Lives Taken/Reason for Wrongful Conviction

Transcription

The Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
The Innocence Project Curriculum
Lives Taken/Reason for Wrongful Conviction/Eyewitness Misidentification
Picking Cotton
1
Objectives (SWBAT)
• Understand the importance of the role eyewitness identification plays in a justice system, especially
ours—and the upside and downside of it playing such a crucial role
• Articulate the reasons why eyewitness misidentification happens
• Gain a sense of the complicated emotions felt by the misidentifying victim and the intricacies of the
Cotton case
• Propose solutions to eliminate eyewitness misidentification
Materials Needed
• Train Station Assault YouTube Clip (“MTA Police Seeking Public’s Help: LIRR Ronkonkoma Assault”) (1:40):
shows an assault at a train station captured by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York’s
surveillance video. It was put on YouTube by the police to solicit eyewitness assistance in putting together
a case
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7VtUsNxt8g
•
•
•
60 Minutes Story (“Eyewitness”) (12:46): recreates the whole Cotton case, featuring interviews with the
people involved
o http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5153451n
 1:48 – 2:13: Jennifer striving to pick out what her rapist looked like in the act
 2:40 – 2:55: how the police put together the composite sketch
 2:55 – 3:10: mugshot of Cotton
 3:14 – 3:45: photo lineup (may or may not be here, 5 minutes, are you sure)
• 4:00 – 4:30 Alibi (got weekends confused so reason to lying)
• 4:34 – 5:18: physical line-up (told it was the same person; thought I did it right)
• 5:18 – 6:00: trial (clothing that matched Jennifer’s description, foam from one of shoes
on her floor, 40 minute deliberation)
• 6:32 – 7:10: prison including confrontation with Poole
• 7:10 – 7:12: Poole mugshot
• 7:44 – 8:13: how dare you try him again
• Convicted again (2 life sentences)
• 9:10 – 9:30: DNA
• 9:30 – 9:45: post-convicting proceeding outcome (11 years later)
• 9:59 – 10:25: so sad for him and his family; investigator
• 10:30 – 12:15: the reconciliation
•
The Photo Lineup Jennifer Thompson was presented with is a screen shot from the 60 Minutes clip
referenced above, as is the shot of Poole next to Cotton and the photos used in the “False Memory”
exercise
Original photos of Ronald Cotton, Bobby Poole, the live lineup, and the police report are available at the
Picking Cotton website under the tabs “Case File” and “Eyewitness ID” (as are copies of the awardwinning book telling their story):
o
1
http://www.pickingcottonbook.com/home.html
“Students will be able to…”
Procedure
Motivating Activity
• Distribute Attachment A “Eyewitness Identification” before the start of class
o Note: Teachers should emphasize that this is a lesson eyewitness identification and AVOID
mentioning the term “misidentification,” to keep students unsuspecting as long as possible
• Train Station Assault: Play the YouTube clip for the class
o Spark a conversation by the class about what the clip showed, using the board to outline the
salient points—lead to the question, “Why did the police put this surveillance video put on
YouTube?”
 Goal is to have students realize that an eye witness is extremely strong piece of
evidence for prosecutor
o Ask the students to fill in “Part 1” of Attachment A. Reflect as a class
Core Lesson
• Being Jennifer Thompson: Students will play the role of the eyewitness, Jennifer Thompson, in the reallife Ronald Cotton case as the case unfolded (i.e., without knowing the outcome).
 The goal is for the students to go through the same five-step process of police report,
sketch, photo lineup, live lineup and trial identification to possibly make the same
mistakes that Jennifer unknowingly yet reasonably did in identifying the person she
thought attacked her
o The Police Report: Assemble the class into groups of three and distribute Attachment B “The
Police Report” to each student.
 Note: A pdf of this document is attached but you can print a better copy from the
picking cotton website/case file tab
 The students should have no context of the case besides this report. In “Part 2” of the
day’s handout, ask each group to write down at least five observations they can glean
from the information contained in the report. Reflect as a class
 Teacher’s background material: Attachment C is an overview of what happened
o Jennifer Thompson’s Account: Then read to the students excerpts from Attachment D, Jennifer’s
Words. Emphasize to the students that this is a real story.
o Composite Sketch & Photo Lineup: Once done with the narrative, show each group Attachment
E, “The Composite Sketch” of Jennifer’s attacker (a better copy can be found on pickingcotton
website).
 Once each group gets a good look at the sketch, show them Attachment F, “The Photo
Lineup.” (You can either print them out to distribute or move around the class showing
one big picture.)
 In Part 3 of the day’s handout, ask each group to quietly (to avoid inter-groupthink)
write down the photo number of the person who they think most likely attacked
Jennifer (i.e., Ronald Cotton)
 This photo lineup is not on the website but does appear at 3:20 in 60 Minutes Story; it
may be a clearer image
o The Live Lineup: Once each group has settled on a number, show them Attachment G, “The Live
Lineup,” and ask them, again, to quietly write down the number of the person in the live lineup
who attacked Jennifer. Again, a better copy can be found on pickingcotton website.
o Final Choice: Allow each group to see the composite sketch, the photo lineup and the live lineup
all at once and provide the opportunity to change the number in the photo lineup and live lineup
they previously selected. Remind the students that the goal is to identify the SAME individual in
all three sources. We’re looking for one attacker. Emphasize the emotions felt by Jennifer in this
situation—she wanted this man “raped and killed in prison” for what he did to her (from the 60
Minutes interview)
 On the board, tally the number in each group who identified each person in the photo
lineup and then the live lineup
•
•
•
•
 Reveal that #6 in the photo lineup and #5 in the live lineup are the same person
Introducing Ronald Cotton: Show each group Attachment H, the photo of Ronald Cotton. Ask if this photo
matches: 1) Jennifer’s description, 2) the composite sketch, 3) the person they identified in the photo
lineup, and 4) the person they identified in the live lineup. Reflect as a class
o Tell the students that Jennifer did the same thing that they did in selecting Cotton (i.e., #6 and
#5)
o Ask the students to read the account of Ronald’s first trial (1985) and his second trial (1987).
Emphasize that Ronald consistently argued he was innocent and that his alibi was valid but,
nonetheless, bad because he got his weekends confused
Revealing Misidentification: Bring the class together and discuss, “Was Ronald’s punishment severe
enough?” PAUSE and REVEAL that they just put away an innocent person…
o Show the picture of Attachment I, Photo of Bobby Poole (better picture available at
pickingcotton website/eyewitness id)
o Show the picture of Attachment J, “Poole Next to Cotton”
o Read to the class: While in prison, Ronald Cotton worked in the kitchen where he met this guy
named Bobby Poole. Sometimes the kitchen boss confused the men and called them by the
other’s name. Why? (the men looked alike) Guess what Bobby Poole was in jail for? (rape) Guess
where he was from? (same town as Ronald)
o Ronald was eventually freed based on DNA evidence—after 11 years in prison—and Bobby Poole
was convicted for the rape of Jennifer.
Forgiveness
o
Divide students into groups and ask them to brainstorm what Ronald and Jennifer would each
be thinking when Ronald got out of jail. Ask students to think of all possible next steps that
Ronald or Jennifer might take. Ask students if they were in Ronald’s shoes, would they ever be
able to forgive Jennifer?
 Teacher can consider asking students to draft 8 lines of dialogue (4 each) for a
hypothetical future meeting between Ronald and Jennifer (see Attachment A)
o Teacher shares brief story about Jennifer requesting meeting with Ronald in a church where
Ronald forgave her.
 Consider reading about this meeting from pages 244-245 in Picking Cotton book.
 The two are now good friends and travel around the country speaking about the flaws in
our current eyewitness identification methods and approaches.
Video Overview: 60 Minutes Story on Cotton case
o Before showing movie, ask students if any of them remember the OJ Simpson case. This was the
first major case to use DNA and Ronald learned about this option when he was listening to the
case on the radio.
o Teacher should lead discussion on what the risk is in using DNA evidence from the perspective of
(a) the prosecutor/police and (b) the convicted person
 Students should recognize that there may be embarrassment on part of the
police/prosecutor, people may lose their jobs, the justice system will be viewed as
fallible, and the public will recognize that the party who actually committed the crime
may still be on the loose
 Students should recognize that DNA cuts both ways- if the DNA comes back as a match,
the inmate’s chances of obtaining his/her freedom dwindle to almost zero
o Teacher may choose to engage in discussion around pros and cons of DNA here
Closure
• The False Memory Activity: another interactive example (this one quick) of the difficulties underlying
eyewitness identification
o Print copies of all six photos in Attachment K (3 individual photos and 3 photos showing 2
people)
The Study Phase Photos: Show the three individual photos to the class, one photo at a time. Ask
the students to study the photos for three seconds each as these individuals just committed a
crime against you. Hide the photos.
o Memory Test #1 Photos: Show this page with two photos and ask the students to pick the
person they remember from the study phase photos.
 Students will likely choose the person on the right (the correct answer). Tell them they
are correct
o Memory Test #2 Photo: Same task.
 Students will likely choose the person on the left (correct answer is neither). Tell them
that.
o Memory Test #3 Photo: Same task (i.e., which person in the side-by-side photo they remember
from the study phase).
 Students will likely pick the male on the left—i.e., the SAME person they likely picked in
the previous photo (while the correct answer is the person on the right). Tell them that.
Ask students what happened. Guide the students toward recognizing that they picked the “best match” in
the Memory Test #2 Photo and then stuck with that person in Memory Test #3 because they had
previously decided on that person. Students should then recognize that they just identified the WRONG
individual based on how the lineup was constructed. There were no clear instructions about the option to
pick neither. Teacher should lead discussion around “best match” thinking.
Ask students how this “best match” practice was seen in Jennifer and Ronald’s story
o Jennifer’s misidentification of Ronald serves as a striking example of what is known technically
known as “unconscious transference.” For Jennifer, this chain began when she attempted to
translate her memories from that dark, traumatic summer night into concrete, usable
information by working with police to assemble a composite sketch. The image of the composite
sketch then primed her to select Ronald’s mug shot, which resembled the composite; her
selection of the photograph, in turn, influenced her perceptions when Ronald appeared before
her in person. Although unsure for a fleeting moment, she chose Ronald from the line-up,
thereby solidifying her identification of Ronald as her perpetrator. This ID was reinforced by
police and in pre-trial proceedings, and the certainty continued to build upon itself; the image of
Ronald’s face even haunting her in nightmares. By the time she went to court, Jennifer was
utterly certain that he was her rapist. Her visions of Ron as her attacker became so firmly set in
her brain that, when presented with both Ronald Cotton and her real attacker, she reaffirmed
that Ronald was, undoubtedly, her assailant.
o
•
•
Evaluation/Assessment:
• Lead student brainstorming discussion on methods to improve the accuracy of line-ups and prevent
misidentification and complete Part 4 of worksheet (see “Creating a Better Protocol” for recommended
best practices)
Extension Activities
• Innocence Project resources (facts, case study, video) on eyewitness misidentification, available here:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
• Higher level article from American Psychologist on “Make-Believe Memories” by Elizabeth Loftus
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/AmerPsychAward+ArticlePDF03%20(2).pdf
• Article on False Memories from slate.com:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_memory_doctor/2010/06/the_memory_doctor.h
tml
• False memory activity using words (see experiment at approx. 4 minutes into clip “SSS(5of14) available at
http://www.net4truthusa.com/falsememory.htm
Name: ________________________________
Date:_______________________________
Eyewitness Identification
Part 1: The Train Station Assault Video
Why do you think the police put this video on YouTube?_______________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Why do you think the police go through the trouble of finding eyewitnesses if they have the surveillance video?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 2: The Police Report
What are at least eight observations you can glean (i.e., “pick out”) from the police report? Start with the 5 basic
Ws and then add 3 more observations.
1.
What happened?__________________________________________________________________
2.
When?______________________________________________________________________________
3.
Who was involved?_____________________________________________________________________
4.
Why was this written?___________________________________________________________________
5.
Where did this happen?________________________________________________________________
6.
___________________________________________________________________________________
7.
___________________________________________________________________________________
8.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Part 3: The Identification Process: From crime to conviction
A. When police have a victim to help identify the perpetrator, there is a much greater likelihood of solving the
crime. The steps involved:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
B. For steps #3 and #4 in the identification process, write down the number of the suspect you think most
resembles the description Jennifer gave of the suspect.
•
#3: ___________
•
#4: _____________
Part 4: Your Turn…
Jennifer or Ronald: ___ _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Ronald or Jennifer:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
: ________________________________________________________________________________________________
What happens next?
Cotton Attachment C
Jennifer Thompson Eyewitness Case Breakdown
Events before the Attack
•
•
On July 28, 1984, Jennifer Thompson went to a movie with her boyfriend and came home early
because she had a headache.
She went to sleep in her bedroom.
The Attack Itself
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
At 3 a.m., she heard a noise and woke up.
She asked who was there, and a man jumped on her.
She was lying on her back, so the man grabbed her arms and pinned them to the side of her
head. He then put a knife to her throat.
Jennifer screamed, and the man said that if she didn’t shut up, he would kill her.
She said that he could take her money and credit cards, but he said he didn’t want her money.
Jennifer then asked the man what he wanted, and he took off her underwear and performed
oral sex on her.
He then raped her.
Her Attempts to Observe His Appearance
•
•
•
•
It was dark in the room, but Jennifer tried to study his features so she could accurately describe
him, if he let her live
When the attacker attempted to kiss Jennifer’s mouth, she turned away, which led him to say
“Relax, I’m not going to hurt you.” Jennifer was desperately thinking about how to escape and
replied “if you will get off me and take the knife outside, I will let you back in.” The attacker
opened the front door to do so. He turned around to find Jennifer standing up. He grabbed her
arm so she couldn’t run, but she was able to assess his height
Jennifer next told him she had to use the bathroom. She went into the bathroom and turned on
the light so she could get a better look at him. The attacker told her to turn off the light, but she
was able to glimpse his black canvas deck shoes, his army fatigue pants, and his navy and white
striped shirt
Third, the attacker bent down to turn on some music, and she was able to see part of his face in
the blue light of the stereo
Her Escape from the Apartment
•
•
•
Jennifer knew that her attacker had come in through the kitchen door so she hoped it would
provide her with a way out and a chance to save her life. She told the attacker that she needed
to get a drink of water, which the attacker let her do
When she arrived in the kitchen, she saw that her back door was indeed open
She started to run water, threw some ice cubes in the sink, and opened up some cabinets to
make noise. She then opened the door and ran. The attacker heard her and chased her.
•
•
•
•
She ran to a home with a light on, jumped the fence, and began banging on the window. The
man who owned the home screamed, but his wife – who was a professor at Jennifer’s college –
recognized her.
The couple let Jennifer in, and she fainted.
When she came to, she could see her attacker outside. He escaped before police arrived.
Overall, she was with her attacker for about 30 minutes before her escape.
The Arrival of the Police
•
•
•
When police arrived at the home, they took her to the hospital, where a rape kit was performed.
Afterward, she was taken to the police station, where she put together a composite sketch.
In order to do that, she looked through dozens of pictures of noses, eyes, chins, etc. She looked
through all of them and put together a sketch that looked like her rapist.
The Photo Identification
•
•
•
The next day, police presented Jennifer with six photos that they had selected.
They told her that her attacker may or may not be in the array.
She looked at the photos for less than 20 minutes and selected a picture of the defendant,
saying “this is the one.”
The Live Lineup
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ten days after the attack, the police put together a lineup of seven men.
She stood in the room with them while they stood against the wall.
Each man was ordered to face forward, turn to each side, turn around, and face forward again.
They also were ordered to use phrases the attacker had used: “Shut up or I’ll cut you,” and “Hey,
baby, how’re you doing? It’s been a long time.”
Jennifer told the police that she was between number 4 and number 5, so those men repeated
the process.
She then said,” It’s 5.” Number 5 was Ronald Cotton.
The In-Court Identification
•
•
When asked whether her attacker in the courtroom, Jennifer identified the defendant.
She said she was 100 percent sure that Cotton was her attacker, and that she had never been so
sure of anything in her life.
Cotton Attachment D: Jennifer’s Words
Here is the description of the attacker from the book:
(Pg. 15):
"He told me he knew I wore glasses, so he thought I couldn't see him. He was wrong again. My glasses
were for distance; everything right in front of me, I could see. Light from the parking lot lamppost
filtered through the blinds--it wasn't a lot but it was enough. In blinks, I willed myself to note the details.
I studied his face for features to identify. The hairline, his awful mouth. Did he have scars? Tattoos? He
had close-cropped hair. Although I didn't want to look at him, I had to. How much could I bear?
I tried to look in his eyes. They were distinctly almond shaped, small, and set deep into his face. I
searched for something human to connect to, some kind of appeal I could make through eye contact.
But he kept shifting his dark gaze from my eyes. He had high, broad cheekbones, and his mouth was not
overly large. A faint shadow of hair framed his upper lip; it looked more like dirt than a mustache."
(Pg. 16):
"Once in the bathroom, I turned on the light, getting another glimpse of his face."
(Pg. 17):
"There was a night-light in the den, breaking up the inky corners of the hallway. My eyes continued to
adjust to the dark, giving me more detail on him. Standing next to him for a few minutes, I tried to
record information about how tall he was, if he walked pigeon toed or duck footed. Based on my height,
I figured he must be about six feet tall."
(Pg. 18):
"If I survived, I told myself, I would tell the police he was a light-skinned black man, wearing dark khakis,
a blue shirt with white striped on the sleeve, and canvas boat shoes. He wore white knit gloves on his
hands. I still had the fibrous taste of them in my mouth.
I flipped on the light switch, because I knew it would protect me. It was a small buffer zone: he wouldn't
come too close to me with the light on."
(Pg. 21):
"'Ms. Thompson, did you get a good look at your assailant?' Detective Gauldin asked. 'Do you think
you'd recognize him if you saw him again?'
In an instant, it was all there: Shut up or I'll cut you! His narrow eyes, the pencil-thin mustache, the
repulsive lips, the nose so close to my own. His laughter after he asked me if I wanted my ten dollars
back and I said, 'You stole my money?'
'Yes,' I told the detective. 'I would.'"
Lives Taken/Reason for Wrongful Conviction/Eyewitness Misidentification
Creating a Better Protocol
2
Objective (SWBAT)
• Identify the best practices for eyewitness identification of suspects
• Realize the tension between catching criminals and not catching innocent guys
• Cooperatively produce a comprehensive rulebook to establish best practices and minimize eyewitness
misidentifications
Materials Needed
• SNL skit “Dylan McDermott or Dermot Mulroney” from 12/8/12 (5:38 total): a game show where black
contestants try to guess two white actors with similar names apart; juxtapose with them easily telling
apart the two black actors at the end
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEgL39WM6f8
• Copies of Attachment A and B for each student (and Attachment C if teacher chooses to introduce the
Innocence Project in this lesson)
Procedure
Motivating Activity
• SNL skit: show 0-:50 and then 5:08-5:38
o Ask the class, “Why would some people think this is funny?”
• Distribute the Attachment A handout
• Asian Celebrity Interactive: Direct the class to Part 1 of the handout and have them complete the
exercise. The goal is to demonstrate the heightened difficulty in identifying suspects of a different race.
Emphasize what’s at stake: You were the victim of a crime and you want the right guy caught. Relate to
the Ronald Cotton case.
o Note: The Asian man who appears twice is Jay Chou (Choices A and C). Who is he? One of the
most famous Chinese celebrities, as a musician and actor. He was Seth Rogen’s sidekick in The
Green Hornet.
Core Lesson
• Questioning Assumptions: Ask the students individually to write a response to the question about intraand inter-racial identification.
o The goal is to compel students to explore the why behind the data (and SNL skits) showing that
cross-racial identification is harder than same race identification AND to begin to consider the
implications of this phenomenon.
• Extending the Logic: As a class, encourage discussion of two other physical characteristics or clothing/
appearance that tend to distort our perception and recall of other people’s appearance—always followed
by addressing “the why” while utilizing comparisons (with race, for example)
o Consider: gender, facial hair, clothing, level of tension or excitement, shoes, hat
o Relate back to the Cotton case from Picking Cotton lesson: white woman, black man
 Ask students if anyone thinks Jennifer (mistakenly) identified Ronald on purpose; if not,
then what happened?
• The New Rulebook: Connect the above discussion toward “well, what do we do about it?”
o Solicit ideas from students on how to reduce the number of misidentifications and push them to
articulate why the ideas would be helpful in practice
o Have students complete Attachment B, the “New Rulebook” worksheet in groups
Evaluation/Assessment
2
“Students will be able to…”
•
•
Best Practices: Have your students share out their ideas for rules, or protocols, that police departments
should follow when using crime victims to identify their attacker
o Consider creating a class “Best protocols” sheet
o Students should hopefully come up with best practices similar to those listed on the Innocence
Project website:
 Blind administration: administering officer does not know who suspect is
 Lineup composition: non-suspects (“fillers”) should resemble the eyewitness’
description
 Instructions: witness should be told perpetrator may not be in lineup)
 Confidence Statements: after making ID, witness should describe in their own words
their level of confidence about the identification
 Videotape the lineup: to prove the lineup was executed correctly and to show the jury
 Individual presentations of suspects: witness looks at lineup members individually
rather than all at once. With this method, witness is less likely to choose member who
“most looks like suspect”
o Ask your students to assume the position of the police department chief and ask them why the
police might be unwilling to implement these fixes; consider:
• Cost
• Fear of losing number of correct ID’s and having unsolved crimes
• Small departments who don’t have staff, time or knowledge
o Close by asking students why this issue of misidentification is so frequent and why a “best
practices” protocol is important in any criminal justice system, but particularly ours:
 Getting the criminal: 75% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA evidence involved
misidentification
 Significant role of eyewitnesses. Studies show jurors are more likely to rely on witnesses
than experts
Innocence Project Introduction
o This may be a good time to introduce the Innocence Project and the work the national and
regional offices do to combat all causes of wrongful conviction, including eyewitness
misidentification
o Information about the national Innocence Project to complete the top portion of Attachment C
can be found here: http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/
 Consider adding information about your local Innocence Project as well
o Consider completing Attachment C to begin a discussion of the work of the Innocence Project
and the implications of wrongful convictions, including possible death sentences
Have your students send their class list of best practices to the local police department and asking whether these
practices are being followed
Name: ____________________________
Date: _____________________________
Misidentification of the Suspect 2
The New Suspect Identification Rulebook
Part 1: Identifying Suspects of a Different Race
• You were the victim a crime. It was dark outside and the guy jumped you from behind so you never got a
good look at him. But you could tell he was of Asian descent. Your job here is to identify the man of Asian
descent below who appears twice. Circle the two letters that you believe are the same person. Remember
you really want to get this guy. He jumped you!
B.
A.
D.
C.
E.
Part 2: Questioning Assumptions
• Individually, please write out a response to the following question. Put down what comes to your mind
but try to think about the root of the reason. You can NOT use anything similar to the following phrases:
o “because they look more alike”
o “because other people look weird”
Why do people of the same race have an easier time identifying each other than people of a different race?”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Part 3: Extending the Logic
• As a class, let’s come up with two other characteristics (what does this mean? ____________
_____________________) that differ between the witness and the suspect that make the probability of
misidentification HIGHER.
1.
2.
________________________________
________________________________
Part 4: The New Rulebook for Identification of Suspects
•
We are going to try to fix the problems that make eyewitness identifications so problematic. We are going
to build a new rulebook to provide some rules and guidelines for any time an eyewitness is trying to
identify someone who committed a crime.
•
What groups of people or industries use facial recognition software (computers and cameras that can
recognize your face)? Try to come up with at least 3:
o
1. ___________________________________
o
2. ___________________________________
o
3. ___________________________________
•
What are the differences between computer software or programs that do facial recognition and facial
recognition done by humans?
•
Once we design a better rulebook, where should we send it? ____________________________
The New Rulebook for Eyewitness Identifications
In the Ronald Cotton case, the investigating police officer suspected Ronald Cotton of the rape because he had
been charged with sexual assault as a teenager, he lived nearby and was known as to have dated white women,
and, when first interviewed, he mistakenly lied to the police about where he was that night. For these reasons, the
police believed that Ronald did it. The investigating police officer calls in Jennifer for the photo lineup and shows
her several pictures.
a.
The police officer knows Jennifer did not get a clear look at her attacker. What should he do while Jennifer
looks over the photos? Remember he is confident Ronald committed the assault
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
b.
What other ways can you think of that would reduce the number of times an eyewitness makes a wrong
identification?
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
c.
What rules can we come up with to prevent this from happening? Try to come up with at least three:
1. ____________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Do you think all police should be required to follow your rules at ALL times? Why or why not?
A few facts…
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
How do you think the Innocence Project should determine which cases to accept?
Does any of what you have learned today change your opinion on the use of the death penalty? Why or
why not?
Life Taken/Reason for Wrongful Conviction/Prosecutorial Misconduct
The Morton story
Objective (SWBAT)
 List examples of prosecutorial misconduct (“PM”)
 Identify possible motivating reasons why police and prosecutors engage in misconduct
 Debate whether the ends justify the means
 Discuss Michael Morton’s story and how PM played a role in his wrongful conviction
 Understand the real-life consequences of PM
 Introduce concept of direct vs circumstantial evidence
Materials Needed
 An excellent (but lengthy), two-part article on Michael Morton can be found here:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one and
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-two
 A shorter article, with several embedded audio clips of Michael and his mother speaking can be found
here: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/28/150996459/free-after-25-years-a-tale-of-murder-and-injustice
Procedure
Motivating Activities
 Distribute Attachment A (photo of bathroom mirror with visible note) and Attachment B (close-up of
note) as one double-sided sheet of paper.
 Ask students to describe what is on Attachment A
 Consider using some of the below prompt questions on the board, in discussion, or in groups as
printed in Attachment C:
 Who wrote the note?
 What do you know about him/her?
 Why do you think the note is unsigned?
 To whom is the note written?
 What do you think is the relationship between these two people?
 Any ideas about where (location/room) this note was left?
 Why do you think the note was left where it was left?
 How would you describe the tone or mood of the note?
 How would you describe the frame of mind of the person who wrote the note?
 When do you think the next time these two people will see each other will be?
 What do you think will happen the next time these two people see each other?
 Facilitate a brainstorm on the significance of the note and ask students “Why do you think this
note is important?”
 Ask students what do they think happened next.
Core Lesson


Students=detectives. Tell students that the note was a critical piece of evidence in a murder
investigation, a murder that the students will now investigate.
Background
 On August 13, 1986, Christine Morton was found bludgeoned to death in her bedroom
in Williamson County, TX. Her 3-year old son was found wandering in a diaper in the
front yard. Her husband, Michael Morton. left the house at 5:30am and showed up to
his job at Safeway at 6am. The police surrounded his home when he arrived home that
evening.
 Facilitate brainstorm with students about what questions they have and what
information they would need to solve the crime.



Who are the possible suspects?
o Guide students to a structure where the suspects are (1) Husband and
rd
(2) Unknown/3 party
o Michael Morton, Christine’s husband, maintains that he has no idea
what happened and left his wife sleeping (and alive) that morning
Introduce each piece of evidence listed on Attachment D while students complete the “Finding
the Killer” chart (Attachment E). As each piece of evidence is introduced, students should
complete their charts by (1) describing the evidence; (2) stating whether the evidence makes
them more likely to believe Michael committed the crime, an unknown third party committed
the crime, or neither (i.e., the evidence didn’t sway them either way); and (3) briefly explaining
why
 Another technique would be to create three columns (Michael/other/neither)
on the board and have students tape each piece of evidence on the board in
one of the three columns.
 Next, have students summarize by completing the Stage 1 conclusion prompt at the
bottom of page 2 of Attachment D
 Facilitate a discussion focused on why the evidence is/is not strong enough to
make students think Michael is guilty
 Ask students if they can make any general observations about the evidence
 All the evidence here is circumstantial evidence, or indirect evidence. This
means that none of the evidence here directly connects Michael to the crime
and instead tries to connect him to the crime by establishing other facts that
mean he must have committed the crime

An example of the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial
evidence:
o Direct evidence is when a witness sees a perpetrator fire a gun and hit
the victim
o Circumstantial evidence is when a witness sees the perpetrator enter
a room after the victim with a gun and then hears a gunshot.
Prosecutorial Misconduct: Ask students to draw a line through the following pieces of evidence
on Attachment E
 The bloody bandana (Police never explored this lead as they were convinced of
Michael’s guilt. One of Christine’s hairs along with her blood and the DNA of
another man were later found on the bandana)
 The footprint (Police never explored this lead as they were convinced of
Michael’s guilt)
 The van (A record of the neighbor’s phone calls exists in the lead investigator’s
notes and a report done by a sheriff’s deputy on these calls exists; these notes
or this report were never provided to Michael’s defense team. Police never
explored this lead as they were convinced of Michael’s guilt)
 The credit card (A record of the phone call from the San Antonio police exists in
the lead investigator’s notes; these notes were never provided to Michael’s
defense team. Police never explored this lead as they were convinced of
Michael’s guilt)
o The District Attorney did not call the lead investigator, Don Wood, at
trial and later stated that this was his tactic to avoid turning over the
notes, as he was required to do for any testifying witness
 Monster (A transcript of Eric’s grandmother’s call is in the lead investigator’s
notes; this transcript was never provided to Michael’s defense team)

Now ask students to revisit their Stage 1 conclusion. Based on the evidence now in play
(what was not crossed out), do they think Michael Morton is guilty? More or less as
compared to earlier?
 Michael Morton was found guilty of murdering his wife in February 1987.
 Freedom. Advise students that through the work of the Innocence Project, Michael Morton was
freed from jail on October 4, 2011 after serving 8,995 days in prison for a crime he did not
commit.
 Ask students what harms can come from prosecutorial misconduct
 Answers could include:
 Innocent people get locked up
 The public loses trust in the justice system (police/courts)
 The real killer remains free and police stop looking for him/her.
 Tell students about Debra Baker. On January 13, 1988, Debra Baker, a brunette woman
who looked a lot like Christine Morton, was found bludgeoned to death in her Texas
home. For 23 years, no one knew who had committed this crime. Then Michael
Morton’s attorneys obtained DNA testing on the bloody bandana found in the
abandoned lot behind the Morton’s house. Christine’s DNA and the DNA of Mark Alan
Norwood, a drifter with a long criminal record, were found on the bandana. Norwood’s
DNA was also found in Debra Baker’s bed.
 Norwood is scheduled to go to trial for the murder of Christine Morton in
March 2013.
 Norwood has also been formally charged with the murder of Debra Baker.

The prosecutor in the Morton case, former District Attorney Ken Anderson, now a Texas Judge,
faced a Texas Court of Inquiry in February 2013 and, as of March 2013, a final decision in the
matter is still pending.
 Sheriff Boutwell is dead
 Ask students to start with what happened in the Morton case and then brainstorm other wrong
things that police OR lawyers might do if they wanted to make sure someone got convicted of a
crime (police or lawyer misconduct or wrongdoing that might lead to an innocent person being
convicted of a crime (s)he didn’t do)
 Depending on class level, teachers can introduce a definition of prosecutorial
misconduct as “negligence, misconduct or corruption by either a law
enforcement officer or a prosecutor at any stage of the criminal investigation
and trial.”
 Withholding or suppressing evidence
 Pressuring defense witnesses not to testify
 Relying on fraudulent forensic experts
 Lying on the stand or throughout the process
 Not properly investigating alternative leads
 Getting false confession
 Not calling exonerating witnesses
 Knowingly eliciting false testimony
 Intimidate/threaten witness
 Not reading Miranda rights or not permitting suspect to see attorney on
request
 Creating False evidence (Is there a difference between concealing evidence
(not turning it all over) and manufacturing or planting evidence?)


Ask students why police or prosecutors might do some of these things.
 Truly believe the suspect is guilty and ends justify the means (tunnel vision)
 Protect themselves, including financial motives such as job at stake or in an
effort to earn a bonus or increase reputation
 Community safety-if community thinks criminal is caught, people can relax
 Personal Vendetta
 Have zero idea what happened but under lots of pressure to close the case
(community can relax; press off their backs; pressure from boss)
 Very close to trial or during trial and need something else
 Engaged in some misconduct during the investigatory stage and now need
some other evidence to bolster their case and/or be enough to overcome
suspect’s allegations of misconduct
 Feeling that this suspect is bad and if he didn’t do this one, suspect definitely
deserves it as having done other really bad crimes
Ask students what can be done to minimize prosecutorial misconduct happening in the future
 Student answers may fall into two categories: (a) oversight measures such as
an independent review of all evidence or procedures to ensure all evidence is
turned over to the police and (b): measures designed to deter misconduct such
as jail time, loss of job, loss of license, monetary fine
 Consider asking students if they agree or disagree with Michael Morton’s proposal and
whether they think it is too harsh or too lenient:
 Michael Morton has said that he wants new Texas legislation establishing that
when a prosecutor is found to have withheld exculpatory evidence in a case,
that prosecutor must pay a fine and lose his/her law license.
 Consider asking students to explain the significance of the quote from a newspaper
editorial:
 “The pursuit of justice shouldn’t end with an innocent person’s release from
prison”- the Austin American-Statesman
 Consider leading a discussion about prosecutorial immunity and why it makes
sense/doesn’t make sense
 Prosecutorial immunity means that a prosecutor cannot be sued for any action
s/he takes while acting as a prosecutor (doing his or her job) and trying to get a
criminal conviction
 Because of the Morton case, a Texas lawmaker has proposed a bill that would extend
the statute of limitations for a prosecutor accused of wrongdoing
 Have students draft law based on Michael Morton’s testimony before the Texas
legislature recounting what happened to him and how he thinks there should be a law
holding prosecutors accountable for wrongdoing
 Have students respond to prosecutorial misconduct hypotheticals; Attachment F: “What Would a
Prosecutor Do?”
 Chicago Tribune news series on wrongful convictions due to prosecutor misconduct:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-dptrialerror-special,0,3035446.special. Could be used for additional
critical reading and discussion activities.
 Discuss statistics of prosecutorial misconduct. See statistics in this report:
http://law.scu.edu/ncip/file/ProsecutorialMisconduct_BookEntire_online%20version.pdf


USA Today article on prosecutorial immunity:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-10-05-federal-prosecutorimmunity_N.htm
Discuss the motivations and harm that accompany prosecutorial misconduct through this video of a police
officer planting drugs on a suspect, available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbFsZNcBeug
Names:
Date:
1. Look at the non close-up picture. Describe what you are looking at.
2. Next, look at the close-up.
Who wrote the note?
What do you know about him/her?
Why do you think the note is unsigned?
To whom is the note written?
What do you think is the relationship between these two people?
Why do you think the note was left where it was left?
How would you describe the tone or mood of the note?
How would you describe the frame of mind of the person who wrote the note?
When do you think the next time these two people will see each other will be?
What do you think will happen the next time these two people see each other?
Attachment D
The Evidence
The body: Christine Morton’s body was found in the upstairs bedroom, dead with a comforter
pulled over her face and a blue suitcase and wicker basket stacked on top of her. Her head had
been repeatedly bludgeoned by a blunt object and wood chips were found in her hair. A
fingerprint found on the blue luggage was never identified.
Eric: Eric, the Morton’s three-year old son, successfully underwent open heart surgery two
months before the killing. The afternoon of the killing, Eric was found wandering in the front
yard wearing only a shirt and a diaper.
Safeway: Michael clocked into work at his usual time of 6:05am and appeared completely
normal, according to a co-worker. Michael spoke to this co-worker about scuba diving and they
made plans to go scuba diving the next day.
Questioning: When he arrived at his house, the sheriff told Michael his wife was dead, Michael
showed no reaction. The sheriff read Michael his rights and Michael spoke to the sheriff and
investigating attorney for several hours. Days later, Michael again spoke to the police without
an attorney. Michael gave them permission to search his car and gave hair, saliva, and blood
samples.
Break-in? There were no signs of forced entry. The sliding glass door in the dining room was
unlocked. Fingerprints lifted from the door did not match Michael or Christine’s fingerprints.
Christine’s purse was missing but her engagement ring and wedding band were left in plain
sight on the nightstand. A camera with a telephoto lens was also left untouched.
Gun: Michael liked to hunt and owned 7 guns. His .45 automatic was missing from the house.
Footprint: a fresh footprint was discovered just inside the Morton’s fenced-in backyard.
Conversation: Michael and Christine sometimes joked with each other with Michael saying
“Bitch, go get me a beer” and Christine responding by telling Michael to go screw himself.
Michael had complained to friends that he and his wife were not having enough sex and that
his wife had put on weight. The night before, Michael, Christine, and Eric had gone to a local
restaurant to celebrate Michael’s 32nd birthday. Christine and Michael began watching an adult
video but Christine fell asleep and Michael went to bed alone.
Bloody Bandana. A bloody bandanna was found by Christine’s brother John in an abandoned lot
behind the Morton home. The lot was near where the man in the green van was seen. John turned
the bandana over to the sheriff’s office.
Note: a note was found written on the bathroom mirror. The note read “Chris, I know you
didn’t mean to, but you made me feel really unwanted last night. After a good meal, we came
home, you binged on the rest of the cookies. Then, with your nightgown around your waist and
while I was rubbing your hands and arms, you farted and fell asleep. I’m not mad or expecting
a big production. I just wanted you to know how I feel without us getting into another fight
about sex. Just think how you’d feel if you were left hanging on your birthday. I L Y. -M”
Van. One set of neighbors reported that they had seen a strange green van driving around the
neighborhood, stopping around the Morton house. The man in the van would drive around back
to the wooded area, get out of the van, and walk into the wooded area in back of the Morton’s
house. A second set of neighbors called the sheriff’s office to also tell them about the same van.
Medical examiner: Medical examiner examined the state of the food digested in Christine’s
stomach and estimated that Christine had been killed between 1am and 6am on the morning of
August 23. The Medical examiner later changed this and said Christine was killed between
9:30pm and 1:30am.
Credit Card: The Williamson County Sheriff's Office was contacted by San Antonio police
regarding a woman’s use of Christine’s credit card two days after the murder at a place called the
Jewel Box in San Antonio, Texas.
Nightclub: Christine’s boss stated that he had seen Michael carrying billyclub when working
nights cleaning parking lots.
Monster. Eric told his grandmother that a monster wearing gloves and carrying a basket with
wood had hit his mommy. Eric added that the monster threw a blue suitcase on the bed after
Mommy stopped crying. Eric’s grandmother asked Eric, “Was Daddy there?” “No, just Mommy
and Eric was there,” he replied. Kirkpatrick believed her grandson completely and called the
sheriff’s department to report this information.
Attachment E
Finding the Killer
Briefly describe the evidence
1. Note on Bathroom Mirror
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Does this evidence make you
more likely to think Michael
did it, an unknown 3rd party
did it or neither?
Why?
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Stage 1 Conclusion:
Based on the above evidence, I think . . .
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Attachment F
Name: ________________
Date: ________________
W.W.P.D? (What would a prosecutor do?)
For the last 10 years, I have been a prosecutor for small crimes, but all the while I have been
working tirelessly to prove that I belong in the homicide division. When I was finally promoted
to homicide, my first case turned out to be the most brutal murder this town has seen in years.
Two newlyweds were beaten and then left to bleed to death in their house in Cleveland Park. The
press was all over it, as were my superiors in the US Attorney’s Office, and I knew I couldn’t let
this case go cold. The first week, I started to suspect that the crime was committed by a trio of
guys called the “Pistolos” who everyone knew had committed robberies and assaults in the
Cleveland Park area for years. They had taken plea deals on two other robberies and won on two
other charges for assault in the same neighborhood. Two of them had already served 15-20 year
terms for manslaughter for, you guessed it, robbing and beating young couples in the Cleveland
Park area.
I had 4 witnesses who saw all three Pistolos near the scene of the crime, but the witness’s
stories kept wavering when I interviewed them and I couldn’t get them to commit to making an
official videotaped statement. Three of them were college kids and they were 6 or 7 beers in
when they saw the Pistolos. The other was some grunge goth woman who was probably on
ecstasy or something since she saw the Pistolos when she was coming out of a 36-hour rave.
I know the Pistolos did this but I also know my witnesses will get torn to shreds on the stand
if I didn’t get them all on video saying they were absolutely 100% sure they saw the Pistolos and
they were all completely sober. If they changed their story on the stand, the whole case would
be ruined. I need this. The city needs this.
a. Describe the prosecutor’s options (both ethical and unethical). How could he
handle the witnesses?
b. Assume the prosecutor decided to do something unethical. What would be his
motivations for the misconduct?
c. What would you do if you were a prosecutor involved in this case?
Name: ________________
Date: ________________
W.W.P.D? (What would police do?)
In 1992, I had spent months working on a case and had never been more proud of the
work I’d done in my 25-year career as a police officer. An innocent black high school student
was shot dead in an alley, and I was given the daunting task of making sure justice was done.
After about six months of putting together video statements from countless witnesses and
preparing the confession I’d gotten from the 15-year-old white shooter who had a racial bias
against the victim, a woman walked into my office and told me that she had seen the whole
shooting go down.
She was 32 years old, and even though she seemed credible, she gave a story that just
didn’t match that of any of the other witnesses; in her words, a 19-year-old black kid from her
block had shot the victim and stolen his cash. I had already given countless interviews to the
Washington Post about how amazing the community had been in helping solve this terribly sad
(and racially offensive) crime, and now this woman was claiming something entirely different
had happened. I know my boss would put me through the ringer for opening up a new can of
worms at this point in the case. It might also affect the credibility of our entire office to
backtrack on the case. Besides, I have no real reason to believe or not believe the woman.
a. Describe the police officer’s options (both ethical and unethical). What could he
do regarding this new witness?
b. Assume the police officer decided to do something unethical. What would be his
c. What would you do if you were a police officer?
Name: ________________
Date: ________________
About a month after my wife had a baby, I returned to my job as a violent crimes
detective in the face of a round of layoffs in the department. Buddies I’d been working with my
whole life were being let go like their service meant nothing to the safety of our town. Everyone
knew that leaving cases hanging wasn’t an option if we wanted to keep our jobs, and I needed
my income security and health insurance now more than ever. At the end of my first week back,
I brought in a suspect that I’d caught fleeing the scene of a sexual assault. His pants were
unbuttoned and he matched the description of the attacker perfectly, so I brought him into the
station and started a long night of questioning.
After about eight hours, he confessed to the assault, which was perfect because the
detective at the hospital had confirmed with the victim that there was no semen or physical
evidence left behind. After I printed the confession for him to initial, however, I realized that in
the exhilaration of getting his statement, I’d forgotten to read him his Miranda rights. When
suspects sign confessions, they must also sign a document saying they were told their Miranda
rights before the questioning began. If I don’t had in this signed document, the entire confession
will be deemed invalid and inadmissible to court.
do?
c. What would you do if you were the police officer?
Name: ________________
Date: ________________
I’ve been on the force for 17 years and have been investigating a case of a baby killer for
the last four months. Somebody showed up at a daycare and picked up a child that didn’t belong
to him. The kid-3 year old Amelia-was found 4 days later, and it took DNA evidence to even
identify her body after what the killer did to her. My supervisor put me on probation 5 months
ago after I failed to locate named witnesses seen at two crime scenes in two other cases. I’ve got
one more month of probation but if I make any other mistakes, my entire team of 4 officers will
be demoted. I’ve got two kids at home and my wife can’t work after her back injury.
We don’t really have any solid leads except for this guy named Emir, who runs with the
Georgia 18s (and who I know has served time for at least a dozen other violent crimes, usually
involving children and others who can’t fight back), came up to us in Malcolm X Park and
started prodding us about when we were going to close this case. Emir was really interested in
how Amelia was killed and rambling about how maybe somebody didn’t mean to kill her. He
kept asking us if we had any suspects or if we found any DNA. I know the case has been in the
media but I don’t think any reporter has mentioned the bat that was used. However, Emir
mentioned to us that a bat would kill any 3-year-old.
We didn’t have anything else, and we decided Emir’s interest in the baby killing made
him our best suspect. My patrol supervisor, Wanda, said we should “get this done” somehow and
ordered us to pick up Emir. My partner Felipe said he had a source on the street who would say
he saw Emir running out the back door of the house where Amelia’s body was found. Ed pointed
out that there were only partial fingerprint smudges on the bat, which could belong to anybody.
With his history, Emir knows he will be getting the maximum sentence next time he gets
convicted of anything.
do?
c. What would you do if you were the police officer?
Name: ________________
Date: ________________
I’ve been prosecuting crimes for over 10 years and started prosecuting serious sexual crimes last
year. After prepping a case of a brutal rape of an 11 year old girl for just under a year, my star witness,
Sergia, was undoubtedly most important in making sure the rapist-Franco Steffani, got locked up. In my
opening statement, I highlighted that Sergia had seen crime in incredible detail as she watched from her
bedroom window and told the jury that her story alone would convince them of the defendant’s
guilt. Sergia saw and remembered every tiny detail, from the hat Franco was wearing, to the jigsaw scar
down his right cheek.
The only downside of Sergia as a witness was her history of alcoholism; she had just gotten home
from an AA meeting at the time of the rape, which she made clear in her police reports. I knew that the
defense would undoubtedly highlight her substance abuse in their cross examination. She had 4 priors for
drunk and disorderly conduct and 3 underage consumption arrests. To combat that, I planned to “take the
sting out” and ask her how long she had been sober (her answer was 18 months, long before the rape
happened) to show the jury she was credible. I was also thinking of calling her sponsor to testify in
support of Sergia’s sobriety statement.
The day before her testimony, about a week into the trial, I noticed she stank of gin and was
undeniably drunk at a prep session, red-eyed, and staggering into the bathroom every 10 minutes. One
trip to the bathroom, she came back chewing 4 pieces of gum and smelling a bit like puke. I don’t have
any other witnesses. I know Sergia was sober when she saw the rape. But if it gets out that she is
drinking now, the defense will just ask what proof is there that she wasn’t drunk when she “allegedly”
saw the crime. Drunk witnesses have no credibility. Sergia admitted she had one “bad day” but still
considered herself sober. Sergia told me “Don’t worry, this doesn’t change anything. I’m sober, I’ve been
sober for 18 months, and that’s what I’m going to say in court.” What should I do?
handle this situation?
c. What would you do if you were the prosecutor?
Name: ________________
Date: ________________
As a prosecutor, the highlight of your career is taking on a larger-than-life case that the
whole community is talking about. For me, the highlight was a case of twin 9-year-old girls,
D’maria and Chloe, who were badly beaten and left to die in the bathroom of Fort DuPont Park.
The world was looking to me to give them answers, and I relished in the opportunity to define
my career and become a leader in our city. The level of the physical damage to the girls led me
to believe that it was probably the da Borda gang who committed this crime.
The medical examiner said it was a possibility that a group of people played a role in the
crime, and this 16-year-old kid, Ponce, who I had questioned extensively early on in the case,
said he’d heard it had been done by a group of kids, too. As the weeks went on, my witnesses
started to pile up, and although none of them were perfect (some substance abuse issues, some
with criminal records, some with no jobs and suspicious sources of income, some living in
halfway houses), they all placed about 11 to 17 members of da Borda in this bathroom at the
time of the murder. Not all of their testimony matched up perfectly, but I had 18 witnesses
putting at least the same 3 da Borda members at the scene.
In the process of putting this case together, I probably interviewed 150 witnesses at least.
I’d get a name from one person, go find them, and get more names to follow from that. I spent
every hour of every day leading a group of other prosecutors and police officers in building up
the case of a lifetime. Two people told me they absolutely didn’t see anybody from da Borda but
those two people lived in the same neighborhood as most of the da Borda gang. These two
people instead said they saw 6 members of a rival gang, the Northeasterners, at the bathroom in
Fort DuPont. Those witnesses also said the Northeasterners rule Fort DuPont and that da Borda
was too scared to go in there.
In the meantime, the leader of da Gorda has hired some slime attorney, Vince DePietro,
on retainer and that attorney has sent a request for all my interview notes.
handle this situation?
c. What would you do if you were the prosecutor?
Life Taken/Reason for Wrongful Conviction/False Confessions
“Okay, fine, I did it!”
Objective (SWBAT)
 Understand why innocent people confess
 Understand legal police techniques to induce false confessions
 Model how innocent suspects can obtain details of crime
 Understand concepts of contamination and tunnel vision and how they apply to criminal
investigations
 Learn best practices for police interrogations
Materials Needed
 “Homicide: Life on the Streets-the Documentary” (5:38 clip), available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyfN3dUluAY
 False Confession #1: Chris Ochoa, Innocence Project Exoneree, available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xJlsxCGw9w&feature=relmfu
 False Confession #2, available here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/theconfessions/
 False Confession #3: a false confession from a 14-year-old. Watch 5:02 clip from National Geographic
here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkLHXKHb1Vc , 1:56 clip of the actual interrogation here:
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Michael-Crowes-False-Confession , or a 14:53 Crime Stories
piece on the interrogation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGp1LVciP2c
 Classroom set of two attached worksheets
Procedure
Motivating Activity

Ask students to write down one time they admitted to doing something they didn’t do. Try to elicit
reasons why they (or someone they know) might do that.
o Answers could include to protect someone else, because the person accusing them wasn’t
going to believe the student no matter what, because the student was sick and tired of being
asked about it (aka to get the accuser off the student’s back), couldn’t remember
 Tell students they are about to see a video clip of some detectives and how they interview a crime
suspect. Ask students to write down WHAT the detectives do to try and get the suspect to confess
o Discuss.
o Ask students if they would ever falsely confess to a crime they didn’t commit.
Core Lesson
 Video Analysis. Tell students that you are going to show them (up to) three clips about false
confessions. Students should complete the False Confession worksheet, Attachment A
o Show video clip of False Confession #1,
o Give brief synopsis before showing False Confession #2 clip:
 A U.S. Navy sailor came home to his apartment in Norfolk, Va., to
find that his wife, Michelle, had been brutally raped and murdered.
Police questioned his neighbor Danial Williams about the case, and
Williams claimed to be innocent. Although he passed a polygraph
(lie detector) test, the police told Williams that he had failed it.
After more than 11 hours of interrogation, Williams confessed to
the crime. After test results of DNA from the crime scene did not
match Williams’ DNA, police concluded that Williams must have
had an accomplice. They interrogated his roommate, Joe Dick Jr.,
who said that he was innocent. After many hours of intense



1
interrogation, Dick also confessed to the crime. Since Dick knew he
was innocent, he assumed that the DNA test would set him free. 1
o Show video clip of False Confession #3
Facilitate discussion of the various interrogation techniques used by detectives to elicit a confession
from an innocent person.
o What can a police officer do during an investigation?
 Lie
 Talk about false evidence or witnesses that allegedly exist
o What can a police officer NOT do during an interrogation?
 Present any false physical evidence
 Use or threaten to use physical evidence
 Promise what the Judge will do if the suspect confesses
o Ask students why innocent people agree to be interrogated.
 Possible answers include: because they are confident in their innocence and want to
help the investigation, clear their name, or feel intimidated by the police; because
the person thinks they have nothing to fear and are worried they would look guilty
if they did not cooperate
Some of the more common techniques:
o “Making up evidence” technique. The Supreme Court has found it permissible for police to
tell suspects they have found evidence indicating their guilt, even when no such evidence
exists.
o “Maximization” technique. Detective’s Goal: convince the suspect that denial is both
useless and counterproductive. Detective should:
 Emphasize seriousness of crime and potential punishment;
 Express a high level of confidence that suspect is guilty;
 Block any denials of guilt by the suspect;
 Introduce evidence (true or false evidence) to demonstrate the strength of the
investigation.
o “Minimization” technique. Offering the suspect different “themes” that provides
justification for the commission of the crime.
o “Alternative Question” technique. Detective presents two options—and only two—for
suspect to choose from: you either did it because you made a mistake or because you are a
thief. (Note there is no “denial” option given)
o “Stick and Carrot” technique.
 Step 1 (Stick): Beat the suspect down psychologically and make them believe there
is no way out other than to confess.
 Step 2 (Carrot): Convince the suspect that they will be “better off” by confessing (i.e.,
you can strike a deal with them, or offer them some sort of help.
Role Play: Developing the Story that Fits
o We want to show how a completely innocent person can give an accurate confession to a
crime they did not commit.
o Teacher needs 4 volunteers: 1 to play the suspect; 2 to play cops; 1 to come in and video the
final confession.
 To Cops: Ask cops to stand outside and read their scenario (Attachment B) and to
start planning their interrogation.
The Confessions”, Featured Lesson Plan: Weighing the Evidence
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/the-confessions/lesson.html

o
o
Confirm with cops that they understand their sole goal: to get a videotaped
confession to the crime on the sheet
 To Suspect: Explain to the suspect and the rest of the class that the suspect is
playing an innocent (wo)man who has been interrogated for hours and threatened
with a huge jail term unless (s)he confesses. (S)he’s decided to give a false
confession.2
 At this point, the student does not know ANY details about the crime (s)he
is supposed to confess to. (S)he will need to get these details in order to
confess.
 Suspect’s goal is to give a full confession that cops will videotape
 To videographer: Explain to the videographer that (s)he will sit with the class until
called upon by the police to record the Suspect’s statement. The videographer will
only have ONE chance to record the Suspect’s statement.
 To class: Explain to the rest of the class: Challenge them to see who can guess the
details of the crime as closely as they actually occurred. They need to write down
details of the crime as they think they happened, and see how close they get to the
actual details of the crime.
 Ask the observing students to complete “Crime Details,” Attachment C
Begin the interrogation. Suspect should try to get details out of the officers, while the
officers try to get a detailed confession from Suspect.
 Once Police think Suspect is ready to confess fully, call in Videographer, who gets
one chance to record a final version of the confession so that it can be used in court
(Videographer can use a cell phone and really record the confession)
 Ask the class to compare the confession given by the suspect to their
answers on their Crime Details worksheet
 Class decides whether the videotaped confession would be specific and strong
enough to convict the suspect in court
 Ask the class why the interrogation stopped at this point in time (hopefully, b/c
suspect confessed). Ask the class if they can think of two other times when an
interrogation stops.
 1. Suspect asks for an attorney;
 2. Police officer gets bored/runs out of things to say
Debrief. Ask students what the point of the exercise was
 Once students understand the concept that information needed for a detailed
confession can be transferred from the police interrogators to an innocent suspect
during the course of an interrogation, explain that the term for this process is
“contamination”
 Ask students if they have any idea what the term “tunnel vision” means and how it
might apply here. Tunnel vision means the detective is focusing on only one
possible scenario to explain the crime. Once the detective becomes convinced that
the suspect is guilty, the detective ignores or rationalizes any evidence that
contradicts that theory.
Note: make sure that the volunteer Suspect understands that it’s his/her task is to give a false confession,
even if (s)he would never give a false confession in real life (anticipating teenage contrarianism…)
2


Consider asking students to employ tunnel vision to explain away evidence
that contradicted the detective’s beliefs in the above scenario (i.e., the
suspect’s sister says the suspect was with her at a movie in Anacostia at the
time the robbery was committed)
Ask students if they have any ideas on how to tell the difference between a false
confession and a true confession
 Best Practices. Ask students to think of ways to minimize the number of false confessions.
 Best practices include:
o Mandatory videotaping of interrogations from start to finish
o Have an “appropriate adult” present during the interrogation of juveniles3
o Restrict interrogation to only those suspects where there is specific evidence of guilt (no
interrogation based on hunches, etc.)
o Mandatory police training in causes of false confessions
o Allow defense attorneys to challenge the reliability of confession evidence, much like the
reliability of eyewitness evidence is allowed to be challenged before it’s presented to jury
o Application of the scientific method to investigations to prevent tunnel vision
 Leo article: “In Their Own Words: Q&A with Richard Leo” from The Innocence Project in Print, pp.
16-17, Vol 7, Issue 1, Summer 2011, available at:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/Summer11.php
 Five stories of false confessions from Northwestern Law Center on Wrongful Convictions, available
here:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/causesandremedies/falseconfessio
ns/index.html)
 Article on Marty Tankleff’s false confession from Oprah.com available here:
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Marty-Tankleffs-Wrongful-Conviction/1
 Newspaper Article “What causes people to give false confessions?” by Lisa Black and Steve Mills,
Chicago Tribune, July 11, 2010, available here: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-0711/news/ct-met-forced-confessions-20100711_1_confess-dna-evidence-interrogation
 Newspaper Article “Confessing to Crime, but Innocent” by John Schwartz, NYTimes OpEd, September
13, 2010, available here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html
 Magazine article, “’I Did It’; Why do people confess to crimes they didn’t commit?” by Robert Kolker,
New York Magazine, October 3, 2010, available here:
http://nymag.com/print/?/news/crimelaw/68715/
 Video “The Confessions”, Frontline, inside the incredible saga of the Norfolk Four, available here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/
 Article on why teens are more prone to make false confessions
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_1_136/ai_n18616184/
 Lesson on Miranda rights from Street Law.org:
http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/465/A_Real_World_Case_Study_Homicide_by_David_Simon
3
In some states, juveniles may waive this right to having their parent in the room.

Website with lots of resources and stories: http://www.falseconfessions.org/false-confessionshappen
Attachment A
False Confession Worksheet
What techniques do the detectives use to get the suspects to confess?
FALSE CONFESSION #1
FALSE CONFESSION #2
FALSE CONFESSION #3
Attachment B
Interrogation Scenario: Police
Based on other evidence (including some DNA and eyewitness identification), you
are 100% convinced that the Suspect is guilty of theft. You have been
interrogating this person for hours and believe (s)he is ready to crack. You know
that a confession would strengthen your case, but for the confession to stand up in
court, the suspect must be able to describe identifying details of the crime. The
Suspect must know these details (after all, the other evidence proves (s)he
committed the crime), but after four hours of interrogation the Suspect still denies
any knowledge of the crime.
Your goal is to interrogate him/her once more and get a detailed confession that
will stand up in court. This means the confession must contain all the details about
who/what/where/when/why from the crime description below.
You can ask “leading questions” to get the Suspect to confess. Leading questions
are questions that contain and answer; you just want the person answering the
question to say “yes” to your question. An example of a leading question is “Isn’t
it true that you were wearing a black hat last Friday night at the Promises
nightclub?”
CONFIDENTIAL DETAILS OF THE CRIME
A teenage student employee who worked at the Apple Store in Georgetown saw
someone with roughly matching hair color, height and skin tone of the Suspect,
who was wearing a light blue hoodie and bright red Reeboks, shoplifting 3 iPhone
4s, one iPad 2, and one green iPod Touch last Saturday morning at approximately
11am. Additionally, the teenage student employee saw the Suspect and identified
Suspect in lineup as thief.
FIRST TWO QUESTIONS TO ASK SUSPECT
1. So you like going shopping, right?
2. Where do you go shopping?
Police, please think of more!
Attachment C
Crime Details
1. Who? The person who committed this crime was:
a.
b.
c.
2. Where? This crime occurred:
3. When? This crime took place?
4. What? The item(s) stolen were:
a.
b.
c.
5. Why this suspect? The police believe this person committed the crime because:
Lives Taken/Reason for Wrongful Conviction/Snitch Testimony
Objective (SWBAT)
 Explore motivations for why people might lie
 Decide when a lie might be justifiable or acceptable
 Develop an understanding of what might motivate people to inform on potential law breakers
 Evaluate multiple perspectives in response to hypothetical
Materials Needed
 Index cards
 Hypos in Attachment A cut into individual slips
 1 Copy of Attachment B for each student
 Means to present Attachment C to entire class (slide, handouts)
 1 Copy of Attachment D for each group of 2-3
Procedure
Motivating Activity

Ask students to write down on index card one time they (or a friend/sibling) lied. Give 2-3
sentences. Anonymous. As long as everyone does it, everyone gets credit. Can be to parents,
teachers, boss, peer. Collect, sort. Read aloud.
o Brainstorm with class and write on board
o the motive or reason why a person would lie in each situation (objective: identify reasons
why people might lie);
o Next, establish criteria (write on board) for when, if ever, it is OKAY to lie. (to save a friend,
save yourself, reduce jail term or punishment, when it is over a minor thing, when??)
Core Lesson
 Define snitching (talk to whom? About what? Because of what motive? Anyone who talks to any cop
about anything?).
o Have students write down the definition that snitching is “incentivized testimony.” (note: if
a person testifies for no reason or incentive, that is NOT considered snitching)
o Do “Reporting Up” hypos in Attachment A
 Copy and cut each hypo so students can get the main hypo first (i.e., #1) and then, as
the discussion proceeds, you can add the subparts (#1a then #1b)
 Use Attachment B to have students write down their answers
o Get some discussion going, get opinions.
o Have kids try to get categories of informants; what are the different types of informants?
o Have kids come up with motives/ reasons why someone might lie
 Evaluation: Have each student draft one scenario (no matter how implausible) where they would
report something to the authorities
 Facilitate discussion with students on snitch testimony and the role it can play in getting an innocent
person convicted of a crime
o Snitch testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions in capital cases
o Testimony from informants has played a role in 15% of the convictions overturned
nationwide by DNA evidence, according to the Innocence Project.
o In a 2005 study, Northwestern University Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions
documented 38 cases in which informant testimony sent innocent men to death row.
Snitch testimony can be at the initiative of another individual (usually another inmate) OR it
can be the result of prosecutorial misconduct (for example, if the police place an inmate in a
cell or truck with a suspect and make it clear to the cooperating inmate that if s/he comes up
with information about how the suspect admitted guilt or details of a crime then the
cooperating inmate would be “taken care of”)
5 types of criminal informants (note criminal informant is NOT the same thing as a snitch):
o Criminal informant (CI, snitch, rat)
o Mercenary Informants (want $$, capitalist, wanna-be cop)
o Good citizens
o Anonymous informant
o Officials: other Cops, jailers, dispatchers, prison guards
Informant Motives/Why do people snitch?
o Prison Term related:
 Shorten sentence (as many as 20% of federal sentences are altered due to
cooperation credit)
 Prison benefits, including Relocation, visiting time, privileges
o Criminal Charge related:
 Immunity from prosecution
 Dismissal of charges or promise not to charge against Snitch OR against family and
friends
o Method of payback/ Revenge
o Eliminate Competitor
o Money
o Witness protection
o Good citizenship
Why do police use snitches?
o Legal
o Might be the only way to verify info
o Close unsolved cases
o Ends justify the means
o



 Tell students that the local District Attorney has approached them and commissioned a new policy, to
be distributed to all police officers and attorneys, on the use of snitch testimony.
 Divide students into groups and ask them to come up with at least 3 rules for when police or
prosecutor can rely on snitch testimony
o Students should develop a handbook/ guide explaining when police and prosecutors can rely
on snitch testimony and what the opposing side, judge, or jury should know if the case goes
to trial
o Best Practices
 Training for Prosecutors so they can evaluate whether to use snitch testimony on
factors such as:
 Specificity (i.e., Statement contains details known only to perpetrator)
 Informer’s general character, including history of providing reliable or
unreliable information
 Informer’s request for specific benefits or treatment
 Circumstances where informer allegedly heard perp’s statement
o
o
o
o


Pretrial Disclosures (prosecution should reveal any agreements with snitch and information
on reliability of snitch to be used)
Pretrial Reliability Hearings (court must conclude testimony is reliable to hear)
Required corroboration
Cautionary Jury instructions (jury should consider factors in determining extent to which
such testimony is credible)
Discuss “snitchwire.blogspot.com”
o SnitchWire exists solely for the purpose of investigating and objectively reporting on the
existence and actions of known informants, infiltrators, rats, snitches, and provocateurs. This
blog is to be used as a tool for people wishing not to associate with such unsavory,
treacherous scum. Individuals pursuing a "snitches get stitches" policy do so on their own
accord and are in no way affiliated with this publication.
o See Attachment C for excerpts from this website (or download some more recent ones
yourself)
 Consider having your students rank each snitch according to which of these
individuals cooperation with authorities was most important or most admirable
o Use Attachment D to have students make a decision as a government manager on the issue of
whether to shut down snitchwire.com
Ask students to explore how police and prosecutors might get around the question to a testifying
snitch of “are you being offered anything for your testimony?”
o The testifying snitch almost always says “No” in order to preserve credibility
 Police or prosecutor may get around this by not promising anything to the snitch
but making it very clear that there will be a “reward” down the line.
 Police and prosecutors are also going to want to use snitches in the future so if they
want to encourage other snitches to come forward, police and prosecutors need to
model a system where the snitch gets rewarded or compensated after testifying.
 Show scenes from Lincoln Lawyer (1:28:00-1:39:00); discuss problems with snitch testimony
 Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions’ Publication “The Snitch System,”
available here: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/SnitchSystemBooklet.pdf
 Philadelphia City Paper article, Part 1 of 2, “Snitch Work,” available here:
http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/2004-06-17/cover.shtml
o Part 1 & 2 of the story available here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1189
 Frontline show on “snitch,” available here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/
o Including “inside the mind of a snitch” interview
 Discuss: Is it fair that prosecutors can offer powerful incentives to witnesses in exchange for their
testimony, while defense attorneys, in offering anything to a witness, would be accused of bribery?
 Chicago Tribune article on Jailhouse Informants, available here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-991116deathillinois3,0,2723008,full.story
 Snitching blog, “a comprehensive resource on criminal informants: legal developments, legislation,
news stories, cultural reactions, commentary and more,” available here: http://www.snitching.org/
 Law review article, “Anti Snitching norms and Community Loyalty” by Bret Asbury, available here:
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/olrold/archives/89/Asbury.pdf






2007 Justice Project report “Jailhouse Snitch Testimony,” available here:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Death_penalty_reform/Jailh
ouse%20snitch%20testimony%20policy%20brief.pdf
News story (4:06) and article on confidential informant who lied due to police pressure:
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2010-05-20/Convicted-felon-Lying-confidentialinformant-sent-me-to-prison
o The informant, Shakira Redding, admitted that she set up innocent people by fabricating
drug deals: she'd buy drugs in advance and hide them on her body to provide to the drug
task force as "evidence" after the alleged deals. The government had promised her money, a
home, and custody of her children if she provided incriminating evidence against others.
Romill Blandin was one of Redding's innocent targets who spent 20 months in prison after
Redding made a video of a man in a car that she claimed was Blandin, and then picked
Blandin out of a line-up. Tellingly, Blandin never saw the video before he pled guilty--his
public defender told him that he couldn't see it unless he went to trial and that his criminal
record made it likely that the jury would convict him. He chose to plead guilty instead of
risking a longer sentence.
Movie: American Violet (A single African-American mother struggles to clear her name after being
wrongly accused and arrested for dealing drugs in an impoverished town in Texas). Website with
more info here: http://www.americanviolet.com/
o Excerpt from the book: In the economically troubled town of Hearne, Texas, 27-year-old
criminal informant Derrick Megress wreaked havoc. In November, 2000, a federally-funded
drug task force swept through the town arresting twenty-eight people, mostly residents of
the Columbus Village public housing project. Megress, a suicidal former drug dealer on
probation facing new burglary charges, had cut a deal with the local prosecutor. If he
produced at least 20 arrests, Megress's new charges would be dropped. He'd also earn $100
for every person he helped bust. One of his innocent victims was waitress Regina Kelly,
mother of four, who steadfastly refused to plead guilty and take a deal for probation even as
she sat in jail for weeks. Another target, Detra Tindle, was actually in the hospital giving birth
at the time that Megress alleged that she had sold him drugs. A lie detector test finally
revealed that Megress had lied--mixing flour and baking soda with small amounts of cocaine
to fabricate evidence of drug deals. Charges against the remaining Hearne suspects were
dropped, although several had already pleaded guilty.
Jailhouse Snitches; Trading Lies for Freedom, Los Angeles Times, April 16, 1989, available here:
http://www.snitching.org/docs/Trading_Lies_for_Freedom.pdf
3 part series from Miami New Times on using juvenile snitches, available here (links to part 2 & 3
from this article): http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2012-03-01/news/bosco-henriquez-wasbeaten-and-raped-after-helping-miami-cops-bust-latin-gangs/
“Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America’s Underground Legal System” by Alexandra
Natapoff
Attachment A
Reporting Up Hypos
1. Would you call the DC Metro Authority if you saw an olive skinned man in a business suit leave a briefcase
under a bench in Union Station and then dial someone on his cell phone as he quickly walked out of Union
Station?
1A. What if you heard him say “It is done. May Allah have mercy.”
1B. What if your family is due to arrive on a train in 15 minutes?
2. Would you tell your school resource officer if, after two girls were thrown out of school for a gang fight,
you saw one of the girls sneak in through the unlocked cafeteria door carrying a knife?
2A. What if the person the suspended girl was fighting with was your best friend and you knew the
suspended girl was coming to get her?
3. If you were serving 10-15 years for receipt of stolen property after you accepted a brand new flat screen as
a gift from your stepdad (not knowing it was stolen) and your lawyer says he can get you out in less than one
year if you simply tell the authorities who gave you the tv, what would you do?
3A. What if your stepdad gave a video camera to your little sister and diamond earrings to your mom and
they all face the same sentence unless you talk to the authorities?
4. What would you do if you got caught stealing a candy bar and now face 40 years in prison under a “3
strikes and you’re out” law and a cop you have never met before says he will put you in a jail cell for one night
with a known child molester who is about to escape on a technicality. The cop says if you later tell her that
the child molester confessed to you (even if he didn’t), the cop says your sentence will be cut by 30 years.
4A. What if you remembered this person because your little brother pointed him out earlier that week as the
person who had been giving him candy?
5. You notice that a quiet, odd girl in your class who you’ve never liked is posting (again) on Facebook about
getting rid of all the jerks in your school. You’ve made a few sarcastic comments about how this girl needs to
get a life and not share the life she doesn’t have on Facebook. One day, you see her right before her 6th period
history class loading what looks like a black handgun in the bathroom. You run out of the bathroom and ???
5A. What if your best friend, who would never skip history class ever is in the 6th period class with this loner.
What are you going to do?
6. Would you call the police if a man you had never seen before came by your house at midnight and told you
that your mother had 24 hours to pay him back or something bad would happen to your family?
6A. What if you saw him scouting out your house after school that next day and then him hiding outside your
house with three other friends the next night?
7. If you were charged and arrested for drug distribution and were absolutely innocent, and the cops told you
that you are going away for 20 years unless you testify against another drug dealer, (someone you had never
met)?
7A. What if they told you that if you didn't testify, you would additionally be charged with assault with intent
to kill and could face a 50 year sentence for things you did not do?
8. After finding out that your boyfriend/girlfriend has been cheating on you repeatedly, you hear on the
street that he/she robbed and brutally assaulted an elderly woman in the same building as the person s/he
was cheating on you with. Knowing that you two have been involved, his/her probation officer calls you
down to the station and tell you that they know you helped with the robbery and the assault and that you
could be charged as an accessory. Would you tell the PO that there was no way you were with this person
because they were cheating on you and you were in a huge fight?
8A. The PO tells you that you can either "admit" to the PO that your boyfriend/girlfriend told you that they
did the assault and walk away clean, or take a piece of the pie and go down for the case with him/her. What
would you do?
9. You have been working at DefenseCorp as an executive assistant to Marcus LaRay for 7 years when you
accidentally overhear a conversation between Marcus and the chief field tester for DefenseCorp’s new body
armor. Marcus tells the field tester to ignore the armor’s design weaknesses near the neck and underarms
and to report that the body armor is 100% functional as presently designed so a $45 million contract with the
US Marines can proceed on schedule. Your brother in law works in procurement (purchasing) for the
Marines and he is coming over for a BBQ tomorrow night. What will you tell him?
9A. Your little sister calls you to tell you that she has just been accepted to the Marines and will be going to
Afghanistan next week for her next level of training: combat infantry training with DefenseCorp’s new body
armor! She laughs and says “thank god you guys make the armor that will keep me alive.” What do you say to
her?
10. In your third year as a stock trader for GMAX, your boss runs into the room with an order for 10,000
shares of Apple stock. Your boss tells you to put the order through and buy the stock. When you ask her why
she can’t do it herself, she makes you promise not to say anything and then tells you that she got an email
from her best friend over at Apple about a top-secret new iPhone that will be announced tomorrow. No one
outside of Apple is supposed to know this information and you know from your required annual ethics
courses that putting the order through would be insider trading. Your ethics course instructor said you could
call him anytime with questions or leads about illegal behavior. What are you going to do?
10A. Your boss says that if you don’t put the order through immediately, you will be fired. If you do put it
through and keep your mouth shut, however, you will be driving a new Ducati next month.
11. You have spent 8 months working undercover in the Latin Kings, building your case against some of the
biggest drug and gun runners on the West Coast. Your orders were to stay in place in cover until you have
details on something so big that it would be worthwhile to blow your cover. You’ve just learned about a
submarine shipment of uncut cocaine worth over $300 million on the street that will be arriving next Friday.
You need to submit a report to your FBI handler tonight. What will you tell your handler?
11A. You find out that the Kings have bribed a customs official to ignore the submarine’s arrival. This
customs official is the same guy who stole your girlfriend when you were away at FBI training camp and then
broke two of your fingers when you angrily confronted him about. What will you tell your handler?
Attachment B
Reporting UP Hypos
Number ____
A.
B.
Explaining my thinking:
Number ____
A.
B.
Number ____
A.
B.
Attachment C
Excerpts from snitchwire.blogspot.com (under headline “currently walking free”):

*Justin Clayton Samuel (DOB: Dec. 31, 1978) from Snohomish, WA. Cooperated with
government by testifying against Peter Young. Both were charged with cutting fences and
liberating mink from a series of fur
farms in October 1997. Samuel was an electrical engineering student at the
University of Washington in Seattle before dropping out in 1997. Samuel
was sentenced to two years in federal prison plus a year supervised
release and ordered to pay $364,106 in restitution in exchange for his
cooperation.
He was released on 11-28-2001, and has gone into the computer security field, working for
Firefox as of 2010. He is currently a PhD student at UC Berkeley.
Height: 6’ 0″. Weight: ~165 lbs. Place of birth: California. Hair: brown.
Eyes: hazel. Race: white.
His school department profile:
www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jsamuel
And twitter:
twitter.com/#!/jstnsml

*Angela “Angie” Marie Cesario (DOB ~1979): took a cooperating plea deal, pointing the finger
at Tre Arrow to reduce her sentence. This was a departure fromearlier testimonies, when both
Cesario and Rosenbloom did not name Arrow as the instigator, but Jake Sherman. All three
named Arrow in exchange forsentences of 41 months. She was released on 12-22-2006.

*Jacob “Jake” David Bardwell Sherman (DOB ~1982) of Portland, OR:convicted of arson of
logging trucks and a front-end loader near Eagle Creek in 2001. Sherman “immediately began to
cooperate” with investigators after his arrest, according to court documents. Sherman was
boastful and told several girlfriends (two of whom also provided information to the government), in
detail, his version of the events that took place that night. Sherman had also not been an
especially careful saboteur. His mother’s vehicle smelled of gasoline and he dumped his clothes
in the trash bin when he returned that night at 2:00 am,asking his brother to tell his parents that
he had returned home at 10:30 pm. Sherman’s father, contacted the FBI telling them he believed
his son
was involved in the arson. During FBI questioning, Sherman pegged Arrow as the ringleader in
exchange for a sentence of 41 months.

*Stanislas “Stan” Gregory Meyerhoff (DOB: ~1977) of Charlottesville, VA.:
also went by “Jack.” Meyerhoff was the first of the group called “The Family” to be sentenced, and
the first
to snitch once arrested. Charged with May 1999 arson at Childers Meat Co. in
Eugene; 1999 arson at Boise Cascade office in Monmouth, OR; toppling of a
Bonneville Power Administration tower; arson at the Eugene Police
Department West University Public Safety Station; arson at Superior Lumber
Co., in Glendale, OR; arson of sport utility vehicles at a Eugene car
dealership; arson of Jefferson Poplar Farms in Clatskanie. He admitted guilt in his first hearing in
front
of an arraignment judge. Meyerhoff eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy
and arson charges in a string of 20 fires that did $40 million worth of
damage in five states, including a 1998 fire at the Vail ski resort in
Colorado. After the group disbanded in 2001, Meyerhoff enrolled in college
in Virginia, where he studied engineering. Meyerhoff, who admitted to
fashioning the devices to start the fires, was sentenced to 13 years in
prison. He is currently held at USP Terre Haute and is scheduled to be
released on 7-08-2015.
Attachment D
City Manager Petition
You are the manager in charge of web hosting for Cityspot.com, the governmental organization with
exclusive control over all web hosting in your city. No internet provider, regional or national, may
permit anyone living within your city limits from accessing web sites not approved by Cityspot.
You are required to consider and publicly address any citizen petition with more than 200 signatures.
More than 500 citizens have submitted a petition that the snitchwire website be immediately and fully
banned by Cityspot. You have already spoken to Cityspot’s lawyers and they have told you there would
be no First Amendment violation if you shut the site down and also no violation if you left the site
operational.
You must issue a decision responding to the citizen petition. Your decision must include:
(a) 2 sentences presenting arguments why the site should be shut down and 2 sentences explaining why
the site should be permitted to continue operating; and
(b) a final and comprehensive decision, including deadlines for compliance if required
(c) a 1 sentence explanation why you made the final decision you did.
Lives Taken/Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Objective (SWBAT)
 Articulate the importance of a fair trial
th
 Identify and understand the purpose of the 6 Amendment
 Discern some factors that contribute to effective counsel
 Identify the standard that the Supreme Court uses in determining whether counsel is ineffective
Materials Needed
 Whiteboard/Chalkboard
 Markers or chalk
 Copies of Attachment A (sufficient number for each student to have one)
Procedure
Motivating Activity

Tell students to imagine that they have been accused of cheating on a test, and they will be
meeting with the principal shortly to decide if they will be expelled. Tell them that they get to pick
who defends them against this accusation from a list of people written on the whiteboard, and
they will have thirty seconds to decide who that person is and 1 reason why they picked that
person:
A parent or guardian
The teacher accusing you of cheating
A sports coach
Your best friend
Your homeroom teacher
A randomly selected person you have never met before but who has participated in 3
other expulsion hearings
Your boss at your after school job
A college graduate who will be going to law school next year

After they take a moment to decide, go through the list, asking students to raise their hands for
the option they selected. Choose two or three students to explain why they chose the person they
did to represent them, and why they did not pick a different option.
Consider generating a list on the board of qualities that determined who the students picked to
defend them and qualities that determined who the students did NOT pick to defend them. For
example, it might be important that the person who is defending the student knows them
personally, while it would be undesirable to be defended by someone who might be biased.
Explain to students that, for some of the reasons they brought up, the person defending a criminal
matters very much. Tell them that just like any other job, there are great lawyers and terrible
lawyers, and the lawyer that the Court assigns to a criminal is oftentimes responsible for whether
they receive a fair trial.


Core Lesson


th
Give students a copy of the 6 Amendment and ask them to review it in pairs. After each pair has
th
read the 6 Amdendment, generate a list on the board of student responses to the question,
th
“What is guaranteed by the 6 Amendment?”
After students have identified some concrete rights guaranteed in the amendment, repeat the
th
process with what is NOT guaranteed by the 6 Amendment. Students (or teacher if necessary)
th









should conclude that the 6 Amendment excludes mention of a “good/competent/experienced”
attorney, and merely offers them the services of an “attorney” generally.
Tell the students that, in pairs or small groups, they will be reading short hypothetical situations
and placing them in order from least effective counsel (or worst lawyer) to most effective counsel
(or best lawyer).
Hand out the hypotheticals in Attachment A to each pair or small group, and allow the students 10
minutes to discuss the hypotheticals and arrange them in order.
When each group has completed the task, call on one to two groups to share their ordering of
scenarios.
Next, ask groups to take two minutes to decide as a group where to draw the line for “ineffective
assistance of counsel”. In other words, have them decide which scenarios have a lawyer that is
so ineffective that the defendant or accused person was not provided with their right to counsel as
th
promised by the 6 Amendment.
Debrief: Host a discussion in which each group articulates why they “drew the line” where they
did.
o Possible guiding questions for discussion:
What is the point of a lawyer in a criminal trial?
How do you define a “fair trial”?
Why does having a fair trial matter?
Why, in some scenarios, might the lawyer make the trial unfair?
What should happen if a lawyer causes a trial to be unfair?
Should standards for effective assistance of counsel differ depending on how serious
the crime and possible punishments are?
After the discussion, ask students to help you write a “rule” on the board to figure out when it is
warranted to order a new lawyer for a defendant.
If needed, use a sentence frame : “If a lawyer _____________, thena defendant did not receive a
th
fair trial as promised by the 6 amendment.”
After the class agrees on a rule, tell students that the Supreme Court has written a rule to be
applied to cases like their hypotheticals.
o The Supreme Court ruled in Strickland v. Washington that to prove ineffective assistance,
a defendant must show:
(1) that their trial lawyer's performance fell below what most people would see
as being reasonably good at their job and
(2) Because of the attorney’s incompetence, their client lost the case.
If time, ask students if they believe that rule is fair enough or specific enough to be helpful in their
hypotheticals.




Have students create a “job listing” for an effective defense attorney. In the listing, have them create a
set of standards that an attorney must meet in order to be hired to defend someone accused of a
crime.
Have students illustrate two of the hypotheticals (one with an effective attorney and one without) as
comic strips, making sure to label which situation is which.
Give students the opportunity to write a “Supreme Court Opinion” featuring their rule for when a
lawyer is effective and explaining their logic.
Write an op-ed on the decision in Strickland v. Washington, explaining to readers why it is helpful or
unhelpful in deciding if a lawyer is effective.
Choose one of the below activities to complete for the remainder of class:
-
Create a “job listing” for an effective defense attorney. In the listing, create a set of standards
that an attorney must meet in order to be hired to defend someone accused of a crime.
Illustrate two of the hypotheticals (one with an effective attorney and one without) as comic
strips. Make sure to label which situation is which.
Write a “Supreme Court Opinion” featuring your rule for when a lawyer is effective. Explain your
logic.
Write an op-ed on the decision in Strickland v. Washington, explaining to readers why it is
helpful or unhelpful in deciding if a lawyer is effective.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Hypotheticals
A: Michael is accused of murdering his neighbor. His lawyer, Deron, reads a book under his desk
throughout the trial, and does not make any objections to anything the other side says. When the
Judge asks Deron if he has any questions for the prosecution’s witnesses, Deron says “No” every time.
B: Destiny is accused of drunk driving. She never actually drove drunk, and thinks that the police messed
up her breathalyzer test. She meets her lawyer on the first day of the trial, and never has the chance to
explain to her lawyer why she is innocent
C: Jayden is accused of shoplifting from a store. Her lawyer dozes off three times at trial and smells like
alcohol. Jayden thinks her lawyer is probably drunk.
D: Juan’s lawyer keeps forgetting Juan’s name, and accidentally said “assault” in his opening statement
instead of the crime Juan is accused of,, jaywalking.
E: MacKenzie was accused of selling drugs in her neighborhood three months ago. She told her lawyer
that she just moved into the neighborhood last week, so she couldn’t have been there three months
ago. She offers her lawyer the lease to her apartment to prove this, but her lawyer does not show this
evidence to the judge.
F. Shawn is accused of murder. The DNA of another person, whom Shawn insists must have been the
real killer, was found at the scene of the crime, but was never tested. Shawn’s lawyer ignores the DNA
evidence, and does not raise the possibility that the DNA could belong to someone else. The DNA is
never tested.
G. Daisia is arrested for possession of marijuana on school property. She is given a defense lawyer who is
friends with the principal of her school, the same person person who is accusing her of possession..
H. Yesenia is arrested for driving without a license. Her lawyer pressures her to plead guilty to avoid a
trial, even though she swears she is innocent. Yesenia resists but her lawyer tells her she should plead
guilty or she will get a much longer sentence. Yesenia pleads guilty and goes to jail without a trial..
I. Melissa does not speak English because she just moved to the United States. She speaks mostly
Spanish. She is arrested for leaving her three-year-old son in her house without a babysitter after her
neighbors called the police. The Court gives her an attorney who speaks no Spanish, and she cannot
afford an interpreter.
J. Jamie is arrested for hitting a pedestrian with his car and then driving away. His attorney keeps talking
about how he never wanted to be a lawyer and how much he hates his job. Every time Jamie asks him a
question, his attorney rolls his eyes and tells Jamie, “don’t worry dude, I got this.”
DC Street Law Clinic
Innocence Project Curriculum
Bad Science Lesson Plan
Objectives:
SWBAT…
-
Identify some forensic science techniques used in crime investigations
Explain the process for collecting and testing evidence, as well as common mistakes
and pitfalls
- Analyze the effects of bad science on the wrongly-accused
- Analyze the causes of bad science in investigations
Motivating Activity:

Write the following hypothetical on the board or deliver orally to class:
Imagine that it’s a rainy day, and someone has broken into your house while
you’re at school. The thief stole some valuable jewelry, your TV, and your PS3.
What are some different types of clues that police might look for? What types of
questions do you think they would ask you?

Have students think and make notes individually, and then share with their partner. After
a few minutes, take volunteers to share with the class.
 Write responses on the board.
o Possible answers would include: eyewitness, physical evidence, security camera
footage, fingerprints, hairs or other DNA evidence, footprints, someone trying to
sell these items afterwards, people earlier seen casing the house
Core Lesson




Arrange students in six (or fewer) groups. Tell students that they will be practicing finding
evidence and figuring out what type of evidence is the most convincing.
Tell students that a murder has taken place at a local park. There were no witnesses
and no video, cell phone, or security footage. Thus, the only evidence available is what
students can find at the crime scene.
Each group will be in charge of one type of forensic analysis to use on evidence at the
crime scene. After all of the groups have reviewed their forensic evidence and come to a
conclusion about who the murderer could be, the class as a whole will decide which
person should be charged with the murder.
Assign each group one of the following forensic techniques:
1. DNA Analysis
2. Bite Mark Analysis
3. Hair Analysis
4. Fingerprint Analysis
5. Footprint Analysis
6. Handwriting Analysis

Give each student the corresponding packet for their group. Tell them that they must
go over the evidence together and come to a decision as a group about who committed
the murder. They must be prepared to present their findings to the class so the class can
determine who to accuse.
 Give the class 10-15 minutes to read, analyze and discuss the materials given to their
group, saying that the prosecutors need their answer quickly. Consider offering a prize to
the team that completes their investigation first to mimic the types of incentives actual
forensic scientists face when searching for results.
 At the end of this time, ask each group to elect a reporter to tell the class what they have
found, even if they are not entirely finished.
 When each group has decided on a suspect, ask each group to share:
1. What type of forensic analysis their group used
2. Who they are accusing of the murder
3. Why they are being accused of the murder
4. How sure the group is that their choice of murderer is correct
Discussion


After the groups have shared, lead a discussion about the limitations that many types of
forensic analysis present, especially considering outside influences, environmental
factors, incomplete investigation by police, and other possible interferences.
Each group should be able to give at least one example of how their work was inexact
and required guesswork based on one of the following factors:
- DNA analysis included comparing siblings, whose DNA is remarkably similar
- Bite mark analysis is incredibly inexact and difficult to estimate, causing modern
investigations to forgo this type of analysis completely
- Hair analysis does not necessarily implicate the correct person; the hair tested
by this group could have been the victim’s, as the police neglected to provide a
sample of the victim’s hair
- Gunshot residue erodes and washes away over time and often appears on
those near a blast in addition to those who actually held the gun. GSR can be
removed easily.
- Footprint analysis merely proves that someone was there, not that someone
committed a murder. Additionally, footprints are often washed away, tampered
with, or misidentified.
- Handwriting analysis is subject to misinterpretation and biases. The police in
this case sought out new handwriting samples from each suspect rather than
finding a natural handwriting sample, encouraging
- Ask what effect imposing a time limit had on their work. Were they more careful?
Were they less careful? Did they feel right charging the person they chose, even
though the evidence was insufficient and difficult to analyze?
- If time, give students a real life example of someone who was imprisoned due to
bad science. Examples can be found on the Innocence Project website at
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Forensic-Science-Misconduct.php
-
Have students rank each type of forensic analysis from least effective to most effective
As a group, come up with a set of guidelines determining what types of forensic
evidence should be allowed in court
-
Ask students to brainstorm ways in which forensic evidence can be damaged or
intentionally altered between the commission of a crime and collection of evidence
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
Bad Science
Bite Mark Analysis
Case File: Ellie Smith
Ellie Smith was found murdered in City Park. While investigators assume
she died as a result of the gunshot wound on the back right side of her head, her
body has multiple bruises and cuts, along with what appear to be bite marks.
Investigators believe some of the cuts might be stab marks, because the blood of
another person was possibly found at the scene of the crime. Investigators say it’s
not uncommon for an attacker to accidentally cut him or herself in a knife attack.
Ellie had been missing for three days before her body was found in a far
corner of the park. She was reported missing on a Tuesday when she did not
come home from school, but her body was not found until Friday morning when a
jogger noticed one of Ellie’s shoes from the trail. While the weather had been
mild, there was a light rain the evening before she was found. It is unknown if
another person saw the body before it was reported to police, but it is possible.
The area where Ellie’s body was found is a popular location for joggers, but she
was far enough from the main path that her body was easy to miss.
Three suspects were brought in for questioning. Ellie’s brother, Elrod, who
had been angry at his sister for getting better grades than him, was arrested at his
house and brought to the police station. Following that, Ellie’s ex-boyfriend,
Bruno, who was angry at Ellie for breaking up with him, was arrested. Finally,
Maria, a girl from Ellie’s school who had told her friends she wished Ellie was
dead, was arrested.
Bite Mark Analysis
Oddly, investigators found an apple next to Ellie’s body. Investigators
consider this odd because Ellie had always hated apples, and was mildly allergic to
them. The apple looked a couple of days old, and had evidence of insects and
other environmental erosion. It is not odd to find apples in the area because it is a
common destination for hikers and picnickers, but the park ranger said he didn’t
remember anyone hiking lately. There was a large bite taken out of the side of the
apple.
Your job is to use Bite Mark Analysis to attempt to distinguish who took the
bite of the apple and left it near Ellie’s body. Investigators have found the dental
records of all three suspects, and have given them to you to help you make your
decision. Try to match the pictures of teeth to the bite taken out of the apple.
Approximate location of upper and lower 4 teeth on apple
Maria’s Teeth
Bruno’s Teeth
Elrod’s Teeth
Whose bite marks do you think were on the apple at the scene of the crime?
Why do you think bite mark belongs to that person?
What is challenging about identifying the bite mark?
Could there be any alternate explanation for how the apple with someone else’s
bite marks ended up next to Ellie? Could it belong to someone other than a
suspect?
Conclusions:
My team thinks that ______________
murdered Ellie Smith.
We are _____% sure.
Bad Science
DNA Analysis
dead, was arrested.
DNA Evidence
Because the DNA of another person was found on Ellie’s body, investigators
are asking your team to analyze the DNA and compare it to another person’s.
DNA is genetic information found in blood and other bodily fluids and can be
compared to other DNA samples collected from possible culprits. DNA is similar in
family members, and have more distinct differences in people who are not
related. By putting DNA through a scientific process and separating the different
pieces out, it is possible to see a “picture” of someone’s DNA.
Your job is to look at the DNA scans on the following pages and do your
best to match it to the DNA of one of the suspects. DNA is considered one of the
most trustworthy types of evidence, so investigators are relying on you.
DNA recovered from the scene of the
crime
DNA of Bruno, Ellie’s Ex-Boyfriend
DNA of Elrod Smith, Ellie’s Brother
DNA of Maria, Ellie’s classmate
1. Based on the information given to you, whose DNA do you believe was
found at the scene of the crime?
2. Why?
3. What are some reasons why your answer could be wrong?
4. Could you think of any alternate explanations for your results?
Conclusions:
We are _____% sure.
Bad Science
Footprint Analysis
dead, was arrested.
Footprint Analysis
Because a light rain had fallen around the time of Ellie’s death, investigators
were able to find visible footprints in the mud around Ellie’s body. Unfortunately,
while securing the crime scene, three police officers slipped down the side of the
hill and accidentally covered up part of the footprints. Pieces of a footprint are
called a “partial” footprint, and a few partial footprints were around the scene of
the crime. The police are not sure that they belong to the suspect, but they are
eager to figure out who might have killed Ellie, and are pushing your team to
make a match.
Footprint Profiles
Elrod: Size 10 men’s shoe. Usually wears sports shoes. Muddy running shoes were
found in his closet.
Bruno: Size 12 men’s shoe. Usually wears hiking boots. Muddy hiking boots were
found in his car, but he says he went hiking in the mud the weekend before Ellie’s
body was found.
Maria: Size 8 women’s shoe. Usually wears sports shoes, but has over 20 pairs of
shoes in her closet. No mud was found on any of her shoes, but many pairs of her
shoes were suspiciously clean.
Whose footprints do you think were at the scene of the crime?
Why do you think the footprints belong to that person?
What is challenging about identifying the footprints?
Could there be any alternate explanations for how the footprints got there? Could
they belong to someone other than the murderer?
Conclusions:
We are _____% sure.
Bad Science
Gunshot Residue Analysis
dead, was arrested.
Gunshot Residue Analysis
Because Ellie appears to have died from a gunshot wound to the back right
side of her head, investigators at the police station would like your team to
conduct gunshot residue analysis, or “GSR analysis”.
When a gun is fired, tiny particles of different types of metal from the blast
called gunshot residue, or GSR, land on people and things that were nearby when
the gun was fired. Because of this, it is possible to tell if someone was holding a
gun by searching their hands and clothes for the types of metal that result from a
gunshot.
The challenging part of GSR analysis, however, stems from the fact that GSR
can naturally fall off of people or their clothes, purposefully be washed off of
people and their clothes, or could even be on someone who was nearby the
shooting but did not pull the trigger.
In order to determine if one of our suspects has fired a gun, one of the
following combinations must be found on their hands or their clothes:
1. lead, antimony and barium;
2. barium, calcium and silicon;
3. or antimony and barium alone
Check the attached evidence report, and then come to a conclusion about who
you think committed Ellie’s murder.
Evidence Report
To determine the presence of GSR on the three suspects, swabs were taken from
their hands and their outer clothing (jackets and boots, etc.). Additionally, swabs
were taken from the victim. The results are as follows:
Ellie (victim):
Lead, antimony, and barium were found on Ellie’s hands in large quantities.
Antimony and barium were found on Ellie’s jacket , shirt, shoes, and pants.
Elrod:
There were zero particles of GSR metals on Elrod’s hands. However, Elrod’s shoes
showed traces of barium, calcium, and silicone. Elrod’s winter coat showed traces
of calcium alone.
Bruno:
Bruno carried traces of lead on his hands, but told police he was handling lead
pipes earlier in the day for his job. Bruno’s shoes showed high levels of calcium.
Maria:
Maria carried traces of calcium and barium on her hands. She says that the
calcium is probably from a vitamin she takes every morning, but cannot explain
the barium. Her shoes carry no traces of GSR, nor do her clothes.
Who do you believe fired the gun?
What evidence do you have to show that your suspect fired the gun?
What is challenging about identifying the person who fired the gun?
Could there be any alternate explanation for how GSR ended up on some of the
suspects’ clothing? Is it possible that someone else entirely fired the gun?
How do you explain the fact that Ellie’s body had high amounts of GSR?
Conclusions:
We are _____% sure.
Bad Science
Hair Analysis
dead, was arrested.
Hair Analysis
Investigators of Ellie’s death have asked you to compare hair samples to a
hair that was left near Ellie’s body. When placed under a microscope, tiny
similarities and differences between hair strands can be spotted, allowing forensic
scientists to match hair of a suspect to hair found at a crime scene.
Investigators say that Ellie used to have brown hair, but dyed her hair
blonde about two days before her death. Both Elrod and Bruno have blonde hair,
but Maria has brown hair. The hair that was found on Ellie’s body was brown.
The hair found on Ellie’s body
A hair sample from Elrod
A hair sample from Bruno
A hair sample from Maria
Whose hair do you think were at the scene of the crime?
Why do you think the hair belongs to that person?
What is challenging about identifying the hair?
Could there be any alternate explanations for how the hair got near Ellie’s body?
Could it belong to someone who is not listed as a suspect?
Conclusions:
We are _____% sure.
Bad Science
Handwriting Analysis
dead, was arrested.
Handwriting Analysis
In Ellie’s pocket, investigators found a note reading “Meet me in the park at
4pm or else”. They think that whoever wrote the note might have committed the
murder because of the note’s threatening tone.
The police on the case would like you to use handwriting analysis to
determine who wrote the note. The police asked each suspect to write the phrase
“meet me in the park at 4pm or else”. Compare the note found with Ellie to the
handwriting of each suspect.
The note found with Ellie:
Elrod’s handwriting sample:
Bruno’s handwriting sample:
Maria’s handwriting sample:
Whose handwriting do you think was on the note? Why?
Could it be possible that someone other than the suspect wrote the note? What is
an alternate explanation for why the note was in Ellie’s pocket?
Do you think handwriting samples are a reliable way to determine who wrote
something?
What could have been done to make the handwriting samples more reliable?
Conclusions:
We are _____% sure.
Lives Taken/Reason for Wrongful Conviction/Plea Bargain Lesson Plan
Taking a Plea
Objective (SWBAT)



Explain why those accused of a crime might take a plea bargain, even if they know they are
innocent
Compare the benefits of plea bargains with the negative effects of plea bargains
Understand why prosecutors and attorneys urge the accused to take a plea bargain rather than
go to trial.
Materials:




Copies of Attachment A for each student
Copies of Attachment B for each student
5 copies of Copies of Attachment A for each group (of 4-5 students)
Enough coins (any type) for each group of five students to have one
Procedure
Motivating Activity “The Coin Flip”:


Seat students in groups of five. Assign one person to be the “judge”, and four other people to be
the “accused.” Tell them to imagine they have each been accused of a crime, and they have the
chance to plead “innocent” or “guilty”.
Pass out Attachment A, the instruction page. Have each judge read their group the instructions. A
brief summary of the instructions is included below:
Note: If you prefer not to use “homework” as a metaphor for punishment, change the
consequence for guilt to doing a difficult classroom chore if judged guilty after a plea of
innocence, or an easy classroom chore for a plea bargain. Similarly, a student could sit on
the floor for the entire class period if judged guilty after a plea of innocence, but only sit on
the floor for half an hour if they decide to take a plea bargain.
Alternatively, use a reward-only system, where a person who pleads guilty initially gets one
piece of candy, a person who pleads innocent but is determined by the coin-flip to be guilty
gets no candy, and a person who pleads innocent and is determined to be innocent gets two
pieces of candy.




If the accused student decides to plead innocent, the judge will flip a coin to decide the actual
guilt of each person. A “heads” means that the accused is innocent, while a “tails” means that the
accused is guilty.
If a person who pleads innocent has been judged innocent by the coin flip, they will have no
homework. If a person who pleads guilty has been judged guilty by the coin flip, they will have to
write two pages on a topic of your choice.
If they decide to take a plea bargain and plead guilty before the coin flip, they will have one half
page of homework on the topic of your choice.
No judge will have any homework.
The Coin Flip


Circulate around the room as each of the four who stand accused in each group flip their coin (if
they pled innocent).
After the coin flips have been completed, ask students to raise their hand if they will be doing
homework tonight. Then, ask students to put their hands down if they trusted their fate to the coin
flip. Count the number of remaining hands.
Discussion




Ask some students who took the plea bargain why they chose that particular option.
Next, ask students who did not take the plea bargain to explain their choice.
Hold a discussion with students to determine if they believe the exercise was fair.
Guiding questions:
o Why was the activity unfair?
o Why did we do this activity?
o Which choice did you feel pressured to take?
o Who were the most fortunate participants?
o What did the judges think of the exercise?
Core Lesson


Making the Connection
o Ask students whether the conclusions they reached about the coin flip activity (unfair,
uncertainty, etc.) could apply to any part of our criminal justice system
o Explain to students that part of our criminal justice system works in a similar way to the
exercise they just completed.
 If a person is accused of a crime, they may either plead guilty or not guilty. Many
times, prosecutors and attorneys pressure the accused to plead “guilty” so they
do not have to endure a trial, which costs money and resources. This agreement
is called a “plea bargain”, and is often accompanied by a lighter sentence than
the accused would receive if he or she had actually pleaded innocent and been
found guilty.
 Facilitate a discussion on how this is similar and/or dissimilar from the coin
activity
Role Play
o Explain that students will take part in a role play in which they face some of the same
challenges that prison administrators face.
o Place students into groups of 4 or 5. Explain that each student is a prosecutor, and each
group needs to figure out how to handle 5 different cases of people who have been
accused of a crime. None of these people have had a trial yet, and so the prosecutors
must work quickly to figure out what to offer each prisoner.
 Hand out Attachment B, the Plea Bargaining and Profiles of the Accused
worksheets to each student, along with five blank copies of Attachment C to each
group, the “Offer from Prosecutors” worksheet.






Explain that budget cuts in prisons have raised some tough decisions for prison
administrators and prosecutors.
 For example, although there are 5 cases pending, there are only 2 beds
open at the nearest prison.
 Similarly, the government is trying to reduce the number of trials in order
to save money.
Each prisoner has a unique set of facts and needs, which the prosecutors will
review when making decisions.
Each group is responsible for sharing their set of recommendations, including
“offers” to each of the accused, to the class at the end of the period.
Allow groups 20 minutes to look through the profiles of the accused and
determine possible plea bargains.
After groups have completed their “offers”, take volunteers to share what their
group decided to offer each of the accused and why.
After the groups shared, tell students that one of the people on the list is a real
person who took a plea bargain in real life, even though the “victim” of the rape
and kidnapping later admitted that she had lied.
 That person, Brian Banks spent five years in jail before he was released,
and now plays football with the Atlanta Falcons.
 Ask students why they think Brian took a plea bargain.
 Consider reading an article on Brian Banks, such as:
o http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
o
o
way/2013/08/09/210471994/moving-on-and-up-brian-banks27-plays-as-nfl-rookie
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/25/local/la-me-rapedismiss-20120525
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865584634/Brad-RockBrian-Banks-2-A-life-story-beyond-football.html?pg=all
Discussion Questions:




What was difficult about this activity?
Were the offers ultimately fair?
Did anyone consider that the accused person might be innocent?
Was there anything easy about the decisions that needed to be made?
Assessment/Evaluation Options


Have students research statistics on plea bargains and record their reactions.
o Are they surprised by how many prisoners take plea bargains?
o Why or why not?
Arrange a debate in which half the class will argue for the existence of plea bargains and half the
class will argue against plea bargains.
o Take a vote at the end of the debate.

Tell students they are responsible for finding a solution to innocent prisoners accepting plea
bargains.
o Form committees of five or six students and have them present their recommendations to
the class.
Attachment A
Coin Flip Instructions Page
Accused:
Your fate is about to be decided by a coin flip.
You have the choice to plead either guilty or innocent.
If you plead guilty, your penalty will not be as severe and you will be excused from the coin flip.
If you plead innocent, the judge will flip a coin for you. If the coin shows heads, the court agrees that you
are innocent. You have no penalty. If the coin shows tails, the court finds you guilty, and gives you a
harsh penalty to punish you for your lie of innocence.
Judges:
If you have been chosen to be a judge, you are safe from all penalties. Your job is to flip the coin for each
of the accused and deliver the results to the accused.
Attachment B
Your Job as Prosecutor
5 people have recently been accused of serious crimes. Your job is to offer the accused options that will
punish any crimes they might have committed but still accommodate budgetary and space needs of the
prisons and courthouses.
Facts to Consider…
-
The courthouse staff urges you to reduce the number of trials. They are expensive and timeconsuming, and the courthouse staff is already overworked. Currently, trials need to be set for
eight months in the future because of the crowded schedule.
- The prison warden warns you that he only has two cells open for new inmates. Typically, there is
only one inmate assigned to each cell.
- The local paper has published an Op-Ed calling the District Attorney “soft on crime”. The District
Attorney is working hard to reverse this reputation and needs your help.
With these facts in mind, you must work with the other prosecutors to propose a “deal” for each of the
accused. For example, you might offer them probation instead of prison if they plead guilty, thereby
avoiding an expensive and lengthy trial.
Read the accompanying Profiles of the Accused and discuss your options among your fellow
prosecutors. At the end of your discussion, fill out an “offer” (also attached) for each of the accused with
your final offer for a plea bargain.
Profiles of the Accused
1) Jack Bennett: Jack was recently arrested for assaulting a police officer. The officer says that he
stopped Jack for skateboarding on public property, which is illegal. The police officer said that he
next began to write Jack a ticket, but Jack grabbed and threw the officer’s pen and began
shoving him backwards until the officer tripped over a curb and fell, spraining his wrist. The
officer radioed for backup, which quickly arrived and apprehended Jack as he was running away.
The officer is unable to work for two weeks as the sprain in his wrist heals. Jack has been
arrested for shoplifting on three other occasions.
Jack’s family is wealthy and his father is in local politics. Jack is denying that he pushed the
officer backwards, saying that the officer tripped while going to get his pen, which Jack admits
he threw. Jack maintains innocence and wants a jury to determine his guilt, but his family wants
to avoid a trial. Offering them a plea bargain might get them to avoid a trial.
2) Lacy Johnson: Lacy was arrested for robbing a bank with a .9mm she carried with her for
defense. She had never been arrested for anything before, and claims that she only robbed the
bank because her kids were hungry and she was broke. If Lacy went to prison, her three kids
would need to be put into the over-crowded foster system. Lacy thinks a jury might be
sympathetic to her reasons, and told her lawyer that she would prefer a trial over a plea
bargain.
Lacy’s crime was nonviolent, with the exception of an injury caused by the “warning” show Lacy
fired into the air as she announced the robbery. The bullet went through the ceiling of the bank,
injuring a woman who was working in the office space on the floor above the bank. While the
injury was not fatal, the woman needed minor surgery to remove the bullet and now goes to
counseling to deal with the trauma of the incident.
3) Shawn Wright: Shawn was arrested for selling cocaine out of his apartment. The police became
suspicious when they noticed a variety of people knocking on Shawn’s door late at night, and
decided to pose as someone wanting to buy drugs. The undercover officer bought a large
amount of cocaine from Shawn before immediately arresting him.
Shawn will not admit to the crime and says he was “entrapped” by the police officer (meaning
that he would not have committed the crime if the officer did not tempt him), a defense that
would need to come out at trial in order to be successful. Shawn has never been arrested
before, and has an offer for a football scholarship at Louisiana State University.
4) Bridgette Clifton: Bridgette was arrested after hitting a teenager with her car as the teenager
was using a crosswalk. The teenager died at the hospital a few days after the accident. No family
had been located because the teenager was homeless at the time of the accident.
Bridgette submitted to a blood test at the police station, where her blood alcohol content was
deemed to be over twice the legal limit for driving. She was charged with a DUI and
manslaughter and placed in a holding cell for a few hours before her rich father bailed her out.
Bridgette has an excellent and experienced attorney who is arguing that Bridgette is a victim of
an alcohol abuse problem and would agree to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in
exchange for a lesser sentence.
5) Brian Banks: Brian is a young black man who was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of one of
his high school classmates. The young woman who claims Brian raped her can hardly speak of
the incident without crying, and has found a lot of support from her community and family.
Brian denies he did it, but is afraid that a jury might convict him because of his race. Because the
penalty for kidnapping and rape is a prison sentence for up to 40 years, Brian will probably
consider a plea bargain for less time, even though he is innocent.
Attachment C
Offer from Prosecutors
Name of the Accused:
Alleged crime of the accused:
Do you recommend that this alleged crime go to trial? Why or why not?
If you do not recommend that this crime goes to a trial, will you offer a plea bargain? Why or why not?
What does the plea bargain look like? What will you offer to the accused in exchange for a “guilty”
plea?

Lives Taken/Reason for Wrongful Conviction

Transcription

Similar documents

FURY erupted yesterday after it emerged an artist was given

Alphonse Bertillion - Hicksville Public Schools / Homepage

Elena Ford, Why haven`t you responded to my

NEXTREND DESIGN

Brief of 13,922 Current Law Students at Accredited American Law

Why First Texas Bank?

PRIMECorp Annual Report

Man wanted following shooting at Montreal Road and Bradley Street

NÄKYVÄ POLIISITYÖ IRC-GALLERIASSA

Term 4 2015