JD Jungle What was the inspiration for the Innocence Project? Was there a moment?
BARRY SCHECK My colleague Peter Neufeld and I were asked by a public defender's office to re-investigate a case in 1987 about a man everybody believed had been wrongfully convicted. We tried to do DNA testing, which was just beginning then, but there wasn't enough sample to get a result. We were able to prove with the help of law students that this individual, Marion Coakley, was innocent, by other evidence. But we knew from the beginning that DNA testing would be incredibly important to the criminal justice system, not only to identify the guilty but to protect the innocent. We also knew that this form of testing would demonstrate that a lot of people had been wrongfully convicted, but we never suspected that it would be so many. Once you've been involved in a case where somebody has been proven innocent, it's hard to give up doing it again and again. There is no higher purpose or calling in the practice of law.
JD How many innocent people have been saved from the death penalty, and why do so many wind up on death row in the first place?
BS Right now there are 123 people nationwide who have been exonerated because of DNA tests performed after a conviction. Twelve of these individuals had been sentenced to death when post-conviction DNA tests proved their innocence. Their sentences were vacated and the charges were dismissed.
JD So the death penalty is unfair simply in the way it's imposed?
BS Absolutely, and the problem is revealed in ways other than wrongful convictions. There is a larger problem identified by professors Jim Liebman and Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University: erroneous guilt and sentencing. They have shown that some 68 percent of death verdicts are subsequently reversed by state appellate courts or federal courts due to serious error. And they have shown that when reversed cases were sent back down for re-litigation, 82 percent of individuals were not sentenced to death the second time around, and 9 percent were adjudicated not to have committed the crimes at all. So the inefficiencies in the current system go beyond its unreliability in making guilty or innocent determinations. It's also highly inefficient in making the refined judgments necessary under our Constitution to decide who will live or die among those classes of people who did commit the crime.
JD Does the Innocence Project take just any case, or is there a selection process in order to ensure the group lives up to its name?
BS The Innocence Project at Cardozo Law School only takes cases where a DNA test can raise a reasonable probability that the individual did not commit the crime. So we have to find biological evidence that is probative and is subject to a DNA test. We now have 35 other innocence projects at law schools or journalism schools all around the country and most of those will take cases that involve non-DNA evidence. In other words, they will do a complete re-investigation of a case on the belief that the individual is innocent and look at other things besides DNA—this magic bullet that will prove them innocent. That's a much harder and more labor-intensive undertaking.
JD Fingerprinting was introduced a century ago as the ultimate crime fighting tool; now we know it's not foolproof. Does DNA have room for error?
BS Absolutely. No question. Recently the DNA lab in Houston was called on the carpet. The City of Houston called for an audit because of problems in the way the testing and documentation were performed at that laboratory. We don't know if this will lead to evidence that there were wrongful inclusions or exclusions. But we do know that there are serious questions that the work wasn't done properly. DNA is foolproof, the old adage goes, but any fool can do it. Like any kind of scientific test, if it's not properly administered, there will be a problem.
JD Is the main problem with DNA testing the problem of fraud among the testers?
JD Are defense lawyers blameless in all this?
BS Not at all. It wasn't too hard to expose Melnikoff if you were a sentient human being in the courtroom. In fact, Jimmy Ray Bromgard had a lawyer known as Jailhouse John Adams. He never gave an opening statement. He never hired an investigator. He didn't appeal Bromgard's conviction. Now the American Civil Liberties Union has brought a lawsuit charging the entire indigent defense system in the state of Montana with incompetence. And there are many other states where these kinds of lawsuits ought to be filed.
JD Have the death-row exonerations changed the debate?
BS The question of the death penalty in America is no longer whether one has a moral position that capital punishment is an appropriate sanction for the most heinous crimes versus a moral belief that capital punishment is not something a civilized society should inflict on anyone. Reasonable people can hold both positions. The real debate now has to do with fairness and administration, and I don't think any reasonable person can feel comfortable that our capital punishment system is being administered fairly. There are entirely too many innocent people being convicted to have any confidence in the guilt or innocence determination. Counsel for those facing the death penalty don't receive adequate funding. How can you excuse a system that allows a lawyer who slept through substantial portions of a trial? That's the Burdine case, in Texas. To have that conviction stand?
JD What specific reforms do you propose to stop wrongful convictions?
BS Here's just one example. In eyewitness identification, there is a process known as "sequential presentation of blinded examiners." If this is adopted there will be a dramatic reduction in the number of wrong identifications without any substantial reduction in the number of correct ones. The way this works is that instead of having a series of pictures or live individuals brought before a witness all at the same time, you present the pictures or the people individually. If you do that, you cut down on the number of mistaken IDs. What 20 years of sound scientific research shows us is that people will make a relative judgment. They will pick the person who most resembles the assailant. If the real perpetrator is not among those people in the photo array or lineup, then you might, by making a relative judgment, pick the wrong person. If instead, you present the people one at a time, saying, ÔIs this the person? Is this the person?', that dramatically cuts down on the number of wrong results. In addition, the person conducting the photo array or the lineup should be "blinded"—the individual shouldn't know who the suspect is. That way, the individual can't inadvertently reveal the suspect.
JD How do police and prosecutors feel when you reopen a case and an inmate turns out to be innocent?
BS All too frequently, the police and prosecutors become fixated on maintaining a conviction even when evidence points toward innocence. The reason is understandable—it's just human nature. A victim's family has been terribly wronged. They have been told by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities that this particular defendant did it. That he's a horrible person, an animal. They've been taught to hate this person and then 10 or 15 years later, they have to go back to the victim and go back to their families and say it's all not true. It's hard for people to accept.
JD I'm a student facing massive debt. I'm looking at that cushy corporate law job, but my interest might lie elsewhere. Why should I help the Innocence Project?
BS First, it's not just the Innocence Project. What about going down and helping Stephen Bright, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or Bryan Stevenson in Alabama, or any of the other heroic lawyers who are trying to do justice in this country? What about becoming a public defender or a prosecutor who's going to do good work? I don't pretend that when people have to borrow up to $150,000 to finance their education, that one can second-guess anyone for taking a corporate job. At the same time, we have to start loan-forgiveness programs for people who go into public interest. Believe me, in the long run, you become a better lawyer and a better person if you pursue the public good. As the philosophers Sly & the Family Stone noted, it can't do you no harm.
See the following articles for more information:
- 21 Major Interview Mistakes to Avoid at All Costs
- The Best Way to Prepare for a Job Search and Interviews
- How to Talk About Other Interviews in Your Interviews
- How to Answer the Tell Me About Yourself Interview Question
- How to Answer the Do You Have Any Questions for Me Interview Question
