Legislative Action On Eyewitness Error And Wrongful Conviction - Assignment Example

Tillman versus This involves a capital murder case of a Larry Joseph Tillman, found guilty after various eye witnesses placed him at the site of the murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. The appellant was said to have murdered two victims using four gunshots late at night. Ricardo Avilla, a neighbor whop lives across the street from the victims’ house testified in court that he saw the suspect run away from the house of the victims after hearing the gunshots. Avilla describes the suspect as a tall black man wearing a black coat and a grey cap. His description helped the police sketch the suspect’s picture. Another witness, Dan Christoffel, also –placed the suspect at the crime scene and gave a description of his physical appearance. A third witness, William also testified that he heard the suspect discuss how he murdered his victims. The appellant placed a doctor, Roy Malpass, on the stand to provide his opinion on the eye witness testimonies. Malpass was an expert on eyewitness identification, and his testimony was rejected by the jury who still found Tillman guilty. Kenneth Adams v. State”. This case involved a Kenneth L. Adams who, together with a Willie Rainge were convicted of murder, rape and aggravated kidnapping. Adams was sentenced to sixty years imprisonment for rape. He also got an additional seventy five years for each murder charge he was facing. The victims were Lawrence Lionberge and Carol Schmal. Carol, the victim is said to have gone to visit her boyfriend, Lawrence at his workplace. Carol is said to have been raped and shot here, and her boyfriend shot too. A witness later testifies to seeing the two defendants at the crime scene. Legislative action on eyewitness error and wrongful conviction. Undeniably, numerous cases have prompted judges to pass incorrect judgments on defendants due to the absence of adequate information. This is because of poor methods of collecting information and to some extent ignorance on the part of law enforcement officers. The involved parties in every case end up not being able to handle both the defendants as well as eyewitnesses based on the information they have attained (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). To eliminate eyewitness errors, legal system ought to adopt the most effective method meant to extract the required information. This will ensure the convicted serve just sentences. In addition, it will ensure the entire process observes the involved parties’ rights, which the law dictates despite their role pertaining to the case. Therefore, this entails utilizing proficient officers to interrogate eyewitness and not excluding the service of eyewitness experts, for instance, psychologists (Tillman v. State, 2011). However, psychologists ought to be proficient in their field to the extent of being able to proffer the required information based on reliable scientific background and pertinent to the case supposed to undergo litigation process (Tillman v. State, 2011). In my opinion, the best solution or approach in eliminating numerous eyewitness errors that characterize litigation process is by employing tripartite solution (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). In this solution, the initial step entails considering eyewitness’ testimony during the litigation process, which is also supported in the Tillman v. State case (Tillman v. State, 2011). Since, this enables the jury and those arbitrating cases to understand essential facts that may be difficult especially in the field judges are not conversant with, for instance, psychology (Martire & Kemp, 2009). This is evident in Tillman v. State’s case, though Dr. Malpass failed to present clear and convincing facts intended to prove the testimony, he claimed to have a strong scientific base. (Tillman v. State, 2011). Therefore, to ensure reliability of any information by eyewitness expert, the proponent ought to prove his or her (1) expertise employed is legitimate, (2) testimony lies within the required scope and (3) uses the field’s principles (Tillman v. State, 2011). The second step entails adopting effective procedures when extracting the required information to act as eyewitness evidence (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). Mainly, this entails conducting interviews whereby the interviewers ought not to interrupt interviewees while in the midst of talking (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). Since, this disturbs them to the extent that they are not clear on what they intend to say being able to say. This is evident with law officers who normally ask closed-ended queries intended to attain certain information and swaying the interviewees to a certain direction (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). Therefore, law officers ought to be informed sо that they use open-ended queries meant to extract extra information that will make the evidence presented during the litigation process valid. In this step, I would also adopt extra two laws according to Fisher, which will enable interviewers especially the police to attain the relevant information from the eyewitness (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). This is by ensuring the law officers do not know the culprit’s name, hence shun incidences of biasing witness’ information (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). The other law encompasses videotaping the entire interview with the intention of presenting to the judges so that they are able to ascertain improprieties that occurred before litigation process (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). Probably, the absence of adequate information regarding interview improprieties during Tillman v. State case was the core reason, which prompted judges not to accept Dr. Malpass’ evidence (Tillman v. State, 2011). Third step will involve imparting the participants with adequate knowledge regarding essential details during the litigation process, like eyewitness factors intended to reduce errors experienced when arbitrating cases. Educating the judges will enable them to be appreciative of the evidence proffered by eyewitness experts instead of disregarding them, citing they do not have adequate information (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). Hence, they ought not to take any part during the litigation process as evidenced in the Tillman v. State case. In addition, imparting knowledge to the law officers will make them knowledgeable on how to attain eyewitness testimony without contaminating interviewees’ memory (Wise, Dauphinais & Safer, 2007). This three step approach not only enables the attainment of adequate evidence by both police and eyewitness experts avoiding bias, but also safeguards the involved parties’ privileges. References Kenneth Adams v. State. No. 79-565. (1983). Martire, K. A. & Kemp, R. I. (2009). The Impact of Eyewitness Expert Evidence and Judicial Instruction on Juror Ability to Evaluate Eyewitness Testimony. Law and Human Behavior. 33. 225-236. Tillman v. State. No. PD–0727–10. (2011). Wise, R. A., Dauphinais, K. A. & Safer, M. A. (2007). Tripartite Solution to Eyewitness Error. The Journal of criminal law. 97(3). 807-871. Read More