3.4 times per million cases, or a 0.00034% wrongful conviction rate.  That would be a wonderful thing.

Continue reading

Yet More on False Confessions and the Reid Technique

WCB follower “Greg” has alerted me to a piece from the Canadian Broadcasting Company’s show “The National” regarding false confessions and the Reid Technique.  The video is 17 minutes, and is compelling.  I am posting his comment and a link to the video here:

Greg JOnes | June 25, 2012 at 3:56 pm

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s June 24th Sunday night newscast, “The National”,” had a lengthy story on false confessions, the Reid method, and the substitute “P.E.A.C.E.” model, imported from Britain, now being used in Newfoundland, instead of the Reid method. Links to the piece and other materials can be found on the newscast’s website.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/truthliesandconfessions/

Were the Trayvon Martin Charges Politically Motivated?

The governor-appointed prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin shooting case, Angela Corey, brought charges of 2nd degree murder against George Zimmerman without a grand jury indictment.  Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has questioned the foundations for those charges and that action.

The following link is to an article that explores this question.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/opinion/nejame-angela-corey/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

This, once again, raises the issue of “prosecutorial immunity”.  So much power vested in a single individual with no accountability.

False Confessions and the Reid Technique – Response from John E. Reid & Associates

On June 13, 2012, I posted a piece about false confessions and how they can happen.  https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/06/13/false-confessions-how-can-that-happen/   I made some critical comments about the Reid Technique of interview and interrogation, suggesting that it can produce false confessions.  The Reid Technique was developed by, and is taught by, John E. Reid & Associates.  Mr. Joseph Buckley, president of John E. Reid & Associates provided a response, and I include it here, with his permission, and without editorial comment.                                           ====================================================

Hi Mr. Locke,

A colleague recently brought to my attention your blog dated June 13, 2012 on the Wrongful Convictions Blog website.  While false confessions absolutely do occur, there were a few statements in your article about the Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation which are 100% erroneous, namely, the following:

Confessions obtained by the Reid Method fall into two basic categories:

  1. Compliant Confession – the suspect confesses for a reason. Investigators may have promised the suspect that they will be lenient if he confesses. On the other hand, he may have become so fatigued and upset by the interrogation process that he will do anything to end it.
  2. Internalized Confession – the suspect begins to believe that he actually committed the crime. This can happen if the person is particularly susceptible to suggestion. It can also happen if the investigator repeats the same scenario so many times that the suspect begins to feel as though he remembers it.

There has been open criticism of the Reid Method, because of it’s ability to produce  false confessions, particularly if misused by police agencies.  People who are young, developmentally disabled, or mentally ill are particularly subject to falsely confessing as a result of this method.  Regardless, it is widely used within law enforcement.

To the contrary, we teach that interrogators should not make any promises of leniency and they should not try to talk a suspect into believing that they committed the crime – these admonitions are well documented in our book, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 5th edition, 2011.

We recently posted on our website a document entitled, “Clarifying Misinformation about the Reid Technique” – I have attached a copy for your review.

Clarifying misinformation about TRT

We are very concerned about false confessions caused by improper police interrogation methods and have served as an expert witness for the Innocence Project (NY) several times (as well as other attorneys), testifying against the police.  It is interesting to note that the Innocence Project used us to interrogate a person in jail whom they believe killed the victim that their client had falsely confessed to killing – we obtained a confession from the actual killer – I have attached a magazine article written about the case below.

http://nymag.com/news/crimelaw/68715/

If in the future you or any of your colleagues have any questions about the Reid Technique, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Joseph P. Buckley
President
John E. Reid and Associates

False Confessions – How Can That Happen??

Recent data from the National Registry of Exonerations shows that 15% of the wrongful convictions in it’s data base involved a false confession.  A reasonable person would have to ask, “How can that happen?”  And how can that happen particularly for brutal crimes like rape and murder?  Well, there are some quirky psychological reasons why some unique individuals might confess to a crime they didn’t commit, but in the more general case, there are reasons why people do this.  The first of these would be what I call gaining a confession “the old fashioned way.”

Continue reading

Arizona Justice Project Secures Release of Man Convicted in Alleged ‘Shaken Baby’ Death

The Arizona Justice Project has great news to share about a win in a shaken baby case.  Last week, Drayton Witt walked out of jail after the State agreed to vacate his conviction.   He was convicted back in 2002 of second-degree murder after being accused of shaking Steven, his son who was only 4 months 28 days old, to death.

Steven Witt was born a “blue baby” with the umbilical cord wrapped tightly around his neck, had aspirated meconium (fecal matter), and was in respiratory distress.  Steven suffered medical problems almost every day of his short life and was in and out of doctors’ offices and hospitals.  After being prescribed medicine (Cefzil), Steven began to suffer from seizures.   After the first seizure, Steven was taken to the hospital and spent 6 days in care of doctors.   On June 1, 2000, Steven suffered a catastrophic seizure, which led to his death.

The State charged Drayton Witt with second degree murder.  The State’s witnesses relied on the SBS triad – subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages, and cerebral edema to conclude that the baby must have been shaken by his father, the only adult with him at the time.  No cuts, no bruises, no grip marks, no fractures, no dislocations, nor spinal cord injuries – but the doctors at the children’s hospital in 2000 believed the “triad” of injuries meant an SBS homicide.

The Justice Project began working on this case in 2008 under the leadership of Carrie Sperling.   Five different experts in somewhat different fields reviewed the case and wrote their conclusions:

Dr. A. Norman Guthkelch, famed British pediatric neurosurgeon who authored the seminal paper on SBS and neurological injury acknowledged that aspects of SBS are now “open to serious doubt” and that a diagnosis of SBS as cause of death in Witt’s case was “inappropriate”.

Dr. Patrick Barnes, chief of pediatric neurology at Stanford, believed Steven Witt did not die of SBS but rather the medical records suggest a “classic picture of venous thrombosis” with no indicators of non-accidental trauma.

Dr. Horace Gardner (an ophthalmologist), Dr. John Lloyd (a biomechanics expert), Dr. Waney Squier (pediatric neuropathologist) and Dr. John Plunkett (forensic pathologist), all noted no evidence of the child being shaken to death, and – like Dr. Barnes – believed the child died of natural causes – most likely venous thrombosis, a condition the doctors at the Children’s Hospital in 2000 never even considered.

Perhaps most notably, the medical examiner at the time of Steven’s autopsy in 2000, re-examined the case and swore an affidavit stating:

“Based on my review of these materials from an expansive body of post-2000
SBS literature, as well as the significant developments in the medical and
scientific community’s understanding of SBS and several of the conditions
that mimic its symptoms, I have determined that I cannot stand by my
previous conclusion and trial testimony that Steven Witt’s death was a
homicide.  Steven had a complicated medical history, including unexplained
neurological problems. He had no outward signs of abuse. If I were to
testify today, I would state that I believe Steven’s death was likely the result
of a natural disease process, not SBS. It is my hope that the court will see fit to
revisit Drayton Witt’s conviction.”
Although the State is still considering a re-trial, our hearing last Wednesday – regarding Drayton’s conditions of release – was promising.   After hearing compelling testimony from Drayton and his wife (Steven’s mother), the judge released Drayton without bond and without conditions. We know that the battle is not over yet.  The State has until August to decide whether to try Drayton again.  We are encouraged, however, by this turn of events, and we hope this case is part of a growing trend.

A HUGE thank you to the phenomenal (pro bono) legal team – Carrie Sperling, Randy Papetti, Christina Rubalcava, and Erin Ronstadt.

Cell Tower Triangulation – How it Works

Cell TowerFirst, I refer you to Martin Yant’s earlier post on this subject:  https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/05/10/cell-phone-evidence-doesnt-always-ring-true/

The post makes the point that data from a single cell tower is essentially worthless in trying to place someone in a particular location.  The best you can expect is a band within a 120° “pie wedge” from the cell tower.

If two cell towers are used, it gets much better, and if three towers are used it gets even better yet.  But to make sure this kind of evidence doesn’t get misused, and to know what it’s limitations are, it’s important to know how it works.

You may have noticed that the antennas on a cell tower are always arranged in a triangle.  There are some sound technical and economic reasons for this, but we won’t go into that here.  But it does mean that a cell tower can tell from which of the three antenna arrays it is receiving a signal.  Each of the three antenna arrays covers a 120° sector with the tower at it’s focus, and these sectors, by convention, are referred to as alpha, beta, and gamma – αβγ.

Within each sector, the tower can make a measurement of how far away the transmitting cell phone is.  This is done by measuring signal strength and the round-trip signal time.  For a lot of technical reasons, this is not a very accurate measurement, and the determined distance will have a reasonably significant error band.

Here is a diagram of a single cell tower showing concentric bands of distance from the tower, and the three “sectors”.  The distance bands don’t stop at “6”, but this is just to give you the idea.  Note that at six miles out, the arc of a sector is 12.6 miles long.

Continue reading

By a Hair’s Breadth — Hair Analysis Evidence

Microscopic comparison of hair evidence is a long established forensic discipline.  Technically, it’s called “trichology”, and the field dates to the mid-1800’s.  Like other visual pattern matching forensics, it had come to be accepted despite the fact that it has essentially no basis in science – just empirical, anecdotal inferences drawn from flawed inductive reasoning.  Microscopic comparison of hair evidence has been used as the sole evidentiary basis to not only convict people, but also to execute them.  The problem is – it’s not reliable.  There are details of two cases cited below in which hair evidence was just plain wrong.

Here’s how it works.  This is a diagram of the basic structure of hair:

A hair from the crime scene, or one found on the victim, will be microscopically compared with a number of hair samples from the suspect.  The examiner will record observations of characteristics such as the following:

Continue reading

Juries and Race

Here is a link to a CNN article reporting the study of three academics on the effect of racial composition of juries.  The article, in turn, includes a link to their actual report.

Their data confirms that all-white juries convict black defendants at a higher rate than juries with even just one black member.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/23/opinion/anwar-bayer-hjalmarsson-jury-racism/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

More about juries and the justice system from this editor in future posts.

Exonerations in the United States, 1989 – 2012 Report by the National Registry of Exonerations

First, please see Mark Godsey’s post from yesterday in which he introduces this report:   https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/05/20/breaking-news-registry-unveiled-today-details-2000-wrongful-convictions-in-u-s-since-1989/

Here is the full text of the report:     exonerations_us_1989_2012_full_report

The report is lengthy (108 pages), and is a RICH source of wrongful conviction data.  And since I am a “data junkie”, I thought I’d post what I think are probably the two most telling of the tables in the report, so you don’t have to go looking for them – Table 4 and Table 13.

And please keep this in mind.  The report and it’s data are only for recognized exonerations, and only the ones the authors could find.  The US justice system makes an “exoneration” an incredibly difficult thing to achieve.  The report does not, and cannot, include all of the wrongfully convicted people who are still in prison or who have served a sentence and been released.

Yes, America. We have executed an innocent man.

Here is a recent article by Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic, which focuses on the Carlos DeLuna case, but really addresses the death penalty in general.

Cohen A. Carlos DeLuna. The Atlantic 2012

There are link references to several other death penalty cases, and I’m sorry to say, three of them are in Ohio

Fire Science! Fire Science! Wherefore Art Thou, Fire Science?

We’ve talked a lot about the progress that has been made in replacing “junk” fire science with “real” fire science.  Sadly, however, the “junk” has not been completely purged.  This is a process that will require, along with ongoing training, education, and research, that “old line” fire inspectors retire or die and be replaced with properly educated and trained fire inspectors who understand the real science.

Below is a link to a very good article from Discover Magazine (online) which makes that very point.   Spark of Truth: Can Science Bring Justice to Arson Trials?  Here is the lead from the article: “Fire researchers have shattered dozens of arson myths in recent years. Yet American courts continue to convict people who are likely innocent of the crime.”

And these two quotes from the text:  “Despite the surge in fire science, pseudoscience remains entrenched in arson investigation.” and “One can only hope that in ten to twenty years we get trained scientists doing these investigations.”

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/nov/12-spark-truth-science-bring-justice-arson-trials/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

And to “add more fuel to the fire” (so to speak), here is a link to an ABC 20/20 episode detailing the cases of two mothers who each survived a fire in their home, but their children did not.  Both mothers were (wrongfully) convicted, based upon junk fire science, and sent to prison for murdering their children.  The episode also briefly covers two other arson cases (both from Texas), one being the Willingham case.  This is a fascinating video.  Watch it!

http://abc.go.com/watch/2020/166626/260464/fire-scientist-questions-arson-finding

And by the way, if you haven’t been able to watch the documentary film “Incendiary”, which won the 2011 Innocence Network Journalism Award, it’s a “must see”.  It chronicles the Cameron Todd Willingham arson case in Corsicana, TX.  It’s available for download online.

Photogrammetry – what’s THAT?

Photogrammetry is the science of determining measurements from photographs.  It’s most general use is in surveying and mapping, but, in the forensic context, it is also used to determine measurements of crime scenes and in accident reconstruction; and even more specifically, it can be used to determine measurements of the physical size of perpetrators from surveillance camera images.  In a simple two-dimensional situation, here is basically how it works:

Continue reading

Blood Spatter – Some “Legal Stuff”

Jodie English is a criminal defense lawyer practicing in Indianapolis, IN who deals only with major felonies.  She has drafted three “model” or “template” motions dealing with blood spatter or blood pattern analysis (BPA) evidence – one each to ‘limit’, to ‘discover’, and to ‘exclude’.  I attach them here with her permission.

Motion to Limit BPA

Motion to Discover BPA

Motion to Exclude BPA

You might want to reference my previous post on the subject:

https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/04/30/blood-spatter-evidence/

Blood Spatter — Evidence?

Well … you knew that sooner or later we’d get around to “blood spatter”.  This is also sometimes called “blood pattern analysis” (BPA).  As the name implies, BPA is the analysis of patterns made by blood that has been expelled from the body by a violent act – stabbing, shooting, beating.  These patterns can be used to help reconstruct the violent event, and can provide information about type of injury sustained, movement of a victim, angle of a shooting, location of attack, etc.  Unfortunately, BPA is one of the forensic disciplines least based upon real science.  It has evolved from a collection of anecdotal and empirical observations that have resulted in potentially flawed inductive inferences about the fluid dynamic behavior of blood outside the body.

Now, like all forensics, BPA is not useless.  There is certainly legitimate information that can be garnered from an analysis of blood patterns at a crime scene.  But, again, as with all forensics, it must be used within the bounds of what is scientifically supportable.

Continue reading

NC Judge Invokes “Racial Justice Act,” Sets Aside Death Penalty

Full story here:

 http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/21/justice/north-carolina-death-revoked/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

The response from the North Carolina Association of District Attorneys is “interesting” and entirely predictable (sadly).

A Forensic Resources Blog

Sarah Rackley is Forensic Resource Counsel for North Carolina Indigent Defense Services, and she maintains a forensic resources blog.  While it is, expectedly, a little NC-specific, there’s much good information there.

Here is a link:

http://ncforensics.wordpress.com/

“The Real CSI”

I hope you were able to watch “The Real CSI” on PBS last night.  The program shined a bright light on the shortcomings and failures of the forensic disciplines.(Excuse me, but I refuse to call them “sciences”.)  The focus was mainly on “fingerprints”, “bite marks”, and “odor analysis”, but mention was also made of “blood spatter”, “hair & fiber”, and “ballistics”.  There was also a piece about the shoddy state of forensic expert “certification”.  Please see the earlier post by Mark Godsey:    https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/04/18/must-read-story-about-lack-of-control-in-forensic-accreditation/

If you were not able to watch, you can view the program online here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/

In the closing of the program, Federal Judge Harry T. Edwards, who was one of the principal authors of the NAS report, got it exactly right when he said, “It’s not pro-defense.  It’s not pro-prosecution.  It’s pro-justice.”

The question I have to keep asking the forensic “experts”, and the one that will stop them in their tracks, is – “Show me the data from which I can compute a probability of occurrence.”  The only forensic discipline that can do this today is DNA.

Time of Death – A Critical Factor in Many Convictions – But It’s VERY Imprecise

Determination of “time of death” is a critical factor in any case involving the death of a victim.  If a suspect cannot account for his/her whereabouts at “time of death”, he/she has a problem.  If a suspect has a concrete, verifiable explanation for being somewhere other than at the scene at “time of death”, they cease to be a suspect.

But did you know that estimations of “time of death” are very imprecise, and subject to a wide range of physiological and environmental influences?  If the “post mortem interval” (PMI) is less than ‘about’ 24 hours, the primary estimator is usually body core temperature.  However, this will depend on ambient temperatures and humidities experienced by the body during the PMI, convection, sun exposure, the amount and type of clothing worn by the victim, and even how “fat” or “skinny” the victim is.  Another indicator is “stomach contents”, but rates of digestion can very dramatically based upon a number of physiological factors.  The onset and resolution of rigor mortis can vary by hours, as can the rates of post mortem lividity (settling of the blood).

Continue reading

Eyewitness Identification – How Reliable Is It?

I’ve recently been engaged in an “inter-editorial discussion” concerning the accuracy of eyewitness identification.  This stemmed from a comment I made on a blog post citing Innocence Project data stating that 75% of the IP DNA exoneration cases have involved incorrect eyewitness identification.  My comment was that the IP has data showing that eyewitness identification is wrong 75% of the time.  Well …. that may the case for this particular set of data (289 DNA exonerations), but it cannot be validly extended to eyewitness identifications in general.

So, how reliable is eyewitness identification?  I think the only thing we can say for sure is that we don’t know for sure, but we do know it’s not very good.  Three different studies from 1987 to 1998 (Wells, Huff, Cutler & Penrod) have determined that eyewitness identification is wrong anywhere from 35% to 60% of the time, and one study even determined that it was wrong in 90% of cases studied.  That’s a huge range of results (and even 35% is not good), and this is because the accuracy of eyewitness identification depends on SO MANY things:  lighting, distance, amount of activity at the scene, the presence of a weapon, the fear of personal harm, the visual acuity of the observer, time delay from observance to identification, the methods used for conducting police lineups, cross-racial effects, age and gender of the observer, and on and on.  Added to this is the fact that human memory has been shown to be “malleable” – it changes over time in response to a wide range of influences, and people can be subject to the “power of suggestion”.

Continue reading