Why do wrongful convictions occur

When people experience a stressful event like a crime, they are much less able to make an accurate identification. Witnesses are even less accurate when they attempt to identify someone of another race. Additionally, lineups and photo arrays can be suggestive and lead a witness to pick the wrong person.

This can happen when the suspect is the only person in an array who closely matches the description of the offender. Police officers can also influence the process by how they interact with a witness during the identification procedure. A police officer's comments, body language, and positive feedback can steer the witness towards a particular suspect and then inflate the witness's confidence in their identification.

Despite study after study proving the unreliability of eyewitness identification, it is extremely persuasive evidence. When a crime victim points to the defendant in the courtroom and says with certainty, "That is the person who did this to me," juries are unlikely to reject that testimony. Kirk Bloodsworth Maryland : Kirk Bloodworth, a former Marine, was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl in Maryland.

At the time of trial, the case against Bloodworth seemed overwhelming, and the jury sentenced him to death. Five eyewitnesses all testified that they saw Bloodsworth with the victim around the time of her disappearance. Eight years later, DNA evidence proved that all five eyewitnesses were wrong. DNA testing of the victim's underwear and clothing showed that another man, Kimberly Shaw Ruffner, was the real perpetrator.

While it may seem difficult to understand why someone would confess to a crime they did not commit, there are many reasons that this can happen. For instance, physical intimidation or threats of violence by law enforcement can lead a suspect to falsely confess.

Common interrogation techniques can also be psychologically coercive. For example, police are allowed to lie about the evidence and make a suspect believe that forensic testing or other conclusive evidence has already proven their guilt, even when this is not true.

Police might also provide false assurances that things will go better -- and a long interrogation will finally cease -- only if the person confesses. Young people and people with intellectual disabilities are especially vulnerable to giving a false confession. Confessing to Mr. Big appears to have no consequences on the suspect, who may also have been threatened, causing them to fear for their safety, and enticing them even further to confess.

The pressure to falsely confess to Mr. Big was one of the reasons for the wrongful conviction of Kyle Unger. Kyle was the target of a Mr. Big sting after police were unable to uncover enough evidence to convict him. Their tunnel vision on Kyle led them to set up the months long, and expensive Mr.

Big sting against him. Though Kyle often declared his innocence before meeting the boss, and contradicted himself on the details of the crime, his false confession contributed to his murder conviction. Guilty pleas and plea bargaining are often cited as being necessary for our criminal justice system to work properly and in a timely fashion. In fact, the vast majority of cases brought to trial end in plea bargains.

It seems difficult to understand why an innocent person would plead guilty to a crime, however there are many reasons to take a plea deal. With the prospect of facing life in prison if convicted of murder, an accused may decide to accept a reduced sentence, or a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

In the case of Maria Shepherd , a false guilty plea was what sent her to jail for a crime she did not commit. The Crown planned to call the disgraced ex-pathologist Charles Smith as their key witness. At the time, Charles Smith was known as the leading pediatric forensic pathologist. A plea deal would mean that Maria would serve a shorter sentence in a jail near her home. Tunnel vision is a significant problem under the umbrella of professional misconduct.

Children and people with mental disabilities are especially vulnerable to being wrongly convicted. EJI won the release of Diane Tucker , a woman with intellectual disability who was wrongfully convicted of murdering an infant, by obtaining medical evidence that proved the baby never existed.

Official misconduct and racial bias led to Mr. E ven when incarcerated people manage to get evidence that proves their innocence, police and prosecutors often refuse to re-examine the evidence or re-open the case. Police, prosecutors, and judges are not held accountable for misconduct that leads to wrongful convictions, such as fabricating evidence, presenting false testimony, or refusing to consider proof of innocence. Immunity laws protect them from liability even in cases of gross misconduct.

Unlike teams assigned to review individual cases or a series of questionable convictions, CIUs are designed to operate indefinitely and have a dedicated staff. EJI confronts official indifference to innocence by challenging wrongful convictions in court, advocating for broader access to DNA testing, and supporting the creation of Conviction Integrity Units to prevent, identify, and correct false convictions.

Colbey was wrongly convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole when she gave birth to a stillborn baby. EJI successfully challenged her conviction. In each case where DNA has proven innocence beyond doubt, an overlapping array of contributing factors has emerged — from mistakes to misconduct to factors of race and class.

For every case that involves DNA, there are hundreds that do not. Only a fraction of criminal cases involve biological evidence that can be subjected to DNA testing, and even when such evidence exists, it is often lost or destroyed after a conviction.

These factors are not the only causes of wrongful conviction.