Methods of Reform I Innocence Project of Florida I Page 1of13

~~

~ rMlocll rM Thdlt

Home About Clients Events Solving The Problem Contact Us Donate Online NowrllNmu PllDJID bullhlml

Reforms with Broad Support and Proven Success---shyThe Innocence Project of Florida works with people from across the criminal justice system - including prosecutors victims law enforcement agencies and defense advocates - to enact meaningful reform Improving fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system benefits all segments of society Victims and their families can see justice prosecutors and police can have the tools to do their jobs well the public can have more confidence in the system and innocent people and their families can avoid the tragedy of wrongful convictions

The Innocence Projects priorities for reforming the criminal justice system reflect the lessons that have been learned from DNA exonerations over the last 15 years These priorities also reflect the need to address fundamental shortcomings in the criminal justice system while implementing specific reforms to law enforcement procedures All of the reforms that the Innocence Project and its partners advocate have been proven to increase the accuracy of the criminal justice system often through decades of scientific research

The reforms that can address and prevent wrongful convictions include

False ConvictionEyewitness Confessions amp Integrity Units amp

Recording ofIdentification ProsecutorialCustodialReform AccountabilityInterrogations

Innocence Commissions

1 Eyewitness ID Reform Time For Reform

Several easy-to-implement procedures have been proven to significantly decrease the number of misidentifications However acceptance of these changes has been slow The Innocence Proect recommends that all jurisdictions immediately adopt the following policies

bull Blind Administration Research and experience have shown that the risk of misidentification is sharply reduced if the police officer administering a photo or live lineup is not aware of who the suspect is

bull Lineup composition Fillers (the non-suspects included in a lineup) should resemble the eyewitness description of the perpetrator The suspect shou ld not stand out (for example he should not be the only member of his race in the lineup or the only one with facial hair) Eyewitnesses should not view multiple lineups with the same suspect

bull Instructions The person viewing a lineup should be told that the perpetrator may not be 1n the lineup and that the investigation wil l continue regardless of the lineup resuit They shou ld also be told rot to look to the administrator for guidance

bull Confidence statements Immediately following the lineup procedure the eyewitness should provide a statement in his own words articulating his the level of confidence in the

D 0 NAT Eidentif1cation IMAI L

From the Innocence Project

he following refor-ns form the basis of the Innocence Projects eyewitness identification reform package

1 The Double-blind ProcedureUse of a Blind Administrator A double-blind lineup is one in which neither the administrator nor the eyewitness knows who the suspect is This prevents the administrator of the lineup from providing inadvertent or intentional verbal or nonverbal cues to influence the eyewitness to pick the suspect

2 Instructions Instructions are a series of statements issued by the lineup administrator to the eyewitness that deter the eyewitness from feeling compe lled to make a selectior They also prevent the eyewitness from looking to the lineup administrator for feedback during the identification procedure One of the recommended instructions includes the directive that the suspect may or may not be present in the lineup

3 Composing the Lineup Suspect photographs should be selected that do not bring unreasonable attention to him Non-suspect photographs andor live lineup members (fillers) should be selected based on their resemblance to the description provided by the eyewitness - as opposed to their resemblance to the pc lice suspect Note however thatrwithinthis-_____

D Rri1rmiddotHwnent the suspect should n unduly stand put Tro~middotamong the other fillers Suom1t

4 Confidence Statements lmmediatlol_9_i------- lineup procedure the eyewitness should provide a

T

A D

9272019httpswwwfloridainnocenceorgmethods-of-reform

Methods of Reform I Innocence Project of Florida I Page 2of13

2 False Confessions amp Recording of Custodial Interrogations

$euro(jUltnt1a

presentation of lineups Research that presenting lineup members one-by~one (secuential) rather tlgtan afl at once simutaneous) decreases the rate at whicr irnocent people are identified Researcr ras also demonstrated that when viewing severa subjects at once witnesses tend to choose the person wto ooks the most like - but may not actually be - the perpetrator

statement in ris own words trat articuates tbe level ot confidence be or she h1s in tre identificatiorlt made

5 The Lineup Proedure Should Be Dowmented ldeaily Clients ti~~nit~7~iJy~~~~J~sect)~~~~~~Bilfi~~~~d l Donate Online Now

be made

Proven Success

In October of 2014 tre Nation abull Academy of Sciences (NAS) the nations premier scientific entity issued a groundbreaking report setti119 many areas of police practice The~ identified of sdertificaliyshysuppurted reforrr procedures wbicl-gt have beer promoted by the ~rnocence Project since the inceptio0 of its work in tbis area of police practice

In Florida

Photo a1d live ineups conducted by aw erforcerrent agencies rrust be coPdLcted using blindblinded admiristrntion and witnesses mist be given proper irstnctions before viewing a lineup Noncomp~iance with these requirements is admissible in support of a dairn of eyewitness misidentification and if the identificatior evidence Is presented at trial the jury shall be instrLcted to consider eviderce of noncompliance in determining the reliability of an identificatior This became effective in 2017

Benefrts Of Recording lnterrogatioris

The eectronic of interrogations frorr the reading of Miranda rights orward the single best reform available to stem the tide of false confesslors

Folt the recofding of mterrogations to be effective the entire custodial interrogation must be recorded This record will improve the credlbitty and reliability of authentic confessions while protectlrg the rfghts of innocent svspects

r SOlTe false confession cases details of the crime are inadvertenty comrnunitated to a suspect by police during questionirg Later when a suspect knows tfiese details the poiice take the knowledge as evidence of guilt Often threats or prori1lses are made to the off camefa and then the camera is turned on for a false Without an objective record of the custodia interrogation it is difficult to gauge the reliability of the confession

For law enforcement agencies recording interrcgations can prevent disputes about how a stspect was treated create a clear record of a suspects statenents and increase public confidence in the criminal 1ustice system Recordirg interrogat~ons can also deter officers from using illegal tactics to secure a confession

From the Innocence Project~ Benefits for Both Parties

Electronic Recording of Interrogations helps the innocent by a record of the entire i~terrogation including the

leading up to the corfession bull Ensu1ing that the suspects nghts are protected iro the

iflterrogation process and bull Creating a deterrent against improper or coercive

that f1ight be empoyed absent the presence of i device

Electronic Recording of Interrogations assists law enforcement by

bull Preventing disputes about how an officer conducted himseif or treated a suspect

bull Creatir-g a record of statements made by the suspect making it difffcult for a defendant to change an account of everts orlgmaHy provided to law enforcement

bull Permitting officers to concentrate on the interview rather thaI being distracted by copious rotetaking during the course of the interrogation

bull Capturing subtle details that may be lost if unrecorded which help aw enforcement better irvestigate the crime

bull Enhancing ptiblic confidence in law enforcement whlle reducing the number of citizen cornplairts against ttlte police

A Reform That Has Proven Sucessful

More than 800 jurisdictions n13tiorwide regularly record interrogations A 2004 study conducted by Illinois 200 locations that implemerted this reform found that police departrnents overwhelmingly errbrace the measure as good law enforcement whose time has come

bull fhe Suprerre Courts of Alaska and fJinnesota have declared that under their state corstitutions defendants afe entitled as a matter cf dte process to have their custodial interrogations recorded

bull In 2003 Illinois became the first state to requlfe by law that a peke interrogations of suspects in homicide cases must be recorded

bull Police departments in Broward Courty (Florida) and Sar-ta Clara County (Caifomia) arrong others have begun to record mterrogdtions without a law requinng them Proactive policies ltke these have been adopted because the practice benefits police and prosecutors as we mnocert suspects

In Florida

Florida has no state law requiring recorded inte11ogations

Withoit a state law indr111dual agencies and officers can clioose whether or not to record Tfgte result b a hodgepodge of practices across the state and protect1ors that vary based on where a Floridian is arrested

Nationally 24 states and all federal law erfcrcerrient agef1cies require recording of stispect intenogaticns fn Forida rrary Jurisdictions have impemented the practice on their own Broward Coufty began recording iFterrogatiofis over a decade

in the wake of several false confession cases The M1arPi Police Department announced in 204 that it would

videotape irterviews in horr1icide investigations

IPF Executive Director Seth Mi11er ard Innocence Project Legislative Strategist Michelle Fedman recently published an ~addressing the issue of recording interrogations

IMAIL ADDRISSbullDONATE Submit

9272019httpswwwfloridainnocenceorgmethods-of-refonn

Methods of Reform IInnocence Project of Florida I Page 3of13

~~ 3 DaibullAccess videprbullatfmAtoP oskConviction DN

tfNFbfErribull 9ffr~neestiog

~~~~~sect1r~J~es

Barriers To The Truth

Forty~nine states have some form of law perm1tt1r-g irmates access to ONA testing Tre other tf-ree states fltave rio ~aw granting such access Ok1ahorra has no law grarting such access

Ever ir narbully of tbe states tbat access to DNA testiPg tiie laws are limited ir scope ard Motiors for testirg are often deriied ever when a DNA test would urdoubtedly corfirmguilt or prove irrocence ard an inmate offers to pay for test1rg

Federal Incentives For Granting Access To DNA Testing

Federal law tre 2004 Justice For Ail Act grants access to DNA testirg for federal irmates cJaimirg irrocence ard also aliocatesvarious justice-related fufldmg to ary state that grarts DNA testing access to irmates claiming inrocence To meet the requiremerts of tt--e federal aw states should pass or strengthe~aws grarting access to DNA testirg

In Florida

Argtyore fourd guilty of committirg a felory after a trial may applfor post-corv1ctio DNA testing at any time Those wro entered

gullty plea or rolo cofltendre to a felony prior to 1 2()(Y) may also apply Wrere a deferdart pied guilty or cortendere after July 1 20Ci6 state statute permits such a defendant to petitior under certair limited circumstarces Effective 2001 Amerded most recertly 2006

A Testing 1middot~I

DonateIMNO thout I Clear And Comprehensive Laws Can Ensure Judice

fdllilititatls r~~il~ssl st1f~~~~i~l~fgtdtBarrbrs ~8ntact Us test1rg ti-iat are 1rsurmourtable for most pnsorers Tt--ese irciude restrict1ofs agarnst irmates who pied guilty or wf--ose lalh)ers failed to DtA testirg at trial f1 many cases the questionable used to corv1ct a defendart at trial - like eyewitness idertification or snitch used by judges as groirds to dery a DNA test These keep irnocert people from sect1ring DNA tests that could prove their inrocerce

An effective post-convictior DNA access statute rlUSt bull Allow testirg i~ cases where DNA testing ca~ establis~

innocerce indudirg cases where ttle irmate pied guilty bull Not lndude a sunset provisior or explratior date for

post-convictior DNA access bull Require states to preserve ard account for biological

evidence bull Eliminate procedural bafs to DNA testirg (allow people to

appeal orders denytrg DNA testirg explicitly exempt DNA-related motions from the restrictiors that other post~corviction cases mardate full fair prompt proceedirgs orce a rrotior test1rg is filed)

bull Avoid creating ar urfunded and If Stead provicie the moriey to back up the new statute

bull Provide flexibility in where ard row DNA testirg is conducted

For more on ttlis issue view the lr~ocerce Proiects DNA ~or eview Floridas legislation or post~corvictior

DNA access

y

Onme Now

4 Conviction Integrity Units amp Prosecutorial Accountability

bullA Corviction lritegrity Unit (CIUi is a d1visior of a proseclitorial office that works to prevert idertify and remedy felse corvictiors ~ Corvictior lrtegrity Ur its are a response to calls for prosecutorial reforfTI

A report by the Nat1oral Registry of Exonerations that reviewed 33 Conv1ct1on integrity Lnits that existed at the end of 2017 that discusses the impact of both ClUs and Innocence Organizations on exoneratiors Conviction Integrity Units have been involved in 269 exonerations through 2017

this sounds like a significant amount there are over ------in the US meaning 98_5 percent are

existence of a CIU also does not guarantee that they are working effectively to exonerate individuals who have been wrongfuy convicted

For example ~Los Angeles County is the biggest county in the yet in three years its office has exonerated exact1y tNO according to~middot

Read the Innocence Projeltfs full recommendations for CU best practices

In Florida

Tbere are currently two cumiddots in F1onda one in the 4th judkial circuit and one that recently opened in the 9th judicial circuit

5 Preservation of Evidence

Preserving DNA evidence preserves the ability to prove trinocence

Despite laws enabling inmates to seek DNA testing m fTany states performing a test is often impossibe years after a conviction because the evidence has been lost destroyed or contamirated due to improper storage

Prosacutorial Oversight amp Accountability

While most prosecutors respect their ethica and iegal obligations far too many innocert people have been wrongly convicted as a result of prosecutoridl misconduct

A survey conducted by the Innocence Projec1 and the Ventas Initiative looked at five diverse states over a five-year period ard Identified 660 cases in which courts found prosecutorial misconduct Of these only one prosecutor was discipined

Regardless of the extent of a prosecutonal error or misconduct-from the simplest mistakes to irtentional withholding of evidence that is favorable to the defendant~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotthese actions undermine accuracy in criminal trials and threaten to create wrongful convictions at unacceptably high rate~

There are numerous opportunities to improve prosecutoria overslg~t and accountability through the creation of independent oversigfit entities as New York has just done with groundbreaking ~middot Seizing these opportuflities would improve the quality of not only prosecutorial conouct but also tfgte criminal justice system overall

Read the nnocef1ce Projects ~on prosecutoria misconduct and the six reasons why we need prosecutoria accountability

An Innocent lnmbulltes Last Hope

ln some cases evtdence has been lost or destroyed prior to trial Wherever a case goes to trial without sufficient evioence the chances are greatiy increased that an innocent person wm be convicted or that a guilty person wi be acquitted Wtlen eviderce is destroyed justice is not served

D 0 ilfbullTSCbullnce Project recommends that all prysical I MlliMwiAINMlbullffla conviction are a difficult r a even foSbtimit evidence in all criminal cases be properly rlaintalned as innocent The resources of the justice system are bull ckedaainst_______ long as tt-gte defendant is Incarcerated urder supervision or the inmate afd once a conviction is secured there is no longer a

9272019httpswwwfloridainnocenceorgmethods-of-reform

Methods of Reform I Innocence Project of Florida I Page 4of13

~~ presumption of mnocence

~~ ir cases with DNA evidence this process can take years and can

~ roaijbl~iks bullt bullL~smiddot- ~Pite~li arMvbullsm~middot diffiftt)ll t UsAbou1 csesIV~Rampt +iY Miilice + tlts~ ~llil~~lH~yilJlom~ a iliB Bfl D

witness statements and costly investigations

n~ere are thousands of unsolved cases 1r tl-e United In Florida States ard many ofthese irvolve physical or biologica evdence that could one day be matched to a perpetrator State statute requires the atitomatic preservatfon of any physical DNA emiddotidence has helped police solve hundreds of cold evidence related to the conviction of an individual for a felony cases recent years and will continue to do so as iaw offense The evidence must be preserved for the ength of their erforcement agencies improve the wayt~ey store and sentence or 60 days after the execitton of a sentence (when the catalogue evidence death penalty is imposed) Effective 2001 Amended most

recently 2to6

Forioas statute meets the best practices stanciaros outlined by the NST Techniltal Working Group on Biological Evidence Preservation

Lear~ more about ieg1sla1ion regulating eyidence preservatior ir florda and throughout the United States

r

6 Crime Lab Oversight

Forensic science errors - both inadverte11t and calculated are a ~eading cause of wrongful convictions

Despite several ab scandals across the coLntry in recent years which show that innocent people were convicted because of crime lab errors and notwithstanding tt-e important efforts undertaken by some entities to address this issue states have historically done investigate or remedy these problems and ensure the integrity of forensic evidence

The 2004 Justice Fof All Act which was passed by Congress ana signed into law by Presidet Bush requires states seekiog federal funding for crime abs to have an appropriate process to conduct indeo1rndent externa investigations into aHegatiors of

or misconduct affectirg forensic results Stlii a number lack the independence andor process necessary to

ensure the integrity of results from forensic crime labs

Reports Supporting Reform

The first major scientific institLtion to investigate this probleri across the board was the National Academy of Sciences (NAS in Its report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States A Pat~ Forward released in 2ltXfi This report noted that imprecise or exaggerated expert testimory has sometimes contributed to the admission of erroneous or misleading evidence a also found that some forensic techniques particularly those that deal with

patterns o-r features (such as tire tread jmpressiors fiber or hair) have not been subjected to sufficient

scientific evaluation and noted that the scientific basis for arson investigations shoud be S1rengthened

This report examined the research comparison discipines evaluated

ard reliability and made recoflmendations to various federal agencies to strengther these disciplines Among the recommendations was the need for better resources to support iudiltial training given the changing in the evaluation of forensic evidence and state of vaidation forensic techniques

7 Lack Of Reform Commissions

Desprte the number of DNA exonerations in the United States very few investigative bodies - sometimes called Innocence Commissions - fltave beien formed to investigate and understand the circumstances that iead to wrongful convichons

The nnocence Project of Florida encourages institutionai actors in the State of Florida to create broadmiddotbased criminai Justice reform commissions to study wrongful convictions and advocate for changes in the system

Commissions in several states have already begun to D 0 NIJrlnlimd and help impiemert improvements in

investigations Jab operations defense prosecution and Jlldicial review recessary to help ensure the integrity of the criminal

onate Online Now

Fixing Labs Today With Proper Oversight

The Innocence Project supports the forensic community if its ongoing fight for the funding it deserves as caseloads grow and the public becomes more demandmg Crime victims police orcgtSecutors and courts all gain from an efficient system that

errors and focuses resources or the pllnishment of the guilty The fobull1owing recornmeridatlons deveioped by the Innocence Project during years of research and experience can substantivey address laboratory fraud and error

bull Create ar accreditat1or system All laboratories testing forensic evidence for use in courtrooms must be reviewed regularly by an external agency A I technicians should be licensed

bull Forrf oversight commissions indeperdent panels should be created in each state to review the forersic methods that are

1n state courtrooms and to investigate aegations miscondcct negligence or error in labs

bull Enforce requiremerits that are place Mary states receive federal grant money Paui Coverdell Fqrensjc Science Improvement Grant program This grant money comes with the requirement that the state conduct independent into any allegations of misconduct Mary have accepted the grants bu1 have not compied with this requirement

For more informaHon on the and scandal in the US visit the Science Misconduct section

Successfuamp Commissions Already at Work

bull The 30-member North Carolina Actual Innocence Commissior was created by the states Chief Justice in 2002 The commission has focused on the causes of wrongful convfction and is considered a national model fot effectiveness and reform

bull In Pennsylvania where nine men have beer proven inrocerit by DNA testing in recent years the state Senate_cr~ea~teda~n-----~ 1

A IL liflniilifiw-0 2006 in - J Submit

bull CaHfomla Connecticit and Wisconsiri have ltliel1bull0o1eW104teN8j--------l comrrissions to study the causes of wrorgful conviction and

IM

9272019httpswwwfloridainnocenceorgmethods-of-reform

I r 2003 the lllmo1s egbullslature passed 1rto law BS

~-nd recomrrendations made by a speciai COITm1ss1on created

tocEfgtturJfCt11fe fmBIDA Home I I there to study capital pur shrrert ard create safeguards

AQa1rst all wwrltgtlul cc+iv1dbulloos I Th p bl I C About tUpoundmts tvents 501vmg ue ro em ontact s I Donate

In Florida Jraquov-~

embers of the public varted perspErct1es combined with pubgtic ard officmiddotal support car last1rg reforms

of their findings and

Online Now

Content used by permission copy Innocence Project Ail rights reserved

Methods of Reform IInnocence Project of Florida I Page 5of13

~~ i ltMl

IMAIL ADDRISSbullDONATE Submit

9272019httpswwwfloridainnocenceorgmethods-of-reform

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing - Innocence Project Page 1of5

Donate

(HTTPSllWWWINNOCENCEPROJECTORG)

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

Today every state has enacted a post-conviction DNA statute because the traditional

appeals process was often insufficient for proving a wrongful conviction Prior to the

passage of post-conviction DNA laws it was not uncommon for an innocent person to

exhaust all possible appeals without being allowed access to the DNA evidence in his

case

Do all states have post-conviction DNA access statutes

Although all 50 states have post-conviction DNA testing access statutes many of

these testing laws are limited in scope and substance

Find out more about the DNA access law in your state

(httpswwwinnocenceprojectorgpolicy)

What are the common shortcomings of existing DNA access laws

Some laws present insurmountable hurdles to the individual seeking access

putting the burden on the wrongfully convicted person to effectively solve the

crime and prove that the DNA evidence promises to implicate another

individual

httpswwwinnocenceprojectorgcausesaccess-post-conviction-dna-testing 9272019

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing - Innocence Project Page 2of5

Despite the fact that approximately 11dego of the nations more than 360

wrongful convictions proven by DNA involved a guilty plea certain laws still do

not permit access to DNA when the defendant originally pied guilty

Many laws fail to include adequate safeguards for the preservation of DNA

evidence

Several laws do not allow people to appeal denied petitions for testing

Several laws prevent people who are no longer incarcerated to seek testing

What key elements should be included in a DNA access law

The Innocence Project recommends the following elements be contained in existing

statutes in need of amending

Include a reasonable standard to establish proof of innocence at the stage

where an individual is petitioning for post-conviction DNA testing

Allow access to post-conviction DNA testing wherever it can establish

innocence even if the petitioner is no longer incarcerated and including

cases where the petitioner pied guilty or provided a confession or admission

to the crime

Exclude sunset provisions or absolute deadlines for when access to postshy

conviction DNA evidence will expire

Enable judges to order comparisons of crime scene evidence against national

and state-level criminal justice databases including CODIS and IAFIS

Require state officials to properly preserve and catalogue biological evidence

for as long as an individual is incarcerated or otherwise experiences any

consequences of a potential wrongful conviction (eg probation parole civil

httpswwwinnocenceprojectorgcausesaccess-post-conviction-dna-testing 9272019

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing - Innocence Project Page 3of5

commitment or mandatory registration as a sex offender as well as to

account for evidence in their custody

Disallow procedural hurdles that stymie DNA testing petitions and

proceedings that govern other forms of post-conviction relief

Allow convicted persons to appeal from orders denying DNA testing

Require a full fair and prompt response to DNA testing petitions including the

avoidance of debate around whether currently available DNA technology was

available at the time of the trial

Avoid unfunded mandates by providing funding to DNA testing statutes and

Provide flexibility in where and how DNA testing is conducted

Case in Point Pennsylvania Man Originally Denied Access to DNA

In May of 1987 Bruce Godschalk was convicted of rape and burglary in Pennsylvania

The conviction was based primarily on eyewitness identification and a confession later

proven to be false Forensics techniques available at the time of the trial and used to

test the semen from the crimes could not exclude Mr Godschalk as the perpetrator

Following his conviction Mr Godschalk petitioned for access to DNA testing and was

denied After contacting the Innocence Project in 1995 which sought testing on his

behalf the District Attorney refused to allow access to the DNA evidence It was not

until November of 2000 that a Federal District Court granted access to the DNA

testing

Delays in setting a testing protocol and delivering the evidence in addition to some

legal hurdles deferred testing of the evidence until January of 2002 Mr Godschalk

was eventually excluded as the donor of the semen in the crimes and released from

httpswwwinnocenceprojectorgcausesaccess-post-conviction-dna-testing 9272019

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing - Innocence Project Page 4of5

prison Mr Godschalk had spent seven of his fifteen years of incarceration fighting for

access to DNA evidence As a result of Mr Godschalks case Pennsylvania introduced

and later passed a law creating access to DNA evidence

Help prevent wrongful convictions

Get involved

About Contact

(httpswwwinnocenceprojectorgabouUf)ttpswwwinnocenceprojectorgcontact

Donate Ways to Give (give)

(httpssupportinnocenceprojectorgghlilllwe16donationcheckout)

(httpswwwinnocenceprojectorgcareers

Financials (financials) Privacy Policy (privacy-policy)

Legal (legal)

httpswwwinnocenceprojectorgcausesaccess-post-conviction-dna-testing 9272019

Access to Post-Conviction DNA Testing - Innocence Project Page 5of5

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from the Innocence Project

Email

2123645340 (tel+2123645340) - infoinnocenceprojectorg (mailtoinfoinnocenceprojectorg)

copy 2019 Innocence Project All Rights Reserved

Website by MADEO (httpmadeostudiocom)

httpswwwinnocenceprojectorgcausesaccess-post-conviction-dna-testing 9272019