Hello Readers,
Welcome back to the blog previously titled “The Status
of Juvenile Conviction as Adults in Arizona.”
This week, the goal was to familiarize myself with the
case I will be assisting until the beginning of March. So I sat down, read over
200 pages of Evidentiary Hearing transcripts, motions, etc. to try and figure
out what is going on with this case. And I’m sure that’s what everyone wants to
hear about: what is going on with this case?
For confidentiality reasons, I can’t disclose any
names or identifying facts, but I’ll tell you what I can, and then I’ll tell
you what my role is going forward.
In the state of Arizona, the person who I will be
referring to as John Doe was accused of murdering a stranger. And there was
some circumstantial evidence against John: he was in the same place at the same
time that the murder took place, he was armed (the victim was killed by
gunshot), and there were no witnesses to say John hadn’t committed the act. But
there was also “scientific” evidence against John.
And at the time, this was considered rock-solid
evidence. And John reacted the way many falsely accused people react when such
damaging evidence is presented: he started to believe he had done it. He saw
the evidence that seemingly directly linked him to the crime and he thought
“How can I argue with that? I must have accidentally shot this person.”
So that’s what he and his lawyer argued in court. With
such damaging “scientific” evidence, they couldn’t say he hadn’t done it. So
instead they said he had, but he had done so accidentally. He was convicted of
manslaughter and went to jail for a decade.
Years later, it came out that this “science” that had been
used was proved to be completely baseless, and cannot be used as evidence. And
with this revelation, there was finally hope.
Where are we now? The Arizona Court of Appeals has
thrown out the guilty verdict on this case, agreeing that the new findings on
this evidence would have changed the entire case. AIP’s goal is to keep this
ruling. This week, I have been familiarizing myself with the case and the
arguments being made by both sides. I have read through the most important
transcripts and motions.
Right now, I’m excited about this case. My goals for
next week are to learn more about the appellate process, as well as look into a
specific brief for the case.
Is there a group that is trying to uphold the original ruling? If so, who? Can you tell us what the "scientific evidence" was that has been rendered meaningless? I'm very curious.
ReplyDeleteYes, the prosecution is trying to uphold the original ruling. I will talk in more detail about the false evidence in my final presentation, and I hope I can answer all of your questions then. For now, however, this is all I can say about it.
DeleteThis is interesting...this idea that one would start to "believe" the evidence against them. Can you talk about that a bit more?
ReplyDeleteYes. There are three main types of false confessions: voluntary false confessions (which are usually given with little coercion, typically in attempt to protect the guilty party), compliant false confessions (which are given to stop an interrogation, and are usually given under great stress), and internalized false confessions. Internalized false confessions are when the innocent party is made to believe the evidence against them. If the evidence is seemingly indisputable, the person may begin to distort facts so they fit with the guilty narrative. In this case it was internalized as an accident(but some accused people also attribute it to dissociated states, mental breakdowns, etc). People who internalize often use language such as "may have" or "must have" because they doubt the reliability of their memory, and provide inconsistent explanations of what happened. The "scientific" evidence combined with circumstantial evidence (being armed in the same place at the same time), made it seem very possible to John that his gun could have accidentally discharged, and appeared to be the only explanation.
DeleteWow, talk about making someone feel completely disorientated.
DeleteYes! Internalized confessions are relatively rare because most people are confident in their own recollections, but human memory can be very malleable, especially when circumstances appear to leave no other explanations.
DeleteHey Rachel!! This is so interesting! How are cases "brought back up"? Does somebody have to give evidence or how does it work?
ReplyDelete