Category Archives: Legal

Arts, Legal, Psychology, Research, Scotland

Remaining silent during a police interview looks like admission of guilt…

YOU have the right to remain silent in a police interview – but a jury is more likely to think you are guilty if you do, according to new research by psychologists.

Anyone who has ever watched a TV police show has probably seen suspects being read their rights, reminding them they do not have to say anything unless they want to.

But forensic psychologists suggests that keeping mum could come back to haunt them if the case goes to trial, because it raises the suspicions of a jury.

Researchers from Glasgow Caledonian University created a scenario involving written interviews with four suspects denying attempting to murder a man in a bar.

The content ranged from a suspect who simply said ‘no comment’ to each question, to one who gave short, sharp answers, while others were more forthcoming in their denial.

The researchers presented the written accounts to 34 volunteers who were asked to rate each for ‘believability’ and then say if they thought the suspect guilty or not.

The results which will be presented at the Forensic Psychology Annual Conference in Belfast showed the men who said nothing or very little were perceived to be guilty.

Those who fully answered the questions were seen to be believable – whether or not their stories were actually true – and more likely to be found not guilty.

A spokesperson for Glasgow Caledonian University, said:

… Given the instruction that defendants have the right to remain silent, it is important to understand jurors’ perceptions of a suspect’s believability based on whether they choose to comply with police during their interview.

… Compliant suspects were generally perceived to be more believable and found not guilty whereas the opposite was the case for those who refused to cooperate. This research has provided insight into how a suspect’s chosen behaviours in a police interview can influence how they are perceived in court.

Standard
Arts, Books, Legal, United States

Book Review: ‘The Innocent Man’…

INTRO…

The Innocent Man, John Grisham’s first piece of non-fiction work, is a well-researched book primarily on account of Ron Williamson, who was wrongly convicted of murder in 1998, and who spent twelve years on Oklahoma’s ‘H’ death row before advances had been made in DNA technology which eventually proved him innocent. Grisham tells a startling and disturbingly true story about America’s justice system gone terribly wrong, the deplorable and totally unacceptable living conditions on Oklahoma’s death rows, and the often sadistic guards employed to watch these inmates. Convicted, also, to the blindness of injustice was another innocent man, Dennis Fritz, although Fritz wasn’t sent to McAlester’s death row. Fritz was later released, too, once DNA was unable to support his original conviction. Throughout, Grisham offers great insight and sharp direction to the miscarriages of justice of these two men.

NON-FICTION…

THE STORY starts by telling of a promising small town high school athlete and baseball player, Ron Williamson, who signs a contract with the infamous Oakland A’s in 1971. Grisham chronicles well his festive send-off, elucidating his failure in meeting the discipline and skill level needed for the “big league”, and Williamson’s bouts with bipolar depression and schizophrenia after his release from first the A’s and later the Yankees sporting club who had, too, been interested in his sporting potential.

By 1982, Williamson, is unemployed, living back with his parents in Oklahoma, and spending most of his days sleeping on the couch. When not at home, often in the evenings and early hours, he’s wandering the neighbourhood acting “strangely” or drinking loudly in the local bars. When neighbour, Debbie Carter is brutally murdered, Ron becomes one of the “usual suspects” – but, at the exclusion of some fundamental and routine police work. Continually dogged by police harassment and provocation, Ron Williamson confesses to a crime he did not commit. Five years after the murder of Debbie Carter, Williamson is arrested for the murder.

John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction, an exploration of small town justice gone terribly awry, is his most extraordinary legal thriller yet.

John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction, an exploration of small town justice gone terribly awry, is his most extraordinary legal thriller.

The prosecution’s case against Williamson is riddled with errors. The state exercises coercion, the use of false and inappropriate witnesses, and overlooks and suppresses evidence, not to mention the defendant’s deteriorating mental state and wellbeing. Still, he is convicted on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to death.

The reader is taken on a journey of utter despair; the frightening and unhealthy living conditions of death row, and the appalling abyss by which Ron Williamson descends into deeper madness. Only after eight years in prison, and just five days away from the death chamber, does he receive notification of a retrial. Eighteen months later, after intense scrutiny and thousands of hours of labour by his pro-bono law team, he is released after DNA testing excludes him from the evidence found at the murder scene. His exoneration touched-off a frenzy of media attention.

In the small town of Ada, Oklahoma, from which Williamson had sprung, the townsfolk were always left pondering the guilt and original conviction passed upon him. It is evidently clear that after reading John Grisham’s testimonies, Ron Williamson had always been innocent. DNA aside, exculpatory evidence, which could have been used in proving innocence, was ignored because the police and state prosecutor “had their man”. So much of the evidence that should have been produced at the original trial had been excluded and, as such, Williamson had been denied a fair trial, an assumption that has always underpinned the US justice system. Williamson’s twelve years on death row was a travesty of justice, to put things mildly.

Unfortunately, Williamson was not to enjoy his freedom for long. He died of cirrhosis of the liver just five years after his release. Upon his release and newly found freedom Ron had turned heavily to drinking.

AFTERWARD…

IN his afterward, Grisham says he was unaware of the Williamson case until he read Ron’s obituary in the New York Times. Intrigued with the story, he then spent five years talking to Ron’s sisters, lawyers, fellow inmates, jailors, and neighbours, before delivering his first work of non-fiction.

The Innocent Man is a compelling and convincing account of American justice gone awry. Much similar to Sister Helen Prejean’s 1994 novel, Dead Man Walking, it makes the reader question the justice in America’s death penalty statutes. Although it tends to drag a little around mid-story, with no fictionalised suspense to hold the reader’s interest, the reversal and subsequent acquittal, and the drama surrounding it, more than make up for this lull.

Standard
Government, Legal, Scotland

Scotland: Ancient rights of Scots Law to be swept away…

CORROBORATION

One of the fundamental principles of Scots criminal law is likely to be abolished under sweeping reforms of the justice system in Scotland.

Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAkskill MSP, has published a Parliamentary Bill setting out plans to remove the requirement of corroboration, the need for two separate sources of evidence to secure a conviction in criminal cases in Scotland.

The move to scrap the medieval principle is based on a desire to improve rape conviction rates. Lack of corroboration can prevent successful prosecutions.

The Criminal Justice Bill also sets out plans to increase the number of jurors required for a guilty verdict. This would go up from a simple majority to two-thirds of jury members.

Tougher sentences for crimes committed by early release prisoners would also be introduced, and there will be a review into the controversial ‘not proven’ verdict, which Sir Walter Scott famously called the ‘bastard’ verdict.

Many in the criminal justice system, however, including police officers, judges and lawyers, believe that ending corroboration would make miscarriages of justice and unsafe convictions more likely.

Mr MacAskill said:

… I have made clear a number of times that I believe that the requirement for corroboration should be abolished as it can represent a barrier to justice.

… It is an outdated rule which can deny victims the opportunity to see those responsible for serious crimes being brought to justice. Removing the need for corroboration represents a move towards focusing on the quality of evidence rather than quantity.

The issue was a key recommendation of Lord Calloway’s 2011 review of Scots Law and practice, which called corroboration ‘an archaic rule’.

Lord Carloway said it had remained at the heart of Scotland’s criminal justice system ‘since time immemorial’ but was based on ‘medieval’ thinking which had no place in a modern legal system.

But The Law Society of Scotland has described corroboration as a ‘fundamental principle’ of the justice system, and warned that removing it could make some convictions insecure.

A statement issued by the society’s criminal law committee, said:

… We believe that removing the requirement for corroborated evidence, without including sufficiently strong safeguards in the Bill, could simply result in a contest between two competing statements on oath and, as a result, bring increased risk of miscarriages of justice.

… The requirement for corroborated evidence is not an antiquated, outmoded legal notion but is a fundamental principle of our justice system.

… It’s clear that the concerns expressed by the society and others about juries have been recognised as the Bill proposes a move to a weighted majority from a simple majority, but we don’t believe this is sufficient to remove the risks created by abolishing corroboration.

Lib Dem MP Sir Menzies Campbell, who practised as a legal advocate for many years in Scotland’s High Court, said these proposals amount to populism at its worst. Sir Menzies said that corroboration is an essential component of the presumption of innocence and a necessary bulwark against false accusation and injustice. The former leader of the Lib Dems also highlighted that, as the power of the state increases, the protection of the rights of the citizen has become ever more imperative.

A spokesperson for Rape Crisis Scotland, backed the proposals, saying:

… It can’t be right to have a justice system where three-quarters of rapes reported to the police can’t be prosecuted.

… However, we need to be realistic about the prospect of this leading to increased convictions; this Bill will remove a barrier to cases getting to court, but it will still be for juries to make a decision beyond reasonable doubt.

… With the change to jury majority, it is even more important that we consider how to ensure jury decision-making in rape cases is informed and free of stereotypes and prejudices.

… We are disappointed, however, that the legislation will not be retrospective.

… This means that, even after the requirement for corroboration is abolished, survivors of historic sexual abuse will continue to face this barrier to justice, as their cases will continue to require corroboration.

ANALYSIS

Loss of key safeguard in the Scottish justice system.  

Our Government in Scotland welcomed the report by Lord Carloway in 2011 that looked into aspects of our justice system. This came following the Cadder case when the UK Supreme Court pointed out that, like almost everywhere else, Scotland should allow a suspect to speak to a solicitor before being interviewed by the police.

The report by Lord Carloway contained much that would modernise our legal system and make it human-rights proof in many ways. But the report also recommended the abolition of corroboration due to it being ‘archaic’ and a barrier to the conviction of some guilty people.

Some legal practitioners and analysts saw this change as involving a necessary rebalancing of the system to compensate for the convictions that previously depended on confession evidence, typically rape cases where the fact of sexual intercourse must be corroborated.

Others suggested this was too simplistic a view, and, in any event, even after the Cadder ruling, most suspects were still interviewed without legal advice and representation, as many seem not to understand their rights and the implications of being interviewed without proper advice.

Corroboration is accepted by the rest of all of our High Court judges, and is seen as an essential safeguard against miscarriages of justice. The Scottish Government, though, agreed it had to go.

Statistically insignificant and artificial testing done for the Carloway Review suggested there would be more convictions without corroborating evidence. Little thought seems to have been given to the quality of the convictions in the absence of corroboration.

Any system can increase the conviction rate by removing essential safeguards, but a safeguard-free, target-led justice system will guarantee the conviction of the innocent along with the guilty. Convictions should always depend on the quality of the evidence; any dilution can only increase the chances of a miscarriage of justice.

It has been suggested that corroboration was only about quantity of evidence – but to many it offered a quality check and avoided prosecutions being mounted on the word of a single witness.

With only now a rather submissive justice committee in the way, a key safeguard against miscarriages looks likely to be abandoned without any satisfactory answer or provision as to its replacement.

The Criminal Justice Bill seems certain to amend the majority required for a guilty verdict in Scotland – ten rather than eight out of 15 for a guilty verdict – but, how much comfort will that give to the wrongly accused in such a tinkering of the system?

And, most cases don’t involve juries. What safeguards are in place for them? The High Court judges suggested a proper review of the whole system of safeguards but that was politically overruled by the Scottish Government.

Standard