Authored By: Thato Seoka
University of South Africa
Introduction
After the commencement of post-conviction DNA testing in the United States, around 375 individuals have been exculpated due to DNA evidence.[1] In most cases, the faulty identification of eyewitnesses has played a role. Each exculpation serves as reminder of how the legal system has failed in the task for which it was implemented for, which is to provide reasonable safeguards, law enforcement investigations, cross-examinations, and judicial reviews. The occurrence of wrongful convictions is included in the conviction of someone who has not committed a crime.[2] This article analyses two model cases from the Birmingham Six in England and Kirk Bloodsworth in the United States. The argument is that while both jurisdictions have been able to establish effective systems for tackling wrongful conviction, as none can make up for the absence of effective mechanisms for preventing the occurrence such mistakes from the very beginning. It begins with the identification of the universal sources of wrongful conviction and provides analysis of the English and American cases and the legal changes that occurred.
How Wrongful Convictions Arise
Research undertaken into exculpation cases have tested the usual reasons behind such occurrences. Mistaken identification given by the eyewitness has been revealed as the most constant factor adding to wrongful convictions in the United States.[3] Moreover, mistaken identification, include false confessions, wrongful forensic evidence, and other outlines of misconduct made by law enforcement.[4] But, wrongful convictions do not come from one factor alone, but from a blend of several failures occurring at once.
England and Wales: The Birmingham Six
The incarceration of the Birmingham Six is known as one of the major miscarriages of justice in British legal history. After the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974, of which resulted in the deaths of 21 people, leading to six men being charged with murder in 1975. Their conviction was established on explanations through confession and forensic evidence of the explosive traces found on their hands.[5] Although there was more unease regarding the trustworthiness of forensic evidence attained in the investigation operation, their conviction was dismissed by the courts in 1976,[6] and a similar occurrence in 1988. It was finally overturned by the Court of Appeal in the case R v McIlkenny, which found out that the police records were not genuine documents, thus led to the lack of trust in police evidence. Moreover, forensic evidence was proved to be invalid long before time of the appeal came by, the Court of Appeal stated that verdict that defined six men’s accusations as unsafe and overturned them after they had already spent 16 years in prison for the crime that they did not committed.[7] This case and a similar case of the Guildford Four triggered the implementation of a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, of which the report was released in 1993, clamouring for the invention of an independent organization, that is responsible for the investigation of crimes committed by individuals , that are wrongfully convicted.[8] The British parliament approved the findings the report by passing the Criminal Appeal Act in 1995, which formed the Criminal Cases Review Commission as a body that would review the cases of wrongful conviction.[9] Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988 allows an individual whose conviction has been reversed due to the emergence of new facts to seek lawful compensation for wrongful conviction.[10] Ultimately, the Birmingham Six obtained compensation which reached between £840,000 and £1.2 million, with the money provided by the Home Office presumed on its discretionary powers than through defaulted licit compensation.[11] Hence, the English response could be defined as institutional, as it has led to the implementation of an organization with the authority to review convictions.
The United States: Kirk Bloodsworth and the Limits of Federal Habeas Relief
A man called, Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted in the state of Maryland for the 1984 murder and sexual assault of a nine-year-old girl, mainly based on eyewitness testimony, in 1985.[12] Regardless of the ensuing trials, he ended up with two life sentences. DNA technology had advanced greatly by 1992, which proved that Bloodsworth did not commit the crime.[13] Thus, resulting in his release on June 28, 1993, making him the first person to be cleared from death row by DNA evidence.[14] Several years later, a match in the cold-case databank resulted to the apprehension of the actual killer who spent his time in jail with Bloodsworth.[15] Bloodsworth’s case inspired the establishment of Innocence Movement in the USA. Around 1992, at Benjamin N, Innocence Project officially opened. Cardozo School of Law, is known for 190 out of 375 DNA exculpations after conviction in America.[16] The US Congress established a federal grant to fund DNA tests for the states in Bloodsworth’s honour.[17] But the US Federal Courts stay limited, as seen in the case of Herrera v Collins, whereby the US Supreme Court ascertained that a prisoner is permitted to federal habeas relief only if wrongful conviction is due to new evidence and there is an independent constitutional basis.[18] Therefore subsequent decisions, like the one regarding the House v Bell, allowed for compelling evidence to be the basis only when it served as a proper ground to get beyond a procedural default.[19]
Conclusion
The predicament of Birmingham Six and Kirk Bloodsworth ascertains how several legal systems can reach alike failures, while having a partial chance of fixing that failure which has occurred. Although, England has taken an institutional approach in this matter by having a permanent review body and providing compensation rights, the USA has taken an evidential approach, largely relying on the DNA tests generated and being limited by the doctrines of habeas corpus. Both approaches have allowed the reducing of the number of errors that occur at the trial stage, but no approach can compensate for the loss of time, as in the case with Birmingham Six, who spent 16 years in jail before being released, and Kirk Bloodsworth, who spent almost nine years in jail, being on the death row for a while before ending up free due to DNA tests. This article has showed that the constant occurrence of erroneous sentences, regardless of the years of procedural reform in both countries, shows that post-factum correction methods, despite their necessity, cannot replace diligence in court. Hence, reforms should keep prioritizing the reliable processes of identification of eyewitnesses and confession evidence, as no amount of compensation can remedy consequences caused by the wrongful conviction.
Bibliography
Table of Cases
Herrera v Collins 506 US 390 (1993)
House v Bell 547 US 518 (2006)
R v McIlkenny (1991) 93 Cr App R 287, CA
Table of Legislation
Criminal Appeal Act 1995
Criminal Justice Act 1988, s 133
Innocence Protection Act 2004 (US)
Secondary Sources
Foot M, ‘Wrongly Convicted People Are Also Victims: The Compensation Regime Overlooks That’ The Guardian (10 August 2023) https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/aug/10/wrongly-convicted-people-are-also-victims-the-compensation-regime-overlooks.
Innocence Project, ‘DNA Exonerations in the United States’ (Innocence Project, 2020) https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states.
Innocence Project, ‘Kirk Bloodsworth’ (Innocence Project) https://innocenceproject.org/cases/kirk-bloodsworth.
National Registry of Exonerations, ‘Kirk Bloodsworth’ (University of Michigan Law School) https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/10268.
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Report (Cm 2263, 1993)
[1] Innocence Project, ‘DNA Exonerations in the United States’ (Innocence Project, 2020) https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states.
[2] See generally ibid.
[3] Innocence Project (n 1), reporting eyewitness misidentification as a contributing factor in approximately 69 per cent of the first 375 DNA exonerations nationwide.
[4] Ibid.
[5] R v McIlkenny (1991) 93 Cr App R 287, CA.
[6] ibid.
[7] ibid.
[8] Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Report (Cm 2263, 1993).
[9] Criminal Appeal Act 1995, s 8.
[10] Criminal Justice Act 1988, s 133.
[11] The Birmingham Six were compensated under the Home Office’s discretionary ex gratia scheme rather than the statutory scheme in s 133, which would likely not have covered them: see Matt Foot, ‘Wrongly Convicted People Are Also Victims: The Compensation Regime Overlooks That’ The Guardian (10 August 2023) https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/aug/10/wrongly-convicted-people-are-also-victims-the-compensation-regime-overlooks.
[12] National Registry of Exonerations, ‘Kirk Bloodsworth’ (University of Michigan Law School) https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/10268.
[13] Innocence Project, ‘Kirk Bloodsworth’ (Innocence Project) https://innocenceproject.org/cases/kirk-bloodsworth.
[14] ibid.
[15] National Registry of Exonerations (n 12).
[16] Innocence Project (n 1).
[17] Innocence Protection Act 2004 (US), establishing the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program.
[18] Herrera v Collins 506 US 390 (1993) 398-419.
[19] House v Bell 547 US 518 (2006).
