False Accusations And Perjury

The Krystal Voss case was one of many wrongful convictions that occurred due to failures within the justice system. Some of these failures that were apparent in this case was false accusations/ perjury, misleading forensic evidence and inadequate legal defense. This section of the paper will go into a deeper analysis of these three factors and discuss why they occur in the judicial system. False Accusations/Perjury False accusations and perjury are when an informant or an accomplice lies about the actions of a crime that a person never committed.

These actions happen to these witnesses due to fear of the repercussions and pressure of law enforcement. One factor that causes false accusations and perjury are pressure from law enforcement. When working a case, law enforcement tends to see a solution to a crime they will stick to, regardless of the facts. Since these officers want to hear a specific story or outline of the crime, they tend to pressure witnesses and informants to tell them what they want to hear.

According to Covey (2015), “many witnesses must be pressured or induced to give information to the police, and sometimes, the pressure used to extract helpful information crosses over into outright coercion”.

Some of the way police interrogations are set up make the informant feel as if telling them what they want to hear will get them out of the office faster, even if it means lying. These false accusations created from the law enforcements theory of the crime tend to put away victims of the judicial system rather than the actual criminal.

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified

Proficient in: Articles Of Confederation

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Another reason that false accusations and acts of perjury are committed is fear of punishment. Many informants or accomplices want to avoid jail or any punishment that comes with the crime, so they put the blame on another person. According to Acker & Bonventre (2010), the author states that “Perjury, often (but not exclusively) committed by accomplices or informants in anticipation of official consideration or leniency…are the recurrent staples of wrongful convictions”. Some of these informants/ accomplices are offered a deal in exchange for their testimony against the accused. These promises for a deal or for leniency from their own actions in the crime cause for more motive to lie in favor of themselves and against the wrongly accused.

This fear and intimidation can also play hand in hand in creating a false accusation and continuation of perjury. When an informant, previously pressured to lie from law enforcement, wants to recant at a later time, they are reminded of the punishment waiting for them. In multiple examples given in Covey (2015), it states that when a witness thought of recanting their original statement, the officer and prosecuting attorney would go and intimidate the witness/informant by stating they could be prosecuted for their perjury. This fear of being prosecuted motivates them to continue their lie and continue to testify false information, which places the wrong person in jail. Misleading Forensic Evidence Misleading forensic evidence is when the evidence presented in the court hearing leads the jury to believe in the guilt of the defendant, when actually the forensic evidence is false. This misleading evidence is apparent in the courtrooms for many reasons, but for this section lets focus on the lack of resources and time within the forensic departments, wrongful claims of uniqueness, and popularity.

The forensic departments across the nation are pressured into producing results in a quick, efficient matter. The examiners are expected to present evidence they do not have the equipment or the time to process within the courts expected timeline. According to Cooley (2007), “our nation’s crime labs do not have the capacity to take full advantage of  forensic technology because of an insufficient number of trained personnel, inadequate equipment, and growing casework demands”.  The lack of resources and time the forensic examiners are expected to work with result in poorly rushed evidence that are not always accurate. Cooley (2007) also states “forensic examiners and techniques are normally ushered into court before their accuracy is adequately assessed and substantiated”. This rushed and inaccurate evidence can look like a clear suspect is guilty, but in reality, if the department had more funding and more time, the evidence could be a different result. Another flaw within the forensic department that leads to misleading evidence is the claim of absolute uniqueness.

During investigations and analysis of evidence, some examiners tend to make the claim that certain evidence has unique factor, ultimately excluding any other possible solution. According to Saks & Faigman in Failed forensics: How forensic science lost its way and how it might yet find it, they state that “Possibly the most fundamental error made by the identification branches of the nonscience forensic sciences is the statement of the basic hypothesis of their fields. They repeatedly claim the ability to individualize”. By assuming individualizations in court, the jury assumes no other possibility. Take Krystal Voss’ case for example. The doctor made an accusation that the sole and only explanation for the baby’s injuries was Shaken Baby Syndrome, when in fact later on it was discovered that there was another possibility for those injures to occur. These unique assumptions take away the possibility for the truth to be seen by the jury. These factors are strong in putting away innocent people for crimes because of the heavy reliance on forensic science displayed by the courts and society.

In today’s society, the desire and expectation of Forensic testimony is high in the public eye due to these forensic tv shows popularity. As stated in Cooley (2007), the popularity to show jurors these forensic aspects of the case put pressure on the prosecutors and defenders to request unusual testing and speedy results, ending in larger caseloads. This larger caseload on top of low funding, lack of equipment, and hugely understaffed departments, leads to an increase in unsupported evidence that the jury puts their faith in. This unrealistic view of quick and easy forensic science increases the likelihood of putting an innocent person in jail. Inadequate Legal Defense The last factor to discuss is inadequate legal defense. Inadequate legal defense has become a major contributor to wrongful convictions due to large caseloads on defending attorneys and pressure of cooperation. One of the great factors that lead to inadequate defense in the increase in caseload that gives them more clients, but less time to properly counsel all of them.

Wilkson cited from the U.S Department of Justice that between 1999 to 2007, there was a caseload increase of 20% for public defenders, yet only a 4% increase in staffing. These defense lawyers are overworked with too many cases that they lose the motivation and resources to provide these clients with the proper defense. These defense attorneys work on a low income that have a cap for each case, mentioned by Wilkson (2010), which creates motivation to take more cases, so they make more money (p.1120). It also makes the defense attorney have no incentive to put 100% effort, which they push for plea bargain to close the case quickly to move on to the next. The public defenders assume guilt without much investigation, causing for wrongful convictions in certain cases. Another factor in inadequate legal defense is the motivation from prosecutors to cooperate with them.

These defense lawyers tend to pressure the defendants into taking a deal because they want to please the prosecutors and not push back on investigation or arguments. Joy (2003) stated “More than 90 percent of criminal cases end in guilty pleas, and criminal defense lawyers often bargain against the same prosecutors in cases before the same judges”. These defense lawyers feel pressure to make the prosecutor happy and bargain a deal to save from going to trial, but this method keeps the defendant from receiving a fair investigation into his case. In this paper, we have discussed the case of Krystal Voss, and described the three factors of false accusations/ perjury, misleading forensic evidence, and inadequate legal defense to further examine why they are present in the justice system. Now, the remaining of the paper will discuss research questions that will help to prevent this factors from happening and lower the chance of convictions of innocent people.