Innocent people pleading guilty is all too typical in our criminal justice system.
Judge H. Lee Sarokin, Retired federal judge:
Prison is Hell for the guilty; it is difficult to envision what it must be like for the innocent. Brian Banks is yet another story of a person not only wrongfully imprisoned, but imprisoned based upon his own "voluntary" act. He was exonerated after serving five years for a rape he did not commit. How and why do innocent people confess or plead guilty to crimes that they did not commit? Roughly 20 percent of those that have been exonerated confessed to the crimes with which they were charged and convicted. Most of those involved persons who had actually gone to trial, but we have no way of knowing how many there are who merely entered guilty pleas through bargains and never appealed as a result. Although we hear and read about criminal trials, the reality is that only about 5 percent actually go to trial and the balance are resolved by plea agreements.
In this case Mr. Banks pleaded "no contest" or nolo contendere, a plea in which the defendant neither admits nor disputes the charges against him. In most instances, a defendant will be required to make a choice between a plea of guilty or not guilty. When pleading guilty a defendant is required to "allocate" before the judge -- admit the crime and furnish sufficient details to satisfy the court that he is indeed guilty. (One cannot help wonder how and by whom an innocent defendant is furnished with enough information about the crime to satisfy the court of his guilt.) That is not always the requirement in "no contest" pleas, and I do not know what transpired in the Banks case. If he had pled guilty he would have been required to admit the rape and testify to the details.
What apparently happened here (based upon his version) is all too typical of what happens in the criminal justice system. I call it the "Ins of Court" -- intimidation by the prosecution and incompetence by the defense. The defendant, frightened, most often poor, uneducated, a minority member is advised that a trial is likely to end with a conviction and a long sentence, whereas a plea will guarantee a much shorter sentence. Despite his protestations of innocence, the defendant seeks guidance frequently from an over-worked, underpaid defense lawyer who would much prefer a quick deal rather than a long drawn out trial. Of course, not all defense counsel fit that description. Many do not, but even the best and most devoted are required to put this draconian choice to their clients -- a guaranteed short sentence versus a potentially long one -- possibly life in prison.
The problem is further complicated by the fact that it is more difficult to set aside a guilty plea than a conviction after trial. Once a person has admitted guilt and spelled out the details of the crime sufficient for the court to accept the plea, the chances of reversing such convictions are very slight if not nil. Most do not try. Mr. Banks had the fortitude to continue his fight even after he had been paroled and was fortunate in eliciting a recantation from the complaining witness. Such instances are very rare. Thanks to the tenacity of the California Innocence Project it happened here.
The reality is that without plea bargains the entire criminal justice system would come to a halt. Charges would be tried ten years after they were made. The only solution is vigilance by all those involved. The prosecutor, defense counsel and the court must be satisfied of the defendant's guilt before urging or accepting a plea. I recognize that there is no avenue to absolute certainty because the knowledge of guilt or innocence lies with the defendant, but all involved must strive not to imprison the innocent -- even those who profess to be guilty.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/innocent-people-guilty-pleas_b_1553239.html
How to make the criminal justice system more fair.
By Fernando Bermudez:
After spending 18 years in New York prisons for a crime that I didn’t commit, it is deeply disappointing to me that New York continues to lag behind other states in protecting its citizens against wrongful convictions.
In the summer of 1991, just as I aspired to enter the medical profession, I was wrongfully convicted of a New York City murder and languished for over 18 years in maximum-security prisons. My “actual innocence” was proven in late 2009, and I was released and reunited with my wife and family. Mistaken eyewitness identification, accounting for 75% of all wrongful convictions, initiated my ordeal; police and prosecutorial misconduct, including failure to investigate key leads and admitted use of false testimony, worsened it.
Until top-flight, pro bono attorneys helped dismiss my indictment and secure a judicial apology, I existed in a small, 6 x 9 foot cell for 6,700 days. These 18 stress-laced years in prison exposed me to physical attacks by inmates and correctional staff alike, let alone mental anguish close to suicide. Prison humiliated, degraded and forced me to question my existence amid daily danger, misery and sadness. After prevailing in my eleventh, exhausting appeal, I regained my freedom. Non-DNA cases, like mine, are harder to resolve than DNA-based cases (which are hard enough). They require more investigation and overcoming complex and demanding legal hurdles. DNA only solves a small fraction of all wrongful convictions; the majority face obstacles as I did.
It is hard to believe that the New York Senate refuses to enact eyewitness identification reforms to protect the innocent. Better reforms and protections in 1991 likely would have prevented my wrongful incarceration. The teenage witnesses were exposed to a suggestive live line-up. In order to hide my height and weight - which differed from what witnesses had described - I was forced to sit, rather than stand. The identification procedures advocated by all identification experts are based on strong social science research and would never have produced such a biased procedure.
False confessions, another leading cause of wrongful convictions, can also be addressed through reform. Many other states have mandated that law enforcement record interrogations from start to finish. Recording interrogations preserves an accurate record of what transpired so that juries can gauge the reliability of the confession. New York State has a well-documented history of convicting innocent defendants due to a false confession and should not hesitate to adopt this reform.
On May 1st, the Innocence Project and I met with the Puerto Rican and Black Legislative Caucus in Albany to urge the state legislature to enact reforms that would create a better criminal justice system for all New Yorkers. We discussed the problems of eyewitness misidentification as a public safety issue because what happened to me can happen to anyone. I told the caucus that every time a wrongful conviction occurs it allows the real perpetrator to walk free. In the end, we all pledged to work together again.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/How_to_Make_the_Criminal_Justice_System_More_Fair.php#More