An Instance of Wrongful Convictions - Case Study Example

Case Analysis Report

Freedom is a central right of every citizen, and issues such as wrongful convictions within the judicial system often violate this fundamental right. For a long time, wrongful convictions continue to mar the country's legal system. Conviction of innocent individuals can be regarded as misclassifications that often occur due to challenges in assessing uncertain evidence concerning past events. The subsequent wrong sentences have a severe negative effect on a person's life and close ties. The prevalence of inaccurate convictions influences substantial concerns regarding the credibility of the present judicial system, the constrictions of adversarial approaches, and the fallibility of due processes (Deskovic, 2012). Additionally, violation of human liberties is a core aspect of wrongful convictions, which influence persuasive arguments opposing capital punishment. Based on these concerns, wrongful convictions are an aspect requiring in-depth evaluation and subsequent mitigation. Therefore, this paper assesses an instance of wrongful convictions and consequently explores the primary drivers of incorrect judicial decisions concerning the case. Notably, biased jury charges, unsuitable interrogative techniques, and false witnesses are identified as core factors in wrongful convictions.

Robert Baltovich’s Case

In the year 1990, a search for Robert Baltovich's girlfriend, Elizabeth Bain, began after her family's reports that she was missing. Eventually, law enforcement officers recovered her vehicle, and subsequent forensic evaluations determined her blood at the back seat, although her body was missing. In the days that followed, law enforcement officers identified Robert as the primary suspect in the case. The law enforcement officers and prosecution teams lacked genuine proof that connected Robert to his girlfriend's disappearance and death (Harland-Logan, 2020). The entire case was detailed as it was grounded in unreliable eyewitness testimonies. Consequently, Robert was detained and charged for murdering Elizabeth.

During the trial process, the prosecution team contended that Robert murdered his girlfriend after attempting to break up with him, but Robert refuted these claims. Central to the case presented by the prosecution were two witnesses, Marianne Perz and David Dibben (Harland-Logan, 2020). The former claimed to have seen the defendant and the victim sitting together at a picnic area on campus the day she went missing. Robert assured the prosecution team that he was at home, claims that various family members confirmed were truthful. The latter claimed that he saw the defendant in Elizabeth's car. This claim was marred with inconsistency as the witness affirmed that he did not pay critical attention during the alleged sighting. Also, he claimed not to have a suitable look at the driver. David's original elucidation of the driver was shallow and did not align with the defendant's looks. However, his narrative shifted in the course of police proceedings, notably after the witnesses underwent a hypnosis process. Irrespective of the numerous questionable aspects of the case, the jury determined the defendant as guilty of second-degree murder, leading to his conviction in 1992 and sentencing to 17 years in prison devoid of parole.

Acquittal Process in Robert’s Case

After eight years in prison, an appeal for Robert's case was spearheaded by Innocence Canada. The advocacy firm established numerous inconsistencies in Robert's court proceedings. First, the judge's instructions to the jury emphasized the prosecution team's content while belittling those of Robert's side. This aspect means that the judge lacked a balanced perspective in the trial process. For example, among the various commentaries of the judge to the jury was his notable omission of critical cautionary assertions regarding reliability, or lack of prosecution eyewitness testimonies (Harland-Logan, 2020). Such an omitted clarification could have influenced the jury's overreliance on the evidence despite the inconsistencies. Innocence Canada contended that eyewitness evidence presented after hypnosis procedures should not have been incorporated as numerous controversies characterize hypnosis as a technique with the interrogative process. These issues were presented to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which agreed that the entire trial process was unfair. He was acquitted after eight years in jail.

Statement of Core Concepts

Factors that influenced the wrongful conviction include juror bias, admissibility of evidence from controversial hypnosis, and false witnessing (Harland-Logan, 2020). The judge's conduct influenced juror bias. The judge was also biased against the case presented by Robert's defense team. Thus, it is essential to explore the identified factors in the case. The story theoretical model can be applied to show how the jury arrived at the wrongful decision against Robert.

Story Model

The story model explains how jurors arrive at various decisions. The theory is ingrained in the primary assumption that a juror organizes the evidence presented in narrative forms. It entails three core steps, narrative construction, identifying verdict alternatives, and providing a verdict (Willmott et al., 2018). The story philosophy contends that the narrative established by jurors influences their eventual decisions. It is essential to explore the ins and outs of the story model and link them to Robert's case for better comprehension of the wrongful conviction.

During the trial course, jurors participate in constructive comprehension processes to rationalize various information being presented and structure it coherently. The story model stresses that the psychological process emerges as comprehension is fundamentally a productive aspect, even in simple discourses. Such model claims are evident in contexts of fair trial where evidence provided can be broad. Again, the story model is applicable in trial processes as the proof presentation is often presented in disconnected questions and answer formats as varying witness account for unpredictable aspects of an event. The subsets of information provided by witnesses, such as individual statements, are often inter-reliant in their probative impact on eventual juror decisions (Willmott et al., 2018). This means that the connotation of a single statement cannot be evaluated in isolation as it relies on the denotations of various other explanations.

Jurors’ story structure relies on three forms of knowledge. One, case-oriented and involves testimonies of witnesses. The second type entails knowledge regarding comparable incidences, such as a similar offense in jurors' communities. The final category of knowledge is on generic anticipations of the entire story. This type of experience influences the interpretation of evidence and subsequent verdicts. However, various factors can affect the understanding of knowledge, such as biases, stereotypes, opinions, expertise, and values (Willmott et al., 2018). Such an assertion explains why the judges’ biasness when communicating to the jury in Robert’s case could have potentially distorted their story construction processes, leading to biasness and agreement with the wrong witness testimonies.

Coverage and coherence are core principles in the story model. The two factors affect acceptability and confidence in the information presented in the trial. These certainty principles were not evident in Robert's case as severe inconsistencies characterized the witnesses' confessions. However, story coverage after the hypnosis process could have influenced the jury to assume that the witnesses’ story was comprehensive. Coverage entails the extent to which a narrative accounts for evidence. Thus, it is evident that the hypnosis process, judges biased influence, and inaccurate testimonies influenced the jury’s wrong decision.

Judicial Misconduct

In the above-discussed case, there is a notable variation between legal errors and judicial misconduct. Robert's case inclines to judicial misconduct in two areas. The first revolves around the judge's conduct, and the second involves the law enforcement decision to engage hypnosis. Admissibility of the evidence after hypnosis is another problematic issue; for example, cases of judicial misconduct that directly involve judges are not new. Notably, various studies highlight different forms of judge misconduct by indulging in inappropriate humor, poor management of courtrooms, racist commentaries, substance abuse, or accepting gifts from prosecutors or defendants (Morgan, 2014). In different contexts, misconduct could influence the final verdict, leading to a wrongful conviction. Such a reality is evident in Robert's case, whereby the judge's biased perspective when communicating to the jury could have sealed his unfortunate fate. The judge decided to promote the prosecutor's case against Robert rather than reasonably explaining the jury's core duties. In this case, the judge should maintain objectivity when providing the charge to the jury. A biased charge could influence a decision that denies a defendant a free and fair trial.

Misconduct in Inapt Interrogative techniques

The process taken when sourcing for evidence before and during trial processes is also essential. Law enforcement officers can unfairly engage methods that influence a biased trial process. It is mandated that law enforcement officers whose duties entail inquiring into supposed offenses have the right to question and acquire critical case-related information (Wells, 2013). However, misconduct, such as biasness can negatively typify the investigation process. Such a worrying fact is identified in Robert's case. The utilization of hypnosis was not suitable after the commencement of the trial process. Hypnosis is a controversial method for enhancing memory that should not count within a prosecution course. There is broad agreement in studies that most people are increasingly suggestible under this controversial memory-enhancing process. This means that hypnosis could potentially fortify the incapacity for an individual to distinguish memories from imaginations. Incorporating this method during the interrogation process could have increased the extent to which witnesses' memories in Robert's case changed. This is arguably true as David's confessions changed after the hypnosis. The process could have enhanced the fallibility of human consciousness, leading to incorrect recollections.

False witness

The fallibility of eyewitness identifications continues to be a core concern in most cases of inaccurate convictions. Eyewitness misidentifications and misrecollections are notably high in cases of wrongful convictions. This aspect is significant because eyewitnesses possess substantial influence in prosecutions. The impact of witnesses could be likened to forensic proofs and confessions as it advances a compelling story to the jury. However, in Robert's case, eyewitness identifications and subsequent confessions can be fallible (Bell, 2009). For example, a forced false confession could develop subject to inappropriate interrogation methods like the hypnosis technique. Additionally, the officer conducting lineups to distinguish the perpetrator knew one of the pictorial evidence was Roberts and also told the witness, Marianne, regarding his photo before she even identified him. Such a process was wrong and led to false witnessing.

Remedy: Eyewitness Identification Reforms

Eyewitness errors, just as in Robert's case, are a core driver of wrongful convictions. Often, misleading lineup practices and ineffective measures when identifying suspects lead to wrongful convictions. Again, one has to consider that identifying a suspect could be stressful for witnesses, leading to inaccurate identifications. Thus, various reforms can be engaged to address these persistent problems. The first reform should entail involving a blind administrator (Morgan, 2014). Only law enforcement officers without any information regarding a suspect should conduct lineups to avert deliberate or accidental conveying of information to witnesses causing him or her to identify suspects that the officers have in mind. A second measure should entail minimizing suggestive instructions by emphasizing that the perpetrator may not be in a lineup, and further investigations can be conducted (Morgan, 2014). Such insights could counter cases of suggestive identification of suspects. The third reform should entail incorporating a confidence statement during suspect identification processes. In this case, a law enforcement officer can require the eyewitness to be sure of his or her level of confidence concerning suspect identification. Such a measure will play an essential role in evaluating coherence and credibility or testimonies in court. When the confidence statement is low, for example, a 40-confidence level score out of 100, the defendant can argue against the selection. Such reforms could significantly improve witness identification processes.

Conclusion

Overall, Robert's case identifies the role of misconduct and mistaken eyewitness identification and confessions. Judges often engage in judicial malpractices like biasness and wrongly influencing the jury, as is in Robert's case. The jury's subsequent decision could be explained by the story theory that underscores the process of narrative construction and verdict determination. The paper also identifies core eyewitness reforms that could aid avert the recurrence of the legal problems identified. Some of the recommendations entail involving blind administrators and the inclusion of confidence statements

Read More

This claim was marred with inconsistency as the witness affirmed that he did not pay critical attention during the alleged sighting. Also, he claimed not to have a suitable look at the driver. David's original elucidation of the driver was shallow and did not align with the defendant's looks. However, his narrative shifted in the course of police proceedings, notably after the witnesses underwent a hypnosis process. Irrespective of the numerous questionable aspects of the case, the jury determined the defendant as guilty of second-degree murder, leading to his conviction in 1992 and sentencing to 17 years in prison devoid of parole.

Acquittal Process in Robert’s Case

After eight years in prison, an appeal for Robert's case was spearheaded by Innocence Canada. The advocacy firm established numerous inconsistencies in Robert's court proceedings. First, the judge's instructions to the jury emphasized the prosecution team's content while belittling those of Robert's side. This aspect means that the judge lacked a balanced perspective in the trial process. For example, among the various commentaries of the judge to the jury was his notable omission of critical cautionary assertions regarding reliability, or lack of prosecution eyewitness testimonies (Harland-Logan, 2020). Such an omitted clarification could have influenced the jury's overreliance on the evidence despite the inconsistencies. Innocence Canada contended that eyewitness evidence presented after hypnosis procedures should not have been incorporated as numerous controversies characterize hypnosis as a technique with the interrogative process. These issues were presented to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which agreed that the entire trial process was unfair. He was acquitted after eight years in jail.

Statement of Core Concepts

Factors that influenced the wrongful conviction include juror bias, admissibility of evidence from controversial hypnosis, and false witnessing (Harland-Logan, 2020). The judge's conduct influenced juror bias. The judge was also biased against the case presented by Robert's defense team. Thus, it is essential to explore the identified factors in the case. The story theoretical model can be applied to show how the jury arrived at the wrongful decision against Robert.

Story Model

The story model explains how jurors arrive at various decisions. The theory is ingrained in the primary assumption that a juror organizes the evidence presented in narrative forms. It entails three core steps, narrative construction, identifying verdict alternatives, and providing a verdict (Willmott et al., 2018). The story philosophy contends that the narrative established by jurors influences their eventual decisions. It is essential to explore the ins and outs of the story model and link them to Robert's case for better comprehension of the wrongful conviction.

During the trial course, jurors participate in constructive comprehension processes to rationalize various information being presented and structure it coherently. The story model stresses that the psychological process emerges as comprehension is fundamentally a productive aspect, even in simple discourses. Such model claims are evident in contexts of fair trial where evidence provided can be broad. Again, the story model is applicable in trial processes as the proof presentation is often presented in disconnected questions and answer formats as varying witness account for unpredictable aspects of an event. The subsets of information provided by witnesses, such as individual statements, are often inter-reliant in their probative impact on eventual juror decisions (Willmott et al., 2018). This means that the connotation of a single statement cannot be evaluated in isolation as it relies on the denotations of various other explanations.

Jurors’ story structure relies on three forms of knowledge. One, case-oriented and involves testimonies of witnesses. The second type entails knowledge regarding comparable incidences, such as a similar offense in jurors' communities. Read More