Brickbat: The Wrong Man

Miguel Solorio, who spent 25 years in a California prison after being convicted of a fatal drive-by shooting, was exonerated and ordered freed by a judge after the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office said it had "confidently and definitively" concluded he was wrongly convicted. Solorio was convicted, in part, by eyewitness testimony that may have been tainted by detectives showing them his photo repeatedly. Four witnesses did not initially identify him, and some even pointed out someone else. But officers continued to present his photo until some of the witnesses eventually IDed him as the suspect.

 

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

If this happened to you, would you want vengeance?

[TwilaMiller]

I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Don't look back in anger.

[rekefak227]

open to get more details…….> work salary49 com

[Chumby]

According to the linked article, the Science! has changed.

[TheaJustine]

I Am Earning $81,100 so Far this year working online and I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hours a day I’ve made such great money.I am Genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It’s’ really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about this…
I Worked Here ==> > http://Www.Smartcareer1.com

[SRG2]

I strongly doubt that there was any real science originally. The police are inordinately fond of junk science – bite marks, blood splatter, fire effects, bullet composition, etc. – that are seldom subject to true scientific scrutiny.

AFAICT the process goes like this:

A retired detective or amateur scientist hits on a new forensic technique for X. (They’re the X guy.) Not being trained in the scientific method, or not caring, they rely on their intuition rather than effective and valid testing to make their argument.

They present their idea to some police conference, and a few officers listening think, hey, that’s cool, let’s try it! They do try it in a case where they think they’ve got their man, and the X guy, knowing the result they want, confirms that they have the right man.

The X guy testifies on the stand, and between prosecution, defence, judge, and jury, none of whom have any scientific training, the technique seems plausible enough and perhaps the defence haven’t the budget to hire an expert witness to rebut.

After a couple of convictions, the method now is established in the minds of police and prosecutors – and possibly defence – as legitimate. The X guy is earning good fees and isn’t going to question his own method. And so it goes.

A while later, an actual scientist conducts research that appears to discredit the original technique, Inevitably the research findings are resisted by the prosecutors and the police, for obvious reasons, and judges themselves now accept that the scientific position is unclear – but, significantly, not dismissing X out of hand.

Eventually, however, existing cases show that the method is at best unreliable – perhaps a DNA-based acquittal where X had “shown” that the convict was guilty – and scepticism towards the method leads to case reviews, acquittals, and a loss of expert witness fees for X guy and others who had jumped on the bandwagon.

But nonetheless there will still be some poor schmucks wrongly left to rot in prison because their state or AEDPA makes it impossible for them to get released absent a pardon, and many governors won’t care enough to issue one.

[mad.casual]

So you're the "We can convict everybody, or not, based on my say so." guy? The King Solomon forensics guy! Only cutting innocent babies in half 50% of the time!

The opposite side of the changed The Science! that Chumby indicates is that people whose testimony is so fragile that it can be critically altered by showing them an unrelated picture more than once still counts as testimony.

[SRG2]

I am not the one supporting the original junk science used to justify this absurd memory technique.

I thought it was obvious from my post that, on the contrary, I oppose such scientifically untested/unvetted techniques.

[mad.casual]

I thought it was obvious from my post that, on the contrary, I oppose such scientifically untested/unvetted techniques.

OK, what is the scientifically correct number of times a witness should be allowed to view any/all photos? Can you/we hear that number from just anyone or does it have to come from a 97+% consensus of just the right combination of TOP MEN?

[SRG2]

You're in your dishonest POS mode. So fuck off.

[mad.casual]

Pray tell Oh great oracle of eye witness evidence: What exactly is the right number of glimpses of a photograph an eye witnesses may take in any situation without unduly biasing any/all testimony?

Are they allowed to see the photos at trial or do we (because we're following *your* guidance) just blindly stick with whatever decision they chose after the best-of-5 or whatever scheme you come up with?

[Adans smith]

I'm sure that method was developed by top men.

[Fist of Etiquette]

But officers continued to present his photo until some of the witnesses eventually IDed him as the suspect.

At least they went home safe... and early.

[mad.casual]

Related: Rise in Chicago murder clearance rate was bolstered by dead suspects: analysis

They only showed the eye witnesses pics of the (dead) potential suspects once so... no issue.

[Longtobefree]

Photos don't lie.

[Kristian H.]

I know this is going to be unpopular, but I often wonder about things like this. Is it truly the case that is wasn’t him, or was it a OJ framing a guilty man? That is, we have made convicting someone so onerous that short cuts are taken ‘in good faith.’

Of course, now we aren’t even trying, so the guilty aren’t even arrested, or if arrested, aren’t held. Unless you go against the narrative.

By no means do I mean to imply I want things to be be easier for the government. They should have to do things right. I just wonder if the incentives are aligned correctly, to bad men do the right thing (as opposed to good men doing the wrong thing, which seems to be the status quo).

[SRG2]

“confidently and definitively” concluded that Solorio is entitled to be released.

This doesn't sound exactly the same as "the conviction was unsound" .. Plus the initial eyewitness identification was exculpatory.

[BillyG]

If someone was ID'd by a stranger. I'd take it as evidence of innocence. That's how bad eye witness testimony is.

[mad.casual]

LOL.

"Everybody else must be more retarded than I am." - BillyG

Have you seen a lot of bad eye witnesses first hand or are you just going off of hearsay?

[SRG2]

There's an old Russian saying, "he lies like an eyewitness"

[mad.casual]

Ironic, given that the statement comes from an Englishman (Julian Barnes) who doesn’t in any way cite the original source to verify it as being Russian (rather than just a Russian quoting some other popular phrase) or otherwise providing evidence that the statement itself is correct(ly understood).

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Showing the same photo over and over until they get the answer they want? Graduates of the Janet Reno school of law enforcement.

[mad.casual]

Are we sure that we don’t have witnesses who, if shown a picture of Colonel Sanders, would indict a fried chicken?

[Chumby]

A picture is worth a thousand words. A thousand of the same picture is worth two words: wrongfully convicted.

[mad.casual]

Again, the opposite side of this coin is that people who's testimony is so shaky that showing them an unrelated picture twice critically alters their testimony.

Would you feel better if they convicted the wrong guy because they only saw the picture once?

[Chumby]

I would feel better if they did their job to prosecute and convict those that did the crime and not use questionable tactics that result in the wrong outcome.

[mad.casual]

So, to be clear, you would feel better if they did their job and prosecuted and convicted those that did the crime using unquestionable tactics that always produce the right outcome.

[Chumby]

They felt they got the right outcome originally, but they apparently didn’t.

[VinniUSMC]

Again, the opposite side of this coin is that people who’s testimony is so shaky that showing them an unrelated picture twice critically alters their testimony.

So, you don't understand how memory works? Here's a hint, it's not like a picture saved on your hard drive. Unless your hard drive happens to randomly overwrite and change bits every time it is accessed. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable because human memory is quite fallible.

You've heard of the Mandela Effect, yeah?

[MWAocdoc]

Although nothing is certain in the human world, I can confidently predict that nothing bad will happen to any of the "detectives" who intentionally convicted the wrong man; or to any other police officers or prosecutors who engage in similar misconduct in the future.

[mad.casual]

misconduct

I'm rapidly becoming aware that this forum is populated by omniscient demigods who would, apparently, fail as detectives, but the original article indicates showing the photograph multiple times wasn't forbidden at the time and, again, again, would you feel better if the guy got convicted because the officers couldn't show the eye witness the same photo twice just to be sure?

[SRG2]

Showing the photo multiple times was indeed not forbidden, but I would like to know the original scientific basis for this technique – what peer-reviewed research was conducted, who was promoting it, etc. And it may not be the cops’ position to question an “approved” method but it is assuredly the obligation of prosecutors to make proper inquiry of any new method, rather than merely take the word of an unscientific “expert”.

Federal judges are required to use a Daubert standard, though it doesn’t appear to bind the states. I’m not sure what standards apply in different states for the admissibility of expert testimony. I wouldn’t be surprised if the stronger the police unions and prosecutors’ influence in a state, the weaker the protection against junk science expert witnesses

I will not claim that having peer-reviewed research necessarily shows that a technique is legit, but it is a minimum evidentiary hurdle. Having some ex-cop and two or three DAs saying how wonderful a technique is for obtaining convictions doesn’t cut it.

[mad.casual]

LOL.

“So, I’ve got this idea where we show witnesses the picture multiple times to help clarify their vague perceptions and bolster their certainty about the criminals they saw so we don’t wind up accidentally charging people based on shaky witnesses.” – SRG1

So, without knowing what hurdle or hurdles were cleared and by whom in order to implement the technique, you’re sure everyone involved was guilty of implementing it and that the TOP MEN *you* would pick out and the techniques you personally would permit would solve the problem?

Given that the whole technique came up and was replaced entirely without you blessing everyone with your admitted ignorance, I’m dubious about your ability to avoid stupidity and corruption.

[SRG2]

More dishonest shittery from you. What I want to know is the basis for the approved method. You obviously trust the cops or whatever rando comes up with some novel technique because they're the good guys, unlike research scientists who, knowing shit and being smarter than you, are loathsome elites and so cannot be trusted.

You really are a fuckwit.

[AT]

Good. I'm glad it all worked out in the end.

Just don't blow that $1.25M all at once, yea?

[markm23]

Showing the same pictures over and over is also how detectives got Crystal Mangum to identify some members of the Duke LaCrosse team and falsely accuse them of rape. The basic sequence of events:

1. A stripper (and probably habitual criminal) goes through a very bad day in a bad life, with rough sex and getting so drunk and drugged that she is kicked out of a strip club, and at some point her _friends_ drag her nearly naked across a gravel parking lot.

2. Somehow she still gets sent to a fraternity party with another stripper. She's still too drunk & drugged to perform. They shove her out on the porch and call the police, while the other stripper entertains them.

2. Police arrive. Drunk stripper tries to talk them into taking her to the hospital instead of jail. Cops tell her that's against policy, unless she's a rape victim.

3. So habitually drunk, drugged, and criminal stripper claims she was gang raped in the bathroom. I doubt the cops believe her, but taking her to the hospital for a rape kit gets her off their hands.

4. Somehow a news station picks up the story as "white fraternity jocks rape poor black girl".

5. DA goes on camera and promises to prosecute the rapists.

6. Next morning, everyone with any experience with the bottom-feeders caught in the criminal justice system should know the drunken stripper lied, but the DA can't go back on his pledge, and she's afraid she'll be jailed if she admits she lied.

7. They bring her in and show her a photo lineup including the entire fraternity. She recognizes none of them.

8. They repeat the photo lineup many times, until finally she picks four guys at random.

9. One of those guys has an alibi - he was getting cash at an ATM, and his face is on the security video - but the DA ignores this.

10. Investigators interview the cab driver that brought the strippers to the fraternity. His log plus the police log shows there simply wasn't time for a gang rape or anything else to happen - so the DA threatens him to make him change his story.

Framing a few guys for rape if there wasn't any rape was the intention, repeatedly showing the same pictures was the means.