In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

>> 169 7 Reasons for Hope Examples of Real Change Having come this far, we know the problem is real, and solutions are within reach. Not every law enforcement agency and prosecutor’s office has resisted better methods. While still relatively few, a growing number have decided to make changes to their basic procedures to bring them into line with the best current science. Most of these agencies have adopted reforms governing a single category of problems: eyewitness identifications or suspect interrogations , for example. Others have been more ambitious. In some cases, these agencies have initiated changes themselves; at other times, another government authority—a state legislature or a court—has forced these changes on them. The origins of these changes matter; sometimes a disaster brings change in its wake, but in other instances it may come from another source. Most important, we need to see that some of the leaders in policing and prosecution have made choices and taken positions different from the majority of their colleagues, and have gained by doing so. Their stories have great value, and can serve as examples with which to lead others in their professions. When others see that they can move toward best practices without the sky 170 > 171 for reforms needed to assure justice and prevent wrongful convictions.7 The California commission issued reports and made recommendations, and some of these recommendations—requirements for electronic recording of interrogations of suspects in homicides and other serious felony cases, guidelines for the use of photo lineups, and corroboration requirements for jailhouse informants—were enacted by the legislature.8 Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed all of them when law enforcement opposition arose.9 In Virginia, a group of “lawyers, academicians, and activists” formed a commission of their own to study wrongful convictions in the state and to make recommendations to avoid them in the future. The group, called the Innocence Commission of Virginia, had no state support; rather, it subsisted on pro bono contributions from law firms and work contributed by three law schools. Nevertheless, it produced a comprehensive report that summarized known wrongful convictions and discussed their causes, and it suggested reforms that would address issues such as eyewitness identification, interrogation tactics, and forensics, among others.10 These commissions represent one type of innocence commission: a body created to examine a state’s criminal justice apparatus or police procedure as a whole, with the aim of making recommendations to policy makers for changes designed to avoid miscarriages of justice and conviction of the innocent. Their beginnings have differed, and their tasks have varied in scope and complexity. All have in common the idea of spotting the flaws in the entirety of the criminal justice system and proposing solutions, rather than examining individual cases. These types of innocence commissions serve an essential purpose. Examining the big picture in order to see where major criminal justice errors may originate, and making recommendations that will correct the system going forward, could not be more important. Two decades and more into the DNA revolution, because of the hundreds of wrongful convictions uncovered, we see a set of recurring, systemic difficulties. Such problems demand wideranging investigation and general solutions. The North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission But another type of innocence commission has emerged from the DNA era as well. This type of commission focuses not on systemic improvements generally but on hearing claims of actual innocence by individuals who have no legal avenue to be heard in courts. At this writing, one such commission exists: the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission (NCIIC). It is a model worth examining, and imitating. And the story of how the NCIIC came into existence teaches us a number of important lessons: about the 172 > 173 to act on the issue “because he trusted me” to make sure that he had all the right information and understood the issues.20 And Chief Justice Lake was the kind of leader who could bring all the people that counted to the table to make things happen. Mumma calls their teaming up on the issue “a unique combination.”21 Mumma worked on her own time on individual cases of innocence, but Chief Justice Lake came at the issue of wrongful convictions from a different perspective. He describes himself as a “staunch conservative ” and a law-and-order judge; no less a conservative icon than Senator Jesse Helms had talked him into leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Republicans.22 Lake remains a strong supporter of the death penalty...

Share