Posted: February 14th, 2023

Wrongful Convictions

Wrongful Convictions
Read C. Ronald Huff (2002) “Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy: The American Society of Criminology 2001 Presidential Address”

Watch The Trials of Darryl Hunt (available on YouTube)

Write a 3 to 5 page essay addressing the following questions.

Part I What are the most common case-level factors that lead to innocent people being convicted, and which of these took place in Darryl Hunt’s case (provide examples)? Did other factors (not listed) contribute to Hunt’s wrongful conviction? Include relevant examples from the video to illustrate your points.

Part II How can Packer’s concepts of the “Crime Control” and “Due Process” models of criminal justice help explain what happened in Darryl Hunt’s case? Do any of the other theoretical perspectives described by Huff help to explain Darryl Hunt’s convictions?

Part III Huff describes a number of reforms that some states have adopted regarding the problem of wrongful convictions. Describe two possible legal reforms that might have prevented Mr. Hunt’s wrongful conviction and explain why you think they might have made a difference in his case.
What causes wrongful convictions
Part I
The justice system resources are stacked against poor defendants most of the time. Some of the time, innocent people get convicted for the wrong reasons. The cases involve mistaken witness ID whereby eyewitness error plays a role in seventy-two percent of convictions overturned through DNA testing. The second case is a false confession, which about thirty percent of DNA exoneration cases. Innocent defendants make incriminating statements, outright confessions, or plead guilty, therefore ending up in trouble. The third is false forensic evidence such as hair, bite marks comparison, shoe prints, among others. The fourth is perjury, which is eighteen percent of such cases where the DNA test is overturned. The fifth case is official misconduct, where prosecutors and the other law enforcement officials focus on securing convictions and, lastly, unreliable jailhouse information testimony.
Darryl Hunt happened to be convicted twice of a murder he did not commit. After the confirmation of DNA test results proving his innocence, it took ten years of legal appeals to exonerate him. The person who was murdered was a twenty-five-year-old female who was working as an old copy editor at a local newspaper (Huff, 2002). She was raped and murdered on the outskirts of Winston-Salem, NC. She was on her way to work when she was stabbed sixteen times and found naked from the waist downwards. A man called the police and identified himself as another person called Mitchell.
The police interviewed Hunt also since he was Mitchell’s friend, but the real Mitchell denied to have called the police. The man who called told the police that he had seen the woman with Hunt before her death. Hunt’s girlfriend was arrested for larceny charges and recanted her confession to admitting that Hunt had committed that crime. On the second trial, the main eye witness and two jailhouses testified lying on Hunt again. So clearly, he was wrongfully convicted for perjury, official misconduct, and false confession. Here there was a case of unreliable jailhouse information testimony too.
Part II
The model of crime control focuses on having a system that is efficient, with one of the main functions being suppressing and controlling crime, ensuring that society is safe, and there is public order. To protect society, the model ensures that the trouble makers are not roaming free in society, but rather the individuals feel free from threats of crime. There is a severe and swift punishment for offenders. The due process model pays attention to having a just and fair criminal justice system for everybody and a system that does not infringe upon the rights of the constitution. The most important factor considered in this case is the protection of an individual’s rights and freedoms and has often been aligned with a liberal perspective.
The crime control model would best describe what exactly happened in the Darryl Hunt case. The law authorities just wanted to eliminate Hunt from the streets since he was reported to be a threat. He was presented with severe and swift punishment, which was a death sentence, and the right protocols were not followed because deeper investigations to determine if Hunt was guilty or innocent were not done. The prosecutor and other authorities only relied on the confessions made, some jus snitching. Some of the confessions were made by his fellow inmates who said that Hunt had admitted to them of being guilty. The girlfriend also changed her statement last minute, and the man who made the first call claiming to be Mitchell also made a wrongful statement, among others. Clearly, the due process was not exercised. Hunt’s rights and freedoms were not protected.
Part III
Making justice entails the current issues concerning innocence reform and wrongful convictions. They offered a potential reform that would enhance the criminal justice system and alleviate the issues of wrongful conviction. The innocence project’s police department works hand in hand with the local leaders, state legislatures, and the congress in passing laws and policies that prevent convictions that are wrongful to make it easier for the innocent to receive the justice they deserve. The innocent people stay away from wrongful arrests and convictions, the prosecutors and the police receive better tools from catching criminals, victims get the justice they deserve, and the public gets greater confidence in the system. Some of the contributors to wrongful convictions are addressed. They include misapplication of forensic science, eye witness misidentification, unreliable jailhouse information testimony, false confessions, and inadequate defense.
The two possible legal reforms that might have prevented Hunt’s wrongful conviction are included in the innocence project, which advocates for laws that ensure access to post-conviction DNA testing and evidence retention. It also advocates for laws meant to compensate people wrongfully convicted for harm experienced during incarceration. This changed the case in a major way since Hunt was given a chance of post-conviction DNA. The results matched those of a man convicted of a different crime after the DNA profile from the crime scene was run in the state database. Regarding the other reform of compensation, Hunt was given a compensation of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars and settled a federal civil rights lawsuit that was against the city of Winston-Salem, where he resided, worth one point six five million dollars.

Reference
Huff, C. R. (2002). Wrongful conviction and public policy: The American society of criminology 2001 presidential address. Criminology, 40(1), 1-18.