The Exoneration of Eduardo Velasquez

Throughout the years, many innocent individuals have been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, just like Eduardo Velasquez. Velasquez is of Hispanic ethnicity and was 21 at the time of the victim’s assault, which occurred on December 9, 1987 at around 7:30pm in Massachusetts (Innocence Project, 2017). He was charged under the name Angel Hernandez November 23, 1988. He served thirteen years in prison and was exonerated on August 15, 2001. Velasquez was convicted of sexual assault and assault on two counts. Contributing factors to his conviction were eyewitness misidentification and false or misleading forensic evidence.

The night of the crime, while entering her car, the victim heard something coming from behind (Innocence Project, 2017). When she turned, she saw a man running towards her. Not only was the victim shoved inside the car, but she was also forced to perform fellatio, while being threatened with a knife behind her head. He ejaculated over her coat, hair, and face. He put on his clothes, glanced for anyone around, and took off.

The incident was over in less than 20 minutes. Subsequently and after going to a convent nearby, the victim explained the incident to a nun that had opened the door. Campus police were called and given a description of the perpetrator, which the police broadcasted right away.

Hours later, two officers claimed to come across Velasquez near the road, fixing his shirt and with his pants down (Innocence Project, 2017). He was stopped and questioned, and coincidentally matched the description of the attacker. The officers asked for a show-up identification procedure; to which Velasquez agreed.

Get quality help now

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified

Proficient in: Crime

4.7 (235)

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Once the victim observed Velasquez, she claimed he resembled her attacker, but was not certain. She asked to hear his voice and see his gloves to remove all doubts. She then identified Velasquez as the attacker.

At trial, Velasquez’s defense claimed he was mistakenly identified (Innocence Project, 2017). Multiple DNA samples were collected from Velasquez, as well as from the victim. Spermatozoa that was contained in the samples was tested. Results showed that Velazquez’s Personal Genome Machine (PGM) and blood type were compatible evidence collected from the crime. According to the Innocence Project (2017), the lab expert testified and stated to the jury that his PGM and blood type matched 11 percent of the Hispanic population. Additionally, he stated that various head hairs and pubic hairs were ‘within the range’ but not exactly Velasquez’s. Because the validity of eyewitness misidentification is low and unreliable, the evidence on human hair characteristics being ‘within a range’ not only lacks probative value but is also prejudicial.

In February 1998, the Innocence Project as well as Velasquez’s new attorney accepted the case. A motion was filed to access the evidence and have its DNA tested. In 2001, the tests came back proving that Velasquez was to be excluded as a match with that DNA evidence, and thus did not commit the crime. He was released and exonerated August 15, 2001 (National Registry of Exonerations, 2012).

Overall, Eduardo Velasquez was wrongfully convicted and incarcerated for thirteen years (Innocence Project, 2017). Post exoneration, he was awarded $500,000 under the state compensation statute and additionally received $2.45 million after filing a federal civil rights lawsuit. He was last known to be searching for jobs. Just like many other exonerees, it was very difficult for Velasquez to get a job because his record was never expunged (National Registry of Exonerations. 2012). While job-searching, he carried around a clipboard with information about his exoneration.

As mentioned before, some of the causes or psychological factors that played a role in this wrongful conviction were eyewitness misidentification and false or misleading forensic evidence. Eyewitness testimony can be very powerful but not always accurate, as shown by the case of Eduardo Velasquez. It also tends to be unreliable because the accuracy of eyewitness testimony can be affected by various factors, such as police line-ups. To further examine this issue, a study was conducted in which the authors estimated the reliability of eyewitness identifications from police lineups. (Wixted, Mickes, Dunn, Clarke, & Wells, 2016). The experiment took place in the Houston Police Department Robbery Division. The purpose was to test outcomes of four different lineup methods. Over a one-year period, the participants in this research study, were presented with different photo lineups between January 22 and December 5, 2013; 45 police investigators and 717 real eyewitnesses were involved. The witnesses were assigned to one of the four different types of photo lineup conditions: blind sequential, blind simultaneous, blinded sequential, and blinded simultaneous.

Six photos, one suspect and five fillers were contained in each lineup. The six photos were viewed all at once for the simultaneous procedure. In the sequential procedure, the photos were presented one after the other. An investigator that was unaware of the suspect’s identity, conducted the lineup for the blind procedure. And lastly, the investigator in charge of conducting the viewing was unaware of which photo was being presented to witness, for the blinded procedure. After seeing the lineup, the witnesses that made identifications either of the suspect or filler from the lineup were asked for a confidence rating on a three-point scale. The results showed that the simultaneous procedure is favored, but overall, they aren’t very reliable.

Even though lineups were not a factor in the case of Eduardo Velasquez, we know that a showup was conducted instead. From the research study, we learned that lineups can be both reliable and unreliable; oftentimes unreliable, depending on confidence level and which type of lineup it is. Similarly, showups can also be both, however they can be more unreliable for several factors. Presenting an individual in custody for identification can be highly suggestive to a witness that the individual in fact committed the crime. An uncertain witness might feel under pressure to identify the individual being presented. Therefore, based on the finding of the research study, a lineup would’ve been much more reliable as well as functional.

Another study that assessed eyewitness memory was conducted by Stepan, Dehnke, and Fenn (2017) and examined how lack of sleep increased false identifications, using a target-absent lineup. Undergraduate students from 18 to 25 years of age, were recruited from Michigan State University. There was a total of 238 participants; 174 being females. The participants were asked to record their sleep schedules a week prior to initiating the experiment. Two phases were completed: encoding as well as testing. Encoding was completed in the evening and the next morning they completed the Test. When doing the encoding phase, a consent was received from all the participants. They completed assessments based on mood, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, and sleepiness, Stanford Sleepiness Scale. Participants were also shown a mock-crime video that consisted of a white young male putting a bomb on someone’s rooftop. Twice, his face is shown clearly to the camera.

After that, their memory capacity was assessed using Operation Span. Overall this face lasted about 30 minutes. The test phase included assessments such as the Stanford Sleepiness Scale, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, and a target-absent lineup recognition test. The participants were given unbiased instructions, making it known that the perpetrator was possibly not included. Confidence level of each participant was recorded, and to finalize, they were assessed using Morningness Eveningness Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and another questionnaire regarding demographics. The overall time this phase took was about 20 minutes. The results of this study showed that fewer false misidentifications were made when the participants got more sleep, and the target is excluded from the lineup. Sleep is very essential to conserve memories. (Walker, M., 2009)

As mentioned before as powerful as eyewitness testimony can be, it’s not always accurate. In addition, a study was conducted by Flowe, Hope, & Hillstrom, to further examine the weapon focus effect, and how it can affect eyewitness memory. This research study included a total of 29 participants; volunteer staff and students from the University of Leicester. All the participants had either normal vision or corrected to normal. For the targets, black and white photographs were used of either a weapon, an expected, or an unexpected item. A handgun was the weapon, a tomato was the expected item, and a pocket watch was the unexpected item. A simple test was given to the participants regarding whether they knew the names of the items, and how often they interacted with these items on an average day. The goal of the experiment was to have them choose the unexpected item and the weapon, as interacting with them infrequently. Objects under the unexpected list were a bowling skittle, a life ring, a pocket watch, a Rubik’s Twist, and a crown.

Weapon items included a shotgun, handgun, knife, and a grenade. Common fruits were included under the expected items category. The results of these pretests done just showed that pocket watches and handguns were familiar equally to the participants and held infrequently. A tomato was held more frequently in comparison to expected items. Regarding the procedure, an eye tracking system was used. Instructions to the participants were to have their eyes focused on a cross, and to rapidly move their eyes away from the target once it was shown. In total, 100 trials were conducted; expected item at 76, weapon in 16, and unexpected item also on 16. The results of the experiment showed that the unexpected item, as well as the gun, obtained more attention in comparison to the expected object.

According to the Innocence Project (2017), eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Of the more than 350 wrongful convictions overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence, more than 71% had eyewitness misidentification as a contributing factor. A main problem about lineups is that usually the administrator knows who the suspect is. They can often provide unintentional hints to the eyewitness about which person to choose. The way instructions are given to the eyewitness can also influence a false identification because they’re not informed that the suspect may or may not be in the lineup.

Feedback given to eyewitnesses after an identification procedure can increase their confidence. To improve the accuracy of eyewitness identification, the Innocence Project recommends many procedural reforms. The first reform, suggested by the Innocence Project (2017) would be the “Double-blind” procedure lineup or use of a blind administrator in a lineup. This reform means he administrator should not know who the suspect is, because it would prevent extra information that may influence an eyewitness into chasing a suspect. Cautionary instructions should also be used; such as “perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup.” A third reform, suggested is that the lineup composition must be fair or must include effective use of fillers; the suspect should not unduly stand out. A witness’ confidence statement should be collected immediately following a decision. The lineup and every other aspect of the procedure should also be carefully documented.