Innocence and the death penalty

There are many reasons which contribute to the large amount of innocent people that are sentenced to death in the U.S. It is inevitable that innocent people will continue to be sentenced to death and executed while the death penalty is in place.
Some of the reasons are:

INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL
The resources of the justice system are heavily stacked against defendants who do not have the money to hire a good defence lawyer. Many are represented by court appointed lawyers who have proven to be inexperienced, incompetent or overburdened with the responsibility of handling several cases simultaneously.

In the some cases, lawyers have:
• failed to investigate alibis
• failed to offer evidence of mitigation
• been disbarred shortly after finishing a death penalty case
• slept in the courtroom during the trial
• failed to call or consult experts on forensic issues
• failed to show up for hearings
• failed to call forth crucial witnesses

The failure of these lawyers to investigate, call witnesses or prepare for the trial has led to the conviction of innocent people being sentenced to death.

Informants/jailhouse snitches
In several cases of wrongful conviction overturned by DNA testing, an informant or jailhouse snitch testified against the defendant. Often, statements from people with incentives to testify – particularly incentives that are not disclosed to the jury – are the central evidence in convicting an innocent person. In some cases without biological evidence, the snitch testimony is the only evidence of guilt.

In some cases informants have:
• been paid to testify against the defendant
• testified in exchange for their release from prison
• testified after making a plea bargain for a lesser sentence
• testified in multiple distinct cases that they have evidence of guilt, through overhearing a confession or witnessing the
  crime.

It has been shown through DNA exonerations that informants have lied on the witness stand and given a false testimony in exchange for an incentive which can either be money or a sentence reduction if they are already in prison. For someone who wants to avoid being charged with a crime, providing a false testimony may be the only option.

----------------------------

In 2005, the Centre on Wrongful Convictions in Chicago issued a report, "The Snitch System: How Incentivized Witnesses Put 38 Innocent Americans on Death Row."

FALSE CONFESSIONS
A variety of factors can contribute to a false confession during a police interrogation. Many cases have included a combination of several factors including:
• coercion
• duress
• intoxication
• mental disability
• being told a confession is the only way to avoid a death sentence
• fear of violence/police inflicting actual harm to obtain a confession
• failure to understand the situation.

Some have given false confessions due to a variety of factors like the length of interrogation or as a result of being told that they will be released and can prove their innocence later.

Foreign nationals or those who do not speak English as a first language are not given access to an interpreter.
People with mental disabilities have often falsely confessed because they have been taught to trust people in authority. There have been documented cases of death row inmates with mental disabilities who signed confessions when they were unable to read. Furthermore, many police interrogators are not given any special training on questioning suspects with mental disabilities.

MISCONDUCT BY OFFICIALS
Some wrongful convictions are caused by honest mistakes but there is always the possibility of corruption. In some cases wrongful convictions have uncovered evidence of fraud and/or misconduct by prosecutors or police departments. Evidence has come to light that many death row exonerees’ were convicted because of official misconduct during the investigation and trial. This can also happen at various stages of the post conviction appeals process.

Examples of deliberate misconduct include:
• suspects being told they will receive a death sentence if they do not blame it on someone else
• deliberate suggestiveness in identification procedures
• withholding of evidence from the defence
• deliberately tampering with and/or destroying vital evidence
• the coercion of false confessions
• the use of unreliable government informants or snitches

UNRELIABLE WITNESSES
Eyewitness testimony can play a key part in securing a conviction. However, studies have affirmed that eyewitness identification is often inaccurate owing to current procedures which can easily be rectified.

Examples include:
• the police officer knowing who the suspect is during a line-up and intentionally or unintentionally drawing the witnesses attention to the suspect
• cases where those in the line up bared little physical resemblance to the suspect in terms of height, weight and even skin colour
• witnesses being shown a picture of the suspect beforehand which has influenced their judgement

Inaccurate scientific evidence
The use of DNA has led to the exoneration of many death row inmates and should be made available to ALL defendants as it can mean the difference between life and being murdered by the State. But under current U.S law, it is difficult to obtain post-conviction DNA testing because of strict time limits on introducing newly discovered evidence. Most states do not require preservation of evidence through the entire legal process until the accused is either released or executed.
With DNA evidence being conclusive, it is vital that scientific evidence is handled and tested correctly. Human errors have been made, both accidental and deliberate and there have been incidents where laboratory staff have falsified data and manipulated results.

DNA exonerations have revealed numerous instances of “drylabbing” evidence – reporting results when no test was actually performed. It's cheaper and faster – but fraudulent.

A two-year investigation of the Houston crime lab, completed in 2007, showed that evidence in that lab was mishandled and results were misreported. If evidence and lab tests are mishandled and not presented fairly to a jury, scientific evidence can carry a false appearance of reliability and lead to wrongful conviction.

Sources: Innocence Project  American Bar Association