Material witness orders give prosecutors the power to detain uncooperative witnesses in the rare circumstance in which they might flee. However, recent wrongful conviction cases reveal that NY prosecutors may be misusing such orders to coerce testimony from reluctant witnesses. The law may be clear but prosecutors may be bypassing the required judicial review, detaining witnesses, and coercing testimony that is ultimately unreliable.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has undertaken a review of convictions where FBI forensic experts may have exaggerated scientific testimony regarding hair analysis. In other words, agents may have claimed that similarities between compared hairs had much greater significance than was actually warranted by the facts. How many convictions will be overturned is unknown. The FBI is conducting the review of convictions in conjunction with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
In her most recent article, Professor Lissa Griffin, of Pace Law School, analyzes the work of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC). The SCCRC is one of only three worldwide innocence commissions, and labored largely out of the spotlight until it was propelled into controversy with the Scottish government’s intervention in the Lockerbie bombing case.
The article analyzes all of the SCCRC’s cases by comparing them with U.S. wrongful conviction claims as well as with the work of the English Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the SCCRC’s older sister. There is also an interesting discussion about what particular aspects of Scottish criminal procedure, such as a corroboration requirement and a verdict of “not proven,” that may minimize the risk of wrongful convictions.
Read Prof. Griffin’s full article and let us know what you think.
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes has announced that his office will review convictions that involved evidence secured by a specific police detective. This is welcome news. Similar action is being called for in Chicago.
One wonders, however, whether having acknowledged the need for review, the district attorneys should request a state commission look into these prior convictions. While it is possible that prosecutors were duped by false evidence given to them by the police, it is also possible that prosecutorial misconduct or at least willful blindness helped lead to wrongful convictions in these cases. Conviction Integrity Units could serve a useful purpose as one of several avenues for identifying potential wrongful convictions for review. But if the purpose of maintaining or restoring confidence in the criminal justice system is to be achieved or real reform enacted, New York State’s Commission on Wrongful Convictions should consider appointing an independent body to take over.
Related Readings
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/nyregion/doubts-about-detective-haunt-50-murder-cases.html?_r=2&
In an unprecedented move against prosecutorial misconduct, former District Attorney Ken Anderson was arrested and released on $7500 based on charges that he violated state evidence tampering statutes and committed contempt of court when he violated a court order by suppressing powerful exculpatory evidence in the decades-old Michael Morton case. Morton was prosecuted for murder but was exonerated through DNA evidence after he served nearly 25 years in prison. District Judge Louis Surms, who is sitting as the court of inquiry into the Morton conviction, also issued an order to show cause requiring Anderson to appear on a criminal contempt citation.
Judge Sturms found that Anderson had concealed two critical pieces of evidence: a police interview transcript that showed Morton’s young son had witnessed the murder and reported that his father had not been home at the time; and evidence that a man with a green van parked near the Morton home had been seen walking repeatedly into the woods behind the house.
Related Readings
Michael Morton Prosecutor Will Face Criminal Charges for Withholding Evidence by Innocence Project (Apr. 2013)