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.
During the COVID-19 crisis, our mail output has been bigger than ever. Normally we are able to visit our clients, and we make every effort to do so at least once a year. With the health of our clients and other incarcerated individuals on the line, we’ve chosen to halt all prison visits until it is safe. This means an influx of mail. Our clients need to know we’re still out here, fighting for them, even if we can’t see them face-to-face.⠀
Every dollar you send us goes towards the extensive work we put into each case. With 60+ open cases, we work hard to give each case the attention and devotion it deserves. Please go to our website to read about our clients that we have helped exonerate, the legislative work we have done in Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming, or to donate to our cause today.Donate Now
We are pleased to announce that RMIC’s Legal Director and Past President, Jensie L. Anderson is one of the Honorees of Utah Philanthropy Day on November 19, 2019. She will be recognized with the Lt. Governor’s Public Service Award. Ms. Anderson served as RMIC President from 2001-2011 and is currently our Legal Director. She litigates innocence and wrongful conviction claims throughout Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada.
She also serves as director of the Innocence Clinic and administrative supervisor of the Criminal Clinic (both prosecutor and defender) at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at The University of Utah. Professor Anderson teaches legal methods, innocence investigation and post-conviction process, criminal process, lawyering skills, and introduction to law. Please help us in congratulating her for this great honor.
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.
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.
A person may confess to a crime they did not commit, but that confession is sometimes not an action of self-autonomy. Some factors can influence people to make false confessions or testimonies:
The Reid Technique is used to interrogate individuals by first asking non-accusatory questions to establish whether that person was involved in the crime, and secondly asking accusatory questions to people believed to be culpable. In the second stage, the officer is trying to get an admission of guilt from the suspect.
Issues with the Reid Technique Interrogations
Proof of a coerced testimony could be used to protect an innocent individual, therefore legislation that requires the recording of interrogations would help diminish punishment for false confessions extracted through coercion.
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
What is Bite Mark Evidence?
If a victim of a crime is bitten, the impressions of a suspect’s teeth can be taken and compared to the injuries sustained by the victim. Forensic dentists examine the victim’s bite mark for characteristics and arrangement of the teeth.
Criticisms of Bite Mark Evidence
Forensic dentistry has been heavily criticized for having some of the highest error rates amongst the forensic identification specialties. Upon review from the committee from the National Academy of Sciences, experts concluded that bite mark similarities are insufficient evidence to incriminate an individual to the exclusion of other suspects.
The suspicion over the accuracy of this evidence comes from the nature of our skin. The skin changes over time: it is elastic, responds to injury with swelling as it repairs, changes as it is moved, and is uneven. Additionally, there is no consensus that teeth are individual to a person. Furthermore, there is a limited sample size when forensic scientists make models of the teeth. All 32 teeth are not likely to leave a clear impression on a victim’s skin; it may be 4-8 biting teeth that leave an impression. From that limited sample size, 2 people are increasingly likely to have similar biting teeth. A bite mark made by one person, therefore, may be matched to another innocent individual due to the nature of skin and the similarities between individuals’ teeth.
DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid is a compound consisting of a sugar-phosphate backbone and a nitrogenous base, together this is called a nucleotide. There are 4 nitrogenous bases that make up all human DNA: Thymine, Adenine, Guanine, and Cytosine, but their arrangement and order on DNA is specific to the individual. Nucleotides with Adenine and thymine nitrogenous bases pair together while nucleotides with Guanine and Cytosine bond. What is produced by these pairings is 2 strands of nucleotides bound together by bonds between the nitrogenous bases. Properties of DNA cause it to supercoil into tightly wound chromosomes. Humans usually have 46, and one of those pairs is called a sex chromosome.
Based on these characteristics, scientists can develop a DNA profile that is unique to a person.
All of our chromosomes have a unique combination of nucleotides (with a unique order of nitrogenous bases). These nucleotides, when grouped together can code for traits. Everyone’s DNA is made from a combination of DNA given from their mother and father. Therefore DNA profiles are extremely specific to the person, they can tell us about the traits that that person possesses, and they can be compared to the paternal and maternal DNA. By comparing the similarities between an individual’s DNA to the DNA found in a crime scene, forensic scientists can help the investigators place a suspect at a crime scene.
Innovation in Forensic Science
The field of forensic sciences has experienced substantial change over recent years, rendering old these methods of biological analysis obsolete:
The new DNA testing technology has produced large databases of DNA codes from thousands of individuals, the National DNA Index System (NDIS). The NDIS contains DNA profiles contributed to the database by federal, state, and local forensic laboratories. The DNA profiles of individuals in the database can be compared to the DNA discovered at the crime scene using software CODIS, the Combined DNA Index System, in collaboration with the FBI.
Since family members share DNA, databases can be used to identify a criminal through their family members. CODIS can be one way to match individuals based on DNA profiles, however it is limited; CODIS profiles are only accessible with cooperation from law enforcement. Another method that investigators can use is using companies such as 23andMe, Ancestry DNA, and MyHeritage DNA. When users send their DNA for testing, a DNA profile is created. From there, users can upload their DNA profiles to GEDmatch to discover familial relations. Law enforcement can use this by taking a sample of DNA from a crime scene, obtaining a DNA profile, uploading that profile to GEDmatch and then locating a possible suspect through their familial relations.
Problems Affecting Evidence Preservation
Many individuals are convicted for crimes they did not commit due to the spoliation of evidence; the alteration of evidence to damage it, suppress it (Brady Material), and contaminate it. Such evidence may be critical for an individual’s potential civil action. However, it can be very difficult to pursue cases of evidence spoliation because whether intentional or negligent, states do not have enough statutes to protect evidence from being destroyed while the individual is incarcerated. In addition, punishing the destruction of evidence associated with prosecutorial misconduct is exceedingly difficult. Utah still is in need of sanctions to prevent and demand compensation for spoliation of evidence.
With the improving technology available for examining the evidence, it is important to have the resources to re-examine old evidence. Old methods of biological evidence testing had a high rate of error, and are therefore obsolete. ABO blood testing compares the blood types of suspects with that found on biological evidence at the crime scene. Bruce Dallas Goodman had been convicted for a crime he did not commit based on his blood type matching that on the victim. Since the biological evidence was preserved, DNA testing proved Bruce’s innocence and revealed the DNA profiles of 2 other perpetrators. The results of biological testing such as the latter can be combined with other non-biological evidence to appeal an individual’s sentence – but only if the evidence is preserved.