(801) 355-1888
contact@rminnocence.org

Causes of Wrongful Convictions

Navigating the Path to Justice – How the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center Champions the Wrongfully Convicted

In the shadow of every wrongful conviction lies a story of injustice, one that the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center (RMIC) is committed to uncovering and correcting. Each month, RMIC receives between 15 and 25 new requests for assistance from individuals who maintain their innocence, seeking the Center’s expertise to right the grievous wrongs they have suffered. The journey from receiving a plea for help to exoneration of the wrongfully convicted is a long and complex one, marked by meticulous investigation, rigorous legal advocacy, and an unwavering commitment to justice.

The Vetting Process: A Careful Scrutiny of Every Claim

At the heart of RMIC’s mission is the careful vetting of every post-conviction claim of innocence. The staff at RMIC approaches each case with a deep sense of responsibility, understanding that the lives of individuals hang in the balance. Every request for assistance undergoes an exhaustive screening process, designed to determine whether there is a credible claim of innocence that warrants further investigation.

This process is neither quick nor simple. It requires a deep dive into trial records, legal documents, and any available evidence, as well as consultations with experts and, often, the gathering of new information that may not have been available at the time of the trial. Only cases that meet RMIC’s stringent criteria are accepted, ensuring that the Center’s resources are devoted to those who need them most.

 

Investigating the Case: A Search for Truth

Once a case is accepted, the real work begins. RMIC’s team of legal professionals embarks on a painstaking investigation that can span years or even decades to unearth new evidence that was not available during the original trial, which could potentially prove the factual innocence of the convicted individual.

This investigation is not limited to DNA evidence—although that is certainly a powerful tool in some cases—but extends to all possible avenues of proving innocence. Witnesses are re-interviewed, forensic evidence is re-examined with the benefit of modern technology, and new leads are doggedly pursued.

This exhaustive process is driven by one goal: to unearth new evidence that was not available during the original trial, evidence that could prove the factual innocence of the convicted individual. The investigation is methodical and thorough, reflecting RMIC’s commitment to ensuring that no stone is left unturned in the pursuit of justice.

 

Litigation and Exoneration: The Final Hurdle

If new evidence of innocence is uncovered, the case moves into the litigation phase. This stage is as challenging as it is crucial, requiring RMIC and its legal partners to meet the high burden of proving factual innocence in court. Success at this stage not only overturns a wrongful conviction but also leads to a formal declaration of innocence. In Utah and Nevada, such a declaration entitles the exoneree to compensation for the years lost behind bars and, more importantly, restores their freedom and reunites them with their loved ones.

Tragically, Wyoming does not yet offer compensation to those wrongfully convicted – an issue RMIC is actively working to address.

 

Advocacy and Education: Preventing Future Injustices

Beyond its work on individual cases, RMIC is dedicated to educating and advocating for systemic reforms. Through outreach efforts targeted at law enforcement, legal professionals, policymakers, and the public, RMIC works to shed light on the causes and consequences of wrongful convictions. The Center’s educational initiatives aim to prevent future injustices by promoting best practices and advocating for legal reforms that make the justice system more just and equitable.

In addition, RMIC collaborates with legislators and policy advocates in Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming to pass laws aimed at addressing the root causes of wrongful convictions. This policy work is critical in ensuring that the errors of the past are not repeated and that the justice system continues to evolve toward greater fairness and accuracy.

 

A Unique Mission, A Profound Impact

What sets RMIC apart is its willingness to take on a broad range of cases, not limiting its work to those that involve DNA evidence. This broad scope allows RMIC to assist a wider array of wrongfully convicted individuals, providing a lifeline to those who might otherwise have nowhere to turn.

Through its rigorous vetting process, exhaustive investigations, and powerful advocacy, the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center is a beacon of hope for the wrongfully convicted. The road to exoneration is long and arduous, but for those who are innocent, the work of RMIC is nothing short of life-changing.

Read more

How Concealing Officer Misconduct Has Impacted Wrongful Convictions

Check out our legal director Jensie Anderson as she discusses how concealing officer misconduct has impacted wrongful convictions with KJZZ. You can read the article that details all of Utah’s previous legal proceedings to combat this issue.

 

Read more

Three Strikes Law

 

What is 3 Strikes Law?

In many states, such as Utah, 3 strikes law increases the penalties enforced on an individual for a third time offense in certain cases. Three Strikes Law is meant to deter individuals who have been convicted of a crime from reoffending. 

 

Criticisms of 3 Strikes Law

There is little evidence that 3 strikes law is effective deterrent and instead has been linked to the growing prison populations. For individuals who have commited repeated offenses in charges relating to DUIs, theft, domestic violence, violent felonies, the penalties for their third crime can be more severe. For example, under Utah law, a person who commits a petty theft can be charged with a 3rd degree felony if in the last 10 years an individual has twice been convicted of theft: a sentence of up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to 5,000 dollars. 

 

Read more

Shaken Baby Syndrome

What is shaken baby syndrome?

Shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is a critical brain injury that occurs when an infant or toddler is shaken very roughly by a caregiver. This often occurs as a result of a caregiver’s frustration with the child. Babies and toddlers are at risk for this injury because their neck muscles have not developed the strength to support heavy heads. If the infant is shaken, it is not able to stabilize their head and their fragile brain moves within their skull. The shaking can cause the brain to bleed, swell, and bruise, which can cause irreversible brain damage. 

 

Diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome 

The 3 ‘tell-tale’ signs, or triad, of shaken baby syndrome are said to be; subdural hematoma, brain swelling, and bleeding behind the eyes. 

 

Wrongful Convictions due to Misdiagnosis of SBS

At the moment, many medical practitioners believe SBS can be diagnosed with the triad of symptoms. Norman Guthkelch was the first to hypothesize that whiplash causes the 3 indicator symptoms of SBS. The mistake made by lawmakers was conflating his Guthkelch’s hypothesis as categorical evidence for SBS when there had not been sufficient nor conclusive evidence that the triad is associated with SBS. The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services has reviewed SBS literature and found insufficient evidence to use the triad to diagnose SBS. Specialists in the field are now saying that there are other factors which can cause these symptoms to appear. Accidental falls, previous injuries, infections, perinatal problems, and birth trauma can be misdiagnosed as SBS due to the brain damage they can cause. The lack of reliability of the triad for diagnosing shaken baby syndrome emphasizes the need to combine medical evidence with other evidence that proves abuse occurred. 






Read more

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

What is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?

By law, an individual has a right to assistance from a counsel. It is the job of a lawyer to investigate alibis and witnesses, ask experts to analyze evidence, and be present at the trials. When lawyers are ineffective at trials, the innocent individual suffers. Their vulnerability as civilians to the specialized practice of law can render them defenseless even if they have compelling evidence to support their innocence. When a lawyer is not a good vector to communicate the innocence of an individual, the convicted person may file a habeas corpus claim to prove ineffective assistance of counsel.

What constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?

The supreme court case Strickland v. Washington established that prove ineffective assistance of counsel, and a violation of the 6th amendment, a defendant must demonstrate the following

  1. that their trial lawyer’s performance fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness”
  2. “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”
Read more

Brady Material Law

What is Brady Material Law?

Brady Material Law is the requirement for the prosecution to disclose any information that could be helpful for the case of the defense and that could help reduce the sentence of the defendant. In many cases, prosecutors will discover Brady Material, evidence that could help the defense to prove the innocence of an individual, but suppress it to increase their chances of winning a trial. This doctrine arose from the Supreme Court case Brady vs. Maryland in 1963. Infringements of this requirement include not disclosing:

 

  1. Evidence implicating someone else as the perpetrator of a crime
  2. Inconsistencies in a witness’s previous statements (Giglio Material)
  3. Evidence that would suggest police or forensic technician misconduct
  4. Motive(s) for a witness to lie

 

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Brady violations still occur. To correct these violations, an extensive post-conviction investigation is needed. The evidence may be so well suppressed that luck is involved in discovering it. In addition, it is extremely difficult to discipline prosecutors that violate the Brady Material Law through the State Bar Association or civil courts.



Read more