Author: LaurenBrice

By Kirk Noble Bloodsworth

Forest Shomberg walked free from a Wisconsin prison last month after serving six years for a crime he did not commit. Thanks to post-conviction DNA testing and increasing awareness of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard announced that the county will not retry the case. Every time I hear about people like Forest, I have deeply mixed emotions. As the first death-row inmate to be exonerated by DNA evidence. I know firsthand what it is like to spend time in prison for a crime I did not commit.

Forest overcame the longest of odds to win his freedom in a system that was convinced of his guilt. Imagine the patience and persistence that took. Imagine the hardships he endured being isolated from friends and family. Imagine never knowing if the truth would come out. Somehow, Forest and his loved ones found the strength to persevere. For this I am extremely happy.

But exonerations like Forest’s are also deeply unsettling to me because they demonstrate the very serious problems confronting our criminal justice system. The fact is we still get it wrong far more often than we should. Some of the same errors that caused me to spend almost nine years in prison for a crime I did not commit also led to Forest’s wrongful conviction.

In both cases, an innocent man was arrested because he looked similar to a sketch compiled by police from eyewitness accounts. In both cases, an innocent man was convicted based on eyewitness testimony. And in both cases, an innocent man went to prison while the real perpetrator went unpunished.

Initially, the judge in the case did not let the defense present expert testimony about the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Only after post-conviction DNA testing revealed that Forest’s DNA did not match the DNA on the victim’s clothes did the powerful evidence about the factors that can lead witnesses to misidentify a perpetrator, including police sketches, seem to make a difference.

Fortunately, the State of Wisconsin has since developed model procedures for police sketches and conducting lineups. Like the recommendations in The Justice Project’s publication, Eyewitness Identification: A Policy Review, the Wisconsin Department of Justice recommends that sketches be used “cautiously, if at all,” and that police use sequential, rather than simultaneous, lineups and photo arrays. Because eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions, every state should enact these procedures to make sure that people like Forest and people like me do not have to endure the tragedy of being imprisoned for someone else’s crime.

We must take the necessary steps to prevent eyewitness misidentification. States can implement simple, common sense best practices to protect against eyewitness misidentifications. Forest Shomberg’s story and my own story are only two of the many cases of wrongful conviction based on eyewitness identification that prove such reforms are desperately needed.

By John F. Terzano

Shoddy forensic science has led to a major setback in a murder investigation that could close the door on efforts to bring the killer to justice. The family of murder victim Suzanne Jovin was recently informed that the DNA evidence in her case was useless because it was contaminated by a lab technician. A DNA sample collected from under Jovin’s fingernails after her 1998 murder was found to match that of the lab worker that processed the evidence, not her killer as was previously assumed.

In recent years, forensic science has become a staple of criminal prosecutions. Jurors increasingly expect trials to include conclusive forensic evidence pointing to the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Although forensic testing has a reputation for producing accurate and objective evidence, it is not flawless. In fact, a lack of quality standards in forensics labs and of adequate training for technicians has resulted in potentially important evidence being rendered worthless or just plain wrong far too often. Moreover, since most states lack any type of meaningful oversight of its crime labs, mistakes continue to occur and problems remain uncorrected.

Many forensics labs around the country have taken important steps to ensure accurate forensic work, including seeking accreditation from organizations such as the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). But the fact that problems still exist in accredited labs like the Connecticut State Department of Public Safety, the lab charged with processing evidence in the Suzanne Jovin case, shows that we must do more to ensure that effective forensic quality standards are being followed. As ASCLD/LAB itself acknowledges, accreditation is only part of a “laboratory’s quality assurance program”. Some states are beginning to recognize the need to augment private accreditation with more ongoing oversight and additional quality standards in order to ensure that our courts rely on the best forensic evidence possible.

The Justice Project’s policy review, Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science, outlines several steps states should take , including creation of an independent oversight commission to more closely supervise the work of forensic science laboratories. This commission would set statewide quality standards for all labs and would provide more rigorous, ongoing oversight of forensic testing to ensure that labs operate in a way that is consistent with the highest scientific standards. The commission would also adopt standards and regulations regarding the training and certification of all lab employees and safeguards against inadvertent bias in forensic analysis. These safeguards will help to ensure the objectivity and reliability of forensic testing and analysis.

Forensic science can be a powerful tool for seeking truth and justice. However, until our forensic oversight goes beyond accreditation, forensic evidence will continue to be mishandled, and jurors will be prevented from hearing reliable evidence. Good science leads to good justice, something in which we all have a vested interest.

By John F. Terzano

All too often, prosecutors’ offices fall prey to a culture of conviction-seeking at all costs. Prosecutors who become singularly focused on conviction rates often neglect their ethical duty to protect the innocent and guard the rights of the accused. The Kern County District Attorney’s Office in California provides a clear example of this pitfall, boasting that under District Attorney Ed Jagels’ supervision, the office “has had the highest per capita prison commitment rate of any major California County.” What the office fails to highlight is the startling twenty five wrongful convictions that the office has accrued during Jagels tenure as District Attorney. Jagels recently announced his retirement, and despite his appalling record, he hopes to personally select his successor.

The troubling culture apparent in the Kern County office is not the exception. Due in large part to the public pressure to convict and the widespread failure of state bars and disciplinary agencies to hold prosecutors accountable for ethical violations, this culture of “convict at all costs” is a nationwide problem.

With the unique role as both advocates and ministers of justice, prosecutors are the most powerful actors in our justice system. Prosecutors have sole responsibility for decisions regarding what charges to bring against an individual, what sentence to seek, what plea bargain to offer, and what evidence to present to a jury during trial. Yet despite their power, they are rarely held accountable for violating their ethical obligations. This lack of accountability promotes the problematic culture that plagues prosecutors’ offices and contributes to wrongful convictions.

The pervasive culture of conviction-seeking in prosecutors’ offices must be tempered by an overriding goal of justice. The Justice Project’s policy review, Improving Prosecutorial Accountability outlines suggested reforms that can help create a culture that values fairness and accuracy over high conviction rates. For example, prosecutor’s offices should establish training programs and official office policies on the prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence to the defense and the proper use of prosecutorial discretion. Furthermore, prosecutors who intentionally abuse their power to secure a wrongful conviction must be investigated and disciplined for their actions. The Justice Project also recommends that jurisdictions recognize the unique role of prosecutors through the establishment of prosecutorial review boards with the power to investigate and sanction prosecutors who perpetrate acts of misconduct. Enacting these reforms will foster a more ethical culture in prosecutors’ offices and increase transparency in prosecutorial decision-making.

Creating a culture of accountability in prosecutors’ offices is critical to ensuring the fairness and accuracy of our justice system. Establishing training manuals and office procedures as well as implementing disciplinary measures provide the means of achieving such a culture. These measures will encourage prosecutors to better fulfill their simultaneous and critical roles of convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent.

“Strengthening Our Criminal Justice System: Extending the Innocence Protection Act”

John Terzano’s written testimony