Mistaken identity

Last updated

Mistaken identity is a defense in criminal law which claims the actual innocence of the criminal defendant, and attempts to undermine evidence of guilt by asserting that any eyewitness to the crime incorrectly thought that they saw the defendant, when in fact the person seen by the witness was someone else. The defendant may question both the memory of the witness (suggesting, for example, that the identification is the result of a false memory), and the perception of the witness (suggesting, for example, that the witness had poor eyesight, or that the crime occurred in a poorly lit place).

Contents

Because the prosecution in a criminal case must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must convince the jury that there is reasonable doubt about whether the witness actually saw what they claim to have seen, or recalls having seen. Although scientific studies have shown that mistaken identity is a common phenomenon, jurors give very strong credence to eyewitness testimony, particularly where the eyewitness is resolute in believing that their identification of the defendant was correct.

Studies

Many experiments have demonstrated how the memories of eyewitnesses can be manipulated. In one study by Elizabeth Loftus, subjects were shown a videotape of a car accident and then asked either "How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?" or the same question with the verb "hit" replaced by the verb "smashed". Subjects who were asked the question with the word "smashed" gave higher estimates of speed. Additionally, when asked if there was broken glass at the scene, those who heard "smashed" were more likely to answer affirmatively, even though there was no broken glass shown in the video. [1]

With genetic fingerprinting and DNA evidence now commonplace, many convictions based on eyewitness testimony are being re-examined. According to the Innocence Project, 73% of the cases of DNA exonerations have involved mistaken eyewitness identification. [2]

Case studies

Abraham Lincoln used mistaken identity as a defense for William "Duff" Armstrong in 1858. He referred to a farmer's almanac to prove that a witness could not have seen Armstrong in the moonlight, as claimed, because the position of the moon that night would not have provided sufficient illumination. Armstrong was acquitted. [3]

Adolf Beck

A famous case of mistaken identity in the United Kingdom is the case of Adolf Beck, who served several years in prison as a swindler, was released upon completion of his sentence, and then arrested again on the same charges before the actual swindler of similar appearance was apprehended. [4]

Ronald Cotton

Another case demonstrating mistaken identity is the case of Ronald Cotton. In July 1984, a man broke into Jennifer Thompson's home in Burlington, North Carolina and raped her. During the attack, she studied the attacker's face, determined to identify him if she survived the attack. When presented with a photo lineup, she identified Cotton as her attacker. Twice, she testified against him by saying she had identified him. Cotton was found guilty of rape and burglary and sentenced to life plus 54 years in prison. [5]

In March 1995, Cotton's lawyers had the DNA in Thompson's rape kit retested, which found that his DNA was not present, resulting in Cotton being exonerated and freed. Authorities also tested the DNA in the rape kit of Mary Williams, who was raped by the same assailant as Thompson on the very same night, and the DNA was found to be that of Bobby Poole, another inmate in the prison where Cotton was incarcerated; Poole had also boasted to his fellow inmates that he had committed the crimes for which Cotton was convicted. [6] [5] Poole confessed to raping both Thompson and Williams and was sentenced to 70 years in prison. [7] He died of cancer in prison in 2000. [8]

Thompson has since become a critic of eyewitness testimony because of its proven unreliability. She was filled with remorse after learning that she had contributed to Cotton, an innocent man, being convicted and sent to prison. Upon release for wrongful conviction (proved by DNA analysis), Cotton was awarded $110,000 in compensation from the state of North Carolina. [5] Cotton and Thompson reconciled and became close friends; they conduct speaking tours to promote reform of procedures for eyewitness testimony. [9]

SODDI defense

The SODDI defense ("Some Other Dude Did It" or "Some Other Dude Done It" [10] ) is a slang term referring to a situation in which the defendant does not deny that a crime (e.g., murder or assault) occurred and is not asserting self-defense, but rather is asserting that they are not the one who did it. [11] The SODDI defense in a murder, rape or assault case is often accompanied by a mistaken identity defense and/or an alibi defense. Another common scenario where the SODDI defense is available is where the police find contraband in a car or residence containing multiple people. In this scenario, each person present could assert that one of the other people possessed the contraband. [12]

In Holmes v. South Carolina , 547 U.S. 319, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 164 L. Ed. 2d 503 (2006), the US Supreme Court held that a South Carolina statute that prohibited putting on a SODDI defense when the state's case was "strong" violated the Sixth Amendment right to put on a defense. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, even if the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.

In law, a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what they know or claim to know.

The abuse defense is a criminal law defense in which the defendant argues that a prior history of abuse justifies violent retaliation. While the term most often refers to instances of child abuse or sexual assault, it also refers more generally to any attempt by the defense to use a syndrome or societal condition to deflect responsibility away from the defendant. Sometimes the concept is referred to as the abuse excuse, in particular by the critics of the idea that guilty people may use past victimization to diminish the responsibility for their crimes.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

Innocence Project, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit legal organization that is committed to exonerating individuals who have been wrongly convicted, through the use of DNA testing and working to reform the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. The group cites various studies estimating that in the United States between 1% and 10% of all prisoners are innocent. The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld who gained national attention in the mid-1990s as part of the "Dream Team" of lawyers who formed part of the defense in the O. J. Simpson murder case.

Together, legal psychology and forensic psychology form the field more generally recognized as "psychology and law". Following earlier efforts by psychologists to address legal issues, psychology and law became a field of study in the 1960s as part of an effort to enhance justice, though that originating concern has lessened over time. The multidisciplinary American Psychological Association's Division 41, the American Psychology–Law Society, is active with the goal of promoting the contributions of psychology to the understanding of law and legal systems through research, as well as providing education to psychologists in legal issues and providing education to legal personnel on psychological issues. Further, its mandate is to inform the psychological and legal communities and the public at large of current research, educational, and service in the area of psychology and law. There are similar societies in Britain and Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Miscarriage of justice</span> Conviction of a person for a crime that they did not commit

A miscarriage of justice occurs when an unfair outcome occurs in a criminal or civil proceeding, such as the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit. Miscarriages are also known as wrongful convictions. Innocent people have sometimes ended up in prison for years before their conviction has eventually been overturned. They may be exonerated if new evidence comes to light or it is determined that the police or prosecutor committed some kind of misconduct at the original trial. In some jurisdictions this leads to the payment of compensation.

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that there are no constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty while still protesting his innocence under duress as a detainee status. This type of plea has become known as an Alford plea, differing slightly from the nolo contendere plea in which the defendant agrees to being sentenced for the crime, but does not admit guilt. Alford died in prison in 1975.

Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Exoneration occurs when the conviction for a crime is reversed, either through demonstration of innocence, a flaw in the conviction, or otherwise. Attempts to exonerate convicts are particularly controversial in death penalty cases, especially where new evidence is put forth after the execution has taken place. The transitive verb, "to exonerate" can also mean to informally absolve one from blame.

In eyewitness identification, in criminal law, evidence is received from a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court".

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

Rolando Cruz is an American man known for having been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, along with co-defendant Alejandro Hernandez, for the 1983 kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico in DuPage County, Illinois. The police had no substantive physical evidence linking the two men to the crime. Their first trial was jointly in 1987, and their statements were used against each other and a third defendant.

Centurion is a non-profit organization located in Princeton, New Jersey, with a mission to exonerate innocent individuals who have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to life sentences or death.

Eyewitness memory is a person's episodic memory for a crime or other witnessed dramatic event. Eyewitness testimony is often relied upon in the judicial system. It can also refer to an individual's memory for a face, where they are required to remember the face of their perpetrator, for example. However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Experts have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is fallible.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gary L. Wells</span>

Gary L. Wells is an American psychologist and an internationally recognized pioneer and scholar in eyewitness memory research. Wells is a professor at Iowa State University with a research interest in the integration of both cognitive psychology and social psychology and its interface with law. He has extensive research on lineup procedures and the reliability and accuracy of eyewitness identification, and has been widely acknowledged in both the field of psychology and the criminal justice system. Wells has received many awards and honorary degrees and been widely recognized for his work and contributions to psychology and the implications his research has made to the legal system.

The National Registry of Exonerations is a project of the University of Michigan Law School, Michigan State University College of Law and the University of California Irvine Newkirk Center for Science and Society. The Registry was co-founded in 2012 with the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law to provide detailed information about known exonerations in the United States since 1989. As of February 6, 2020, the Registry has 2,551 known exonerations in the United States since 1989. The National Registry does not include more than 1,800 defendants cleared in 15 large-scale police scandals that came to light between 1989 and March 7, 2017, in which officers systematically framed innocent defendants.

Thomas Haynesworth is a resident of Richmond, Virginia, who served 27 years in state prison as a result of four wrongful convictions for crimes for which he was exonerated in 2011.

Lisa J. Steele is a game designer and an attorney.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Investigating Innocence</span>

Investigating Innocence is a nonprofit wrongful conviction advocacy organization that provides criminal defense investigations for inmates in the United States. Investigating Innocence was founded in 2013 by private investigator Bill Clutter to assist nationwide Innocence Project groups in investigating innocence claims. "Once we have a case that meets our criteria, we'll put private investigators to work on it. A lot of these cases need investigators," said Kelly Thompson, executive director of Investigating Innocence. Prior to his work on Investigating Innocence, Clutter was one of the founders of the Illinois Innocence Project. Investigating Innocence also has a board composed of exonerees that reviews incoming cases.

References

  1. ↑ Loftus, Elizabeth (November 2003). "Make-believe memories". American Psychologist .
  2. ↑ Arkowitz, Hal; Lillienfield, Scott O. (January 1, 2010). "Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts". Scientific American . Retrieved January 22, 2024.
  3. ↑ Gridley, J.N. (April 1910). "Lincoln's Defense of Duff Armstrong". Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois State Historical Society. 3 (1): 26. JSTOR   40194333.
  4. ↑ "The strange case of Adolf Beck". The Independent . October 16, 2004. Archived from the original on August 18, 2023. Retrieved August 18, 2023.
  5. 1 2 3 Murnane, Kevin (December 21, 2015). ""I think this is the guy"—The complicated confidence of eyewitness memory". Ars Technica . Retrieved January 22, 2024.
  6. ↑ Weinberg, Steve (November 27, 2012). "Seeing is Believing". The American Prospect . Retrieved January 22, 2024.
  7. ↑ Thorner, James (July 11, 1995). "Confession Brings End to Rape Case". Greensboro News & Record . Retrieved January 22, 2024.
  8. ↑ Dowling, Claudia Glenn (August 14, 2000). "Mistaken Identity". People . Archived from the original on August 16, 2012.
  9. ↑ Thompson, Jennifer (June 20, 2000). "I Was Certain, But I Was Dead Wrong". Houston Chronicle . Archived from the original on March 21, 2006 – via Common Dreams.
  10. ↑ Suni, Ellen Yankiver (2000). "Ethics in Criminal Advocacy, Symposium, Who Stole the Cookie from the Cookie Jar?: The Law and Ethics of Shifting Blame in Criminal Cases". Fordham Law Review . New York City: Fordham University School of Law. 68 (5): 1644.
  11. ↑ Steel, Chad M.S. (2014). "Technical SODDI Defenses: The Trojan Horse Defense Revisited". Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law. Ponce Inlet, Florida: Association of Digital Forensics, Security and Law. 9 (4). Retrieved January 22, 2024.
  12. ↑ Imwinkelried, Edward J. (Fall 2015). "Evidence of a Third Party's Guilt of the Crime that the Accused is Charged with: The Constitutionalization of the SODDI (Some Other Dude Did It) Defense 2.0". Loyola University Chicago Law Journal . Chicago, Illinois: Loyola University Chicago School of Law. 47 (1): 121–122.
  13. ↑ Professional Responsibility in Criminal Defense Practice Archived July 24, 2011, at the Wayback Machine .
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.