Police Issues

Thought-provoking essays on crime, justice and policing
 

     Home           About           Index           Links          For educators          Contact          Novel

  < More recent                  Wrongful Conviction 2024                   Prior years >     

Posted 11/3/24

A MATTER OF FACTS

Did flawed science place an innocent man on death row?

     For Police Issues by Julius (Jay) Wachtel. Advocates of the wrongfully convicted have many compelling stories to tell. Few are more intriguing than the current imbroglio over Texas inmate Robert Roberson, who’s been imprisoned for over two decades awaiting execution for murdering his two-year old daughter, Nikki. Convicted of capital murder in 2003, he’s repeatedly dodged meeting his Maker – most recently, through a last-minute stay granted by the Texas Supreme Court. It was issued about one hour before his most recent death warrant was set to expire. Along the way, Roberson has gained a mountain of support, and not just from advocacy groups. Legislators and even a former police detective have joined his cause.

     How did it all come to be?

     For the “facts” let’s turn to the June, 2007 Texas Supreme Court decision that affirmed Roberson’s conviction. Its detailed account reveals that at the time of his child’s death, Roberson was living with a lady friend, Teddie Cox, and her young teen daughter Rachel. Nikki, whom Roberson had fathered with a former girlfriend, was then being cared for by her maternal grandparents. Teddie Cox testified that at her urging Roberson took custody of Nikki, and she came to live with them in November 2001. But he proved disinterested as a father. He also “had a bad temper” and often yelled at, struck and shook the child.

Click here for the complete collection of wrongful conviction essays

     Nikki was temporarily staying with her grandparents in January, 2002, when Teddie Cox was hospitalized for health issues. On January 30, 2002, as Ms. Cox readied to leave the hospital, she had Roberson bring Nikki home. He was displeased. And the next morning, when she called to be picked up, Roberson said that the child was unresponsive. Nikki supposedly fell from bed the previous evening. He had returned her to bed and went back to sleep. But when he awoke she wasn’t breathing.

     Roberson brought the child to the hospital. She couldn’t be revived. According to the E.R. nurse, Nikki’s body was extensively bruised, far more than would have been caused by falling from bed. Fearing that the child had been severely abused, she had her staff call the Palestine Police Dept. They arrested Roberson for murder the very next day, February 1st. And one day after that, an autopsy – it was attested to by seven physicians –  reported that the child’s body evidenced “abrasions of face and extremities,” “contusions of head, lip, and left shoulder,” and subdural bleeding near the brain. Nikki, it concluded, died from a homicide caused by “blunt force head injuries.”

     According to the Justices, medical testimony about the child’s injuries and witness accounts of her past abuse conclusively pointed to Robinson’s guilt. Curiously, “shaking” wasn’t mentioned in their decision. But at Robinson’s trial expert witnesses called by the prosecution had indeed made extensive reference to both “shaken baby syndrome” and “shaken impact syndrome.”

     Between 1992 and 2024, courts around the U.S. tossed thirty-four convictions (including nineteen for murder) that were supposedly based on shaken baby syndrome. “SBS” has clearly fallen on hard times, and challenging it became a mini-industry. But with apologies to Jerry Lee Lewis, there was always a lot more than “shaking” going on. To address the misconception that “SBS” means shaking and nothing but, in 2009 the American Academy of Pediatrics renamed it and its fellow syndromes “Abusive Head Trauma” (AHT).

     Alas, the Academy’s attempt to clarify things failed to take hold with the criminal justice system. So in 2020 it published a formal paper re-emphasizing that “shaking” syndromes had always incorporated “multiple mechanisms” of injury. Such as the purposeful blows to the body and head that Nikki’s autopsy declared caused her death:

Legal challenges to the term ‘shaken baby syndrome’ can distract from the more important questions of accountability of the perpetrator and/or the safety of the victim. The pediatric practitioner should be prepared to use the term ‘abusive head trauma’ rather than a term that implies a single injury mechanism, such as shaken baby syndrome, in their diagnosis and medical communications.

     Judging by this case, the Academy’s re-do had little effect. As rounds of appeals forestalled Mr. Roberson’s execution, he accumulated champions in the unlikeliest places. Say, the police. Former Palestine police officer Brian Wharton, the lead detective in the case, now deeply regrets his involvement. Mr. Wharton – he left policing mid-career to become a Methodist pastor – authored a detailed op-ed last May that attributed his supposedly mistaken belief in Mr. Roberson’s guilt to the flawed “science” of shaken baby syndrome:

…I have come to believe that Nikki died of accidental and natural causes. I am convinced that she was not murdered. Roberson is innocent. There was no crime. I believe this because the science that was used to obtain Roberson’s arrest and conviction has changed drastically since his arrest….

     “Junk science” has proven to be a splendid foundation for claims that Mr. Roberson wasn’t simply overcharged: he’s in fact innocent. Citing a decade-old Texas law that allows challenges to convictions

     Naturally, Mr. Roberson was subpoenaed to testify. Since his appearance was scheduled for October 21, 2024, four days after the scheduled execution, a court granted him the “last minute stay” mentioned at the start of this piece. Alas, Mr. Roberson didn’t show. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (he’s  definitely not on the condemned man’s team) nixed the condemned man’s personal presence. And his testimony by video was ruled out by the committee, which cited Mr. Roberson’s autism and inability to use modern technology.

     Still, the hubbub forced the State to seek a new execution date (it remains up in the air.) Meanwhile the hearing did take place, sans Mr. Roberson. Co-chair Rep. Jeff Leach opened the proceedings by calling Mr. Roberson “fully innocent.” In his view, the Committee’s purpose was “…to find the truth. To figure out where the system went wrong, where it failed Nikki and where it failed Mr. Roberson.” And there were witnesses. Say, psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw. According to “Dr. Phil,” Roberson never got due process. “I don’t think he’s had a fair trial and I think he should.” In his view, the child’s death was caused by pre-existing illnesses and the effects of drugs prescribed by the hospital. Traumatic brain injuries caused by physical abuse “were not present in this case.” Taking direct aim at the syndrome that ostensibly condemned an innocent man, another witness, a lawyer, roundly criticized the “outdated, unverified, unreliable science that was presented to the jury as fact.”

     Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is definitely not on board with Mr. Robinson’s defenders. His vigorous objection to delaying the execution (“Office of the Attorney General Sets the Record Straight About Nikki Curtis’s Death, Rebutting Jeff Leach’s and Joe Moody’s Lies About Convicted Child Murderer”) offers extensive details about the pummeling and physical abuse that Robinson allegedly inflicted on Nikki. Paxton also mentions that according to a cellmate, Roberson also admitted sexually abusing his child. “Syndromes,” the A.G. insists, were immaterial to the verdict:

Despite these eleventh-hour, one-sided, extra-judicial stunts that attempt to obscure the facts and rewrite his past, the truth remains: Robert Roberson murdered two-year-old Nikki by beating her so brutally that she ultimately died. The jury did not convict Roberson on the basis of “Shaken Baby Syndrome.” The “junk science” objection that has been used as a pretext to interfere with the proceedings has no basis in reality.

What’s more, the testimony had also revealed that Nikki wasn’t Roberson’s only victim:

The jury also heard that Roberson, who had over a dozen prior arrests, had strangled his ex-wife with a coat hanger, punched her in the face and broke her nose while she was pregnant, and beat her with a fireplace shovel.

     Yet the most consequential decisions in this case weren’t made by lawyers, experts or jurors. They were made by an E.R. nurse who didn’t buy the “fall from bed” story and called the cops. And by the officers who showed up. Even if they didn’t know Roberson (unlikely, given the A.G.’s “dozen arrests” remark) a record check would have quickly labeled the father as a potential no-goodnik and placed his words into question. Here is Roberson’s criminal conviction record from Texas DPS:

Be sure to check out our homepage and sign up for our newsletter

     In “Switching Sides” we related the tale of Marcellus Williams, who was recently executed in Missouri for a fatal stabbing. While we, too, have long opposed the death penalty, “facts” do matter, and those that were arrayed against Mr. Williams – and Mr. Roberson – seem, well, overwhelming. Yet in both instances, advocacy groups came to insist that these men weren’t simply deserving of life: they were truly innocent. That certitude, and what’s followed, has placed a lot more than the defendants’ reputations at stake. And if (as we believe) the Innocence Project again got it wrong, they also have victims. Here is an extract from a recent letter sent by Nikki’s maternal side of the family to the Texas House committee that held the hearing:

…in a last-ditch effort, some Members of your committee are proclaiming his innocence, and you have held hearings in an attempt to halt Roberson’s execution. Lost in this parade of people who are overeager to proclaim the innocence of a man found guilty by a jury of his peers, are the facts about Nikki Curtis’ murder and the voice of those who knew him best and who witnessed the repeated abuse by Mr. Roberson – Nikki’s family.

     Enough said.

Did you enjoy this post?  Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index!

Home   Top   Permalink     Print/Save     Feedback     

RELATED POSTS

Switching Sides     Tookie’s Fate is the Wrong Debate     A Very Rightful Conviction

SWITCHING SIDES

St. Louis’ D.A. argues that a man condemned
on his predecessor’s watch is in fact innocent

     For Police Issues by Julius (Jay) Wachtel. As its “time left until execution” clock relentlessly counts down, The Innocence Project warns that the State of Missouri intends to murder an innocent man:

DNA evidence proves Marcellus Williams is innocent and the prosecuting attorney seeks to vacate his wrongful conviction, yet Missouri has scheduled his execution for Sept. 24.

     It’s not just about the death penalty. (We, too, have come out against it.) It’s about what actually took place on that fateful Tuesday, twenty-six years ago. That’s when Mr. Williams, a multi-convicted felon allegedly on the prowl for things to steal, reportedly broke into the residence of Felicia Gayle, a total stranger, stabbed her to death, and absconded with her laptop computer.

Click here for the complete collection of wrongful conviction essays

     In June 2001 a St. Louis jury convicted Mr. Williams of murder and recommended he be sentenced to death. And that’s the penalty the judge imposed. But as execution neared, things drastically changed. In a January 2024 motion, St. Louis County D.A. Wesley Bell – the chief prosecutor, mind you – filed a  detailed, 63-page motion arguing that a man convicted during his predecessor’s watch was in fact innocent. Here’s an outtake:

DNA evidence supporting a conclusion that Mr. Williams was not the individual who stabbed Ms. Gayle has never been considered by a court. This never-before-considered evidence, when paired with the relative paucity of other, credible evidence supporting guilt, as well as additional considerations of ineffective assistance of counsel and racial discrimination in jury selection, casts inexorable doubt on Mr. Williams’s conviction and sentence.

     When an objection comes from that side of the tracks, one can’t help but take notice. And as we pored through the competing accounts, the complexities were staggering. Here are (admittedly, incomplete) summaries of (1) the evidence at trial, (2) a disparaging assessment of the prosecution’s case by Mr. Williams’ advocates, including the current D.A., and (3) a retort by the Missouri Attorney General, who strongly opposes a re-do.

TRIAL EVIDENCE

     During the evening hours of August 11, 1998, the husband of Felicia Gayle returned to their residence in University City, a St. Louis suburb. Dr. Daniel Picus found his wife’s body at the bottom of the stairs, a kitchen knife embedded in her neck. She had been stabbed forty-three times.

     Nine months later Marcellus Williams, a prolific felon who was serving a twenty-year term for robbery, told cellmate Henry Cole that he was the one who had murdered Ms. Gayle. Upon his release in June, 1999, Mr. Cole – perhaps motivated by the $10,000 reward offered by Dr. Picus – informed police. His account supposedly included details that hadn’t been publicly released.

     Police subsequently interviewed Mr. Williams’ girlfriend, Laura Asaro, a reported sex worker. After initially denying any knowledge of the killing, she changed her tune. Ms. Asaro said that her boyfriend showed up with a badly scratched, bloodied neck. There was a strange laptop in his car, and a purse with the victim’s I.D. was in the trunk. Mr. Williams described the killing in grisly detail. He also warned her to tell no one.

     Mr. Williams soon told his girlfriend that he sold the laptop to Glenn Roberts. When contacted by police, Mr. Roberts had the machine, and authorities confirmed that it belonged to the victim’s husband. According to Mr. Roberts, Mr. Williams said that it had been his girlfriend’s, and that he was selling it on her behalf.

     As one would expect, Mr. Williams appealed his conviction. Since it was a death penalty case, final say rested with the State Supreme Court. And on January 14, 2003, the Justices affirmed the verdict and the penalty. Here’s their concluding paragraph:

Finally, this Court concludes that the death sentence in this case is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering the crime, the strength of the evidence, and the defendant. Williams confessed to the murder. The crime involved a vicious attack during a burglary. Williams has a lengthy and violent criminal record. The sentence is not disproportionate…All concur.

REPUDIATION BY DEFENSE

     Mr. Williams’ defenders felt that physical evidence was abundant, and it all pointed away from Mr. Williams. Arguing that DNA effectively ruled out Mr. Williams as the perpetrator, his defenders embarked on a decades-long set of legal moves, including a pair of (unsuccessful) appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court (click here and scroll down to “Facts and Procedural History”.)

     While all this maneuvering repeatedly managed to put off Mr. Williams’ execution, claims that DNA excluded him as the killer were contradicted by the findings of a “Special Master” appointed by the State Supreme Court. Ultimately the St. Louis County D.A. – its office was already on board – turned to an alternative method: a “Motion to Vacate”. Here’s an outtake:

Mr. Williams was excluded as the source of the footprints, Mr. Williams was excluded by microscopy as the source of the hairs found near Ms. Gayle’s body (which did not match Ms. Gayle or her husband, the home’s only residents, and thus were presumably the perpetrator’s), and Mr. Williams was not found to be the source of the fingerprints. Now, three DNA experts have reviewed the DNA testing performed on the knife and each has independently concluded that Mr. Williams is excluded as the source of the male DNA on the handle of the murder weapon.

     And it wasn’t just physical evidence. Ms. Asaro was labeled as profoundly untrustworthy. She had outstanding warrants and was likely motivated by that $10,000 reward. And, just like Mr. Williams told its buyer, the laptop came from her. Indeed, several witnesses now said that Ms. Asaro had tried to sell the machine. What’s more, her account of what Mr. Williams supposedly said about the crime substantially changed over time (at trial, she attributed any inconsistencies to her drug use.)

     Henry Cole, Mr. Roberts’ cell-mate and himself a repeat offender, was characterized as a notorious liar who was trying to lessen his punishment and, as well, grab a chunk of the reward. While the pair shared a cell, Mr. Cole reportedly sent his son a message to the effect that “something big” (meaning, a crime) was “in the works.” Was it Mr. Cole all along?

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S RETORT

     To prepare for hearings on the motion to vacate, the State A.G. unleashed a flurry of re-investigation. Its findings are summarized in two press releases (click here and here.)

     Most importantly, the knife. From recovery through trial it was extensively handled by multiple persons. And no, they weren’t wearing gloves. According to a new lab report, knife DNA “is consistent with a mixture of at least two individuals.” But the profile is incomplete, so “no conclusions can be made.” Bottom line: no one can be excluded as a possessor. As for body hairs, Ms. Gayle “cannot be excluded” as a contributor. That, too, is the most that analysts could say. And as for the truthfulness of the State’s witnesses, the A.G.’s detailed retort highlighted a host of corroboration.

     Indeed, the A.G.’s blowback was so compelling that it apparently drove the D.A. (remember, he was on the defense team) to re-assess things. Instead of relying on a “Motion to Vacate”, he had Mr. Williams plead “no contest” to the murder charge in exchange for a sentence of life without parole. On August 21st. a Circuit Court judge issued a “Consent Order and Judgment” that endorsed the move.

     Job done!

     Not so fast, said the A.G. Turning to the State Supreme Court, he quickly secured an order reinstating Mr. Williams’ first-degree murder conviction and death sentence pending a hearing on that “Motion to Vacate”.

     A (paid) search of Missouri’s MACHS online criminal record system revealed that Mr. Williams (his birth year was reported as 1968 or 1969) had been repeatedly arrested and convicted of felony crimes he committed in the St. Louis area. Here’s a summary:

Note that Mr. Williams’ next-to-last set of convictions, for robbery and related offenses, stemmed from an arrest, on August 31, 1998, which followed his release from a seven-year prison term for burglary and stealing. That arrest took place only twenty days after the murder of Felicia Gayle.

     In its 2003 ruling affirming Mr. Williams’ conviction, the Missouri Supreme Court pointed out that when it comes to imposing a death sentence, the defendant’s “character” and criminal history are justifiably “central issues.” Mr. Williams’ criminal record indicates that he spent most of his adulthood committing (and being penalized for committing) serious crimes. That his behavior ultimately doomed him seems hardly surprising.

      What does seem extraordinary, though, is that despite an accused’s sordid past, and a seeming abundance of damning evidence, a prosecutorial office would “switch sides”, and particularly in a grisly murder case. While we also oppose the death penalty, our (hopefully, objective) assessment of the evidence leads us to agree with the police, the original prosecutor, the jury, and the state Supreme Court. Mr. Williams was the killer.

     Still, as your writer discovered during his career as a Fed, stoking the fires of innocence can affect any  case where the proof depends, even in part, on the accounts of marginal, possibly self-interested players. But the strength of this case suggests that something beyond mere “facts” drove St. Louis County’s new D.A., Wesley Bell, to seek Mr. Williams’ exoneration. Elected in 2015 to the Ferguson City Council, Mr. Bell promised to help reform a system that ostensibly set the stage for the 2014 police killing of Michael Brown. Three years later, Mr. Bell’s avowed intention “to change a system that he argues sends too many minority suspects to prison and causes too many people to ‘lose jobs, home and custody of their children’” helped him oust Robert McCulloch, St. Louis’ long-serving D.A. (like Mr. Bell, he was also “Blue”, but perhaps insufficiently so.)

Be sure to check out our homepage and sign up for our newsletter

     Mr. Bell’s official website touts him as “a vocal leader in criminal justice and court reform, including being the first prosecutor to advocate for the recall of thousands of non-violent municipal warrants.” Being D.A., though, isn’t Mr. Bell’s final move. He’s now running for Congress. Could it be that the ambitious politician’s ideological inclinations – and their past success in stirring up votes – might have influenced his championing of Mr. Williams?

     Two days ago, Circuit Court Judge Bruce Hilton held the presumably last and final hearing on that re-born “motion to vacate”. After sitting through a six-hour rehash of the arguments, pro- and con-, he has two weeks to decide whether the judgment of guilt should stand. What’s his yardstick? Here’s an extract from Missouri law:

The court shall grant the motion of the prosecuting or circuit attorney to vacate or set aside the judgment where the court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence or constitutional error at the original trial or plea that undermines the confidence in the judgment...the court shall take into consideration the evidence presented at the original trial or plea; the evidence presented at any direct appeal or post-conviction proceedings…and the information and evidence presented at the hearing on the motion.

And that’s where things presently sit. Ergo, the ticking clock.

UPDATES (scroll)

Did you enjoy this post?  Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index!

Home   Top   Permalink     Print/Save     Feedback     

RELATED POSTS

A Matter of Facts     De-Prosecution? What’s That?    A Broken “System”

Tookie’s Fate is the Wrong Debate     A Very Rightful Conviction

WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME, WRONG COP

Recent exonerees set soul-wrenching records for length of wrongful imprisonment

     For Police Issues by Julius (Jay) Wachtel. “There never really was any real evidence. Just being a Black kid in the wrong place at the wrong time.” That’s how lawyer John Coyle explained how his client, Mr. Glynn Simmons, came to be wrongfully convicted for murdering an employee and wounding a customer during the December 30, 1974 armed robbery of an Edmond, Oklahoma liquor store. Mr. Simmons, a 22-year old resident of Louisiana, and his alleged crime partner, Don Roberts, a 21-year old who lived in Texas, were charged with the crime two months later. Their arrest was based on their identification by a customer who viewed them during a live lineup. Belinda Brown, then 18, had been shopping for tequila and was wounded during the holdup.

     Mr. Simmons and Mr. Roberts wound up in that lineup in a most unorthodox way. Robberies had beset Edmond. Several weeks after the liquor store holdup police obtained a confession from a local man to two other robbery-murders. He and his brother, whom police suspected of being a helpmate, had recently attended a party in Oklahoma City, and officers sought to identify everyone present. It so happened that the get-together took place at the residence of Mr. Simmons’ aunt, who lived in Oklahoma. Mr. Simmons, who had recently relocated from Louisiana, was there. So was Mr. Roberts, with whom Mr. Simmons was then unacquainted.

Click here for the complete collection of wrongful conviction essays

     There were actually two witnesses to the liquor store robbery: Ms. Brown and an employee who came through unscathed. At first, neither offered much promise. Ms. Brown complained that “...if I waited much longer” she wouldn't be able to remember the robbers’ faces because “it would get all jumbled up in my mind and it wouldn't be the same.” And the employee said that she froze on the robbers’ guns and would be unable to recognize their faces.

     More than a month later police staged eight live lineups of persons who attended the party. According to a police report that was withheld from the defense, Ms. Brown identified six persons, including Mr. Simmons, Mr. Roberts, and the recently confessed murderer, as being the (two) perpetrators. Ms. Brown conceded she was uncertain and said that she “wanted to think about the identification ‘overnight’.”

     No matter. By the June, 1975 trial date Ms. Brown had become certain that Mr. Simmons and Mr. Roberts were the bandits. Although her original description of Mr. Simmons as large and corpulent was way off (he's a small man), she confidently identified both defendants in court.

     Mr. Simmons’ primary defense was the testimony of four Louisiana-based friends who confirmed that he was still living there when the Edmond robbery took place. But two other friends weren't called, and affidavits from five others never came into play. (Mr. Simmons’ lawyer was disbarred years later for poor performance, although apparently not over this case.) Indeed, Ms. Brown's identification constituted the sole evidence of the defendants’ guilt. But she must have impressed jurors, as it took them only a bit over two hours to convict Mr. Simmons and Mr. Roberts. That shocked the prosecutor. He later conceded being troubled by the manner in which they were identified:  “…quite candidly, it was one of the few cases I have been involved in that the verdict a week later could easily have been different.”

     But it wasn’t. Mr. Simmons and Mr. Roberts wound up on death row. Fortunately, a state supreme court ruling about the death penalty reduced their punishment to life without parole. Don Roberts was paroled in 2008 after serving 33 years. Mr. Simmons, though, remained behind bars. Ultimately it was that secret, damning police report that made the difference. And, as well, the implication, backed by a comparison of gun calibers, that the man who confessed to the robbery-murders and his brother were the real culprits.

     In April, 2023 the Oklahoma County D.A. petitioned for Mr. Simmons’ release over a “Brady” violation, meaning the State’s failure to reveal exculpatory information. On July 23, 2023, after serving “forty eight-years, one month and 18 days,” Mr. Simmons was released on bond. And in December a judge ruled that there was “clear and convincing evidence” of Mr. Simmons’ innocence and absolved him altogether. Want more? “A State of Denial,” the September 13, 2021 episode of Investigation Discovery’s “Reasonable Doubt” reality-TV series, is about this case.

      “On behalf of the criminal justice system, and I’m sure this means very little to you, I’m going to apologize.” On November 25, 2019, thirty-six years after their imprisonment for shooting and killing a 14-year old boy, Alfred Chestnut, Andrew Stewart and Ransom Watkins were declared innocent and freed.  Judge Charles Peters’ move was hardly controversial. After all, it had been sought by Baltimore's chief prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, who agreed with innocence project attorneys that the case had been deeply flawed from the start:

I’m sorry. The system failed them. They should have never had to see the inside of a jail cell. We will do everything in our power not only to release them, but to support them as they re-acclimate into society.

     Just how that “failure” came to be involved two chronic causes of wrongful conviction: police pressure on eyewitnesses, and, as in the case of Glynn Simmons and Don Roberts, the withholding of key evidence. It’s not that police had little to go on. After all, the killing, whose objective was supposedly to steal the wearer's desirable Georgetown University jacket, took place during class hours. And the three defendants – they were then sixteen, and each was a former student – happened to be at the school visiting. What’s more, when approached by police, Chestnut was wearing just such a jacket.

     But Chestnut and his friends denied any involvement. As for the jacket, the youth claimed it had been  a gift (his mother later confirmed it with sales receipts). A school security guard also said that, before the killing took place, he escorted the three visitors outside and locked the door. But the focus on them persisted. On two successive days police showed a photo lineup to two of three boys who had been walking with the victim. (One wasn't there when the killer approached, and the other two ran off when he drew his gun.) None identified any of the three. But one did pick out another youth, 18-year old Michael Willis, whom the security guard observed across the street after the killing.

     Still, Chestnut, Stewart and Watkins remained very much in the cross-hairs. We know nothing about their reputation, nor why they had switched to a different school. Their behavior, though, did get them kicked out on that fateful day. And there was that jacket. Officers soon struck gold. A fourth student said that she saw the shooting take place and identified the three from the lineup. And when the original set of witnesses was brought back for a third go-around, they confirmed it. What's more, the youth who picked out Michael Willis said he only did so because Willis was “from the neighborhood.” Case solved!

     At trial a defense investigator testified that two of the prosecution's witnesses told him that the accused was not involved. Another reportedly claimed that he was told not to speak with the defense. Defense lawyers also brought in three students whose accounts contradicted the prosecution's version of events. One said that he saw two other boys try to take the victim's jacket. But Michael Willis, whom authorities now believe was the killer, was unmolested. And after accumulating a substantial arrest record, he was himself murdered in 2002.

     Why did “the system” fail Glynn Simmons, Don Roberts, Alfred Chestnut, Andrew Stewart and Ransom Watkins? And, as our “Wrongful Conviction” essays have reported, so many others? Let’s self-plagiarize from “Damn the Evidence - Full Speed Ahead!”:

When serious crimes aren’t promptly resolved, pressures mount from within and outside the ranks, to say nothing about forces within oneself. That’s when “confirmation bias,” the natural tendency to “interpret events in a way that affirms one’s predilections and beliefs” rears its ugly head. Should detectives fall prey, they may accept “evidence” that might otherwise seem sketchy or implausible (“House of Cards” and “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”). And as our guardians rush along, pressuring witnesses and turning “no” and “maybe” into “yes”, what’s inconsistent gets disputed or is simply ignored (“Can We Outlaw Wrongful Convictions II”). Indeed, that’s how a “house of cards” gets built (“The Ten Deadly Sins”).

     Eyewitness identification – that is, mis-identification – was a key factor in both cases. In past decades, “separating the wheat from the chaff” was, even more so than today, a matter of all-too-fallible human judgment. Thirty-plus years ago DNA was “in its infancy.” And there were no video cameras recording everyday life. Assessing the accuracy of citizen observations was wholly left to the cops. Naturally, detectives are under pressure to solve crimes, and especially crimes of violence. Sometimes, though, there are several potential evil-doers. Stir in that nasty, all-too-human predilection for “confirmation bias,” and it really does create “A Recipe For Disaster”.

      We can’t get into the heads of the officers whose misfires cost innocent men decades in prison. But journalists who dug deeply into the second example claim that Baltimore's detectives had fomented a deviant, reckless subculture that relied on coercion and intimidation to get witnesses to go along. Still, what shapes the initial decision to pick on, say, Jack instead of Bob? In our experience “on the street,” such choices are often influenced by suspects’ criminal records. Alas, what we've read about these cases doesn't mention whether the innocents had previously tangled with the law. And it gets trickier. Consider the first case. Edmond's cops had recently corralled an admitted armed robber. He and his brother are now believed to have committed the liquor store murder. Why weren't they targeted from the very start? Could it be because eyewitnesses didn't pick them out?

Be sure to check out our homepage and sign up for our newsletter

     Detectives often face complexities. After all, that’s what “detecting” is all about. Alas, when they encounter a “whodunit”,  the pressures of the job - after all, they do have other cases - can provoke a move to simplify things. Yet all kinds of policing are complex. Consider the ambiguities and lack of  compliance that patrol officers encounter every hour of every day. What's the solution? quality policing, meaning a craftsmanlike approach to the job. It’s definitely not (and must not be) about “making numbers”. That can generate disasters such as wrongful convictions. Or, turning to other demanding occupations, cause airplane parts to fly off mid-air. Here’s what a retired Boeing engineer said about the recent 737 Max-9 imbroglio:

…I would argue that the most like scenario is that the employees felt rushed, and employees were feeling rushed because the corporation is pressuring the factories to produce these planes and pump them out the door.

Alas, productivity is often relied on, in policing and elsewhere, to evaluate performance. Want to read more about the influence of the “numbers game” on policing? Download “Production and Craftsmanship in Police Narcotics Enforcement”. And let us know what you think!

UPDATES (scroll)

Did you enjoy this post?  Be sure to explore the homepage and topical index!

Home   Top   Permalink     Print/Save     Feedback     

RELATED ARTICLES

Production and Craftsmanship in Police Narcotics Enforcement

RELATED POSTS

Craft of Policing special topic

“Numbers” Rule - Everywhere     Damn the Evidence - Full Speed Ahead!   A Recipe For Disaster

Guilty Until Proven Innocent     House of Cards     Can We Outlaw Wrongful Convictions II

The Ten Deadly Sins

  < More recent                                                                             Prior years >