When it comes to wrongful convictions cases, in general, there are a number of factors that lead to the overall conviction. According to The Innocence Project, there are four causes that contribute to a wrongful conviction: eyewitness misidentification, unvalidated/improper forensics, false confessions/admissions, and informants. While these are the top four, there are still a variety of causes that play a part.
In Ronald Cotton’s case, four different causes were identified: Eyewitness misidentification, difficulties with memory and recalling, tunnel vision, and improper/unvalidated forensic science.
Eyewitness Misidentification:
Eyewitness error is the main leading cause to wrongful convictions. In the United States it accounts for 75% of 312 DNA exonerations (Magnussen, Safer, Sartori & Wise, 2014). It is a subject that has been studied for a over century because of its impact it has in wrongful convictions (Magnussen et. al, 2014). Memory consist of a reconstructive process, which means our minds try to regain information we may have saw or did. Our memories can be altered unintentionally and often, it can be extremely difficult to piece together the original memory. Along with that is eyewitness confidence. There are many factors that can affect an individual confidence. These factors consist of the repetition of questions or confirming feedback (Magnussen et. al, 2014). Those factors that help heighten eyewitness confidence have the greatest effect on eye witnesses giving misinformation (Magnussen et. al, 2014). In Ronald Cotton’s case he was wrongfully convicted based on eyewitness identification error by Jennifer Thompson. Through confidence reinforcement from police and a poor suspect line up, Jennifer was sure that Ronald Cotton was her rapist, but she was wrong.
Memory & Recalling Issues:
Memory and recall are important parts of a criminal investigative process due to the victim’s role in convicting a perpetrator. Talking about witnessed events leads to changes in memory. More specifically, emotional retelling seems to impair memory accuracy for witnessed crimes which produces more errors in a free recall test (Soleti, Curci, Bianco, & Lanciano, 2012). In Cotton’s case, Jennifer decided during her rape that she would focus on her perpetrators face in order to be able to give an accurate description and then identification to put away the man who did it to her. The emotional recall of her rape resulted in inaccurate eyewitness identification of her perpetrators face.
Tunnel Vision:
Tunnel vision is when actors in the criminal justice system focus on a single suspect and begin to build a case around that suspect while ignoring other evidence. This act is triggered by cognitive biases that actors may have, and the pressure placed on them to secure a conviction (Reichart, 2016, p. 451). Even after a conviction, tunnel vision continues. Often, it is difficult for individual to obtain evidence that could lead to an exoneration due to the use of tunnel vision (Reichart, 2016, p. 453). This dangerous practice is seen in almost every wrongful conviction case and it was one of the leading causes in the conviction of Ronald Cotton.
Ronald Cotton fell victim to tunnel vision right at the beginning of his case. Cotton had gone into the police station to prove his innocence. One of the detectives on the case, Detective Sully, already had his mind set on Cotton being the rapist. Sully had made statements regarding Cotton’s preferences with girls, his old juvenile record, and continuously said “we know it was you.” Even when Cotton tried to tell his side, Sully was not hearing it. Jennifer Thompson also had a hand in this cause. After Thompson identified Cotton in a lineup, all her focus went to Cotton. Thompson was unable to picture anyone besides Ronald Cotton. Even after seeing her actual rapist, Bobby Poole, and being presented evidence that he did not do it, Thompson still only recognized Cotton and was unable to comprehend that he may be innocent. (Thompson-Canino, Cotton, & Torneo, 2009).. Detective Sully and Jennifer Thompson were the main perpetrators of tunnel vision in Ronald Cotton’s case and because of this, the other actors in the system followed suit which eventually led to a wrongful conviction.
Improper Forensic Science:
Misapplied forensic evidence is the second highest leading cause to wrongful convictions. According to Neufeld (2005), forensic science tends to be invalid for one of two reasons: validity issues or bias and incompetence (p. 1). In Ronald Cottons case the most relevant is invalid forensic discipline and insufficient validation of a method. Invalid forensic discipline shows us that not all forensics method used in criminal cases can consistently provide accurate results. While insufficient validation of method means that the practice has not been used enough to have a large enough sample size to establish it as valid. In Ronald’s case there was a rubber piece of shoe found at the scene of the crime that was similar to the kind of shoe that he wore. This kind of evidence is not accurate enough to be considered valid (Innocence Project, 2019).
References:
Emanuela Soleti, Antonietta Curci, Antonella Bianco, & Tiziana Lanciano. (2012). Does talking about emotions influence eyewitness memory? The Role of Emotional vs. Factual Retelling on Memory Accuracy. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, (4), 632-640. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v8i4.526
Innocence Project. (2019). Misapplication of forensic science. Retrieved from https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/misapplication-forensic-science/
Magnussen, S., Safer, M. A, Sarttori, G. & Wise, R. A. (2014). An examination of the causes and solutions to eyewitness error. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 5. 102. doi: 10.3389/2014.00102
Neufeld, P. J. (2005). The (Near) Irrelevance of Daubert to Criminal Justice and Some Suggestions for Reform. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 107–113. https://doi-org.lib-proxy.radford.edu/10.2105/AJPH.2004.056333
Reichart, B. (2016). Tunnel vision: Causes, effects, and mitigation strategies. Hofstra Law Review, 45(451), 451-478. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org.lib-proxy.radford.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hoflr45&div=55
Thompson-Canino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (n.d.). Case File. Picking Cotton: A Memoir by Jennifer Thompson & Ronald Cotton with Erin Torneo. Retrieved from https://www.pickingcottonbook.com/case-file
Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2009). Picking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Picking Cotton 