This article made available by the Merrimack College criminology program and author by criminology student Kelsie Blood highlights and reviews three specific cases of wrongful convictions that happened in Illinois in order to find patterns amongst them and show factors that led to the wrongful verdicts in each of these cases.  For me this review was especially interesting because it clearly shows how the factors I have been studying apply in specific cases and how small mistakes or details that are missed or hidden in a case can be the difference between a guilty or an innocent verdict.  The cases that were studied in this review were those of Francisco Vera, a man who was wrongfully convicted of an attempted drive by murder in the midst of a fight, Michael Evans, a man wrongfully convicted of rape and murder and sentenced to multiple life sentences before finally being proven innocent after 25 years behind bars, and Marcus Lyons, a man convicted of a rape crime he did not commit who had his life turned upside down because of missed opportunities to prove his innocence during his trial.  These cases highlighted the real world application of wrongful convictions and how they developed, occurred, and eventually were overturned.

 

In the case of Francisco Vera, an altercation between a group of Italian Americans and Vera and his friends got heated and led to a fight.  In the midst of the fight, a man, who is now assumed to be named Humberto Beltran, drove by in a blue van and shot one of the Italian Americans in the head.  While the man would survive, this obviously sparked an investigation to find the perpetrator.  Vera and Beltran are very similar in appearance and so eyewitness identification varied between the two.  However, Vera had a recording of a conversation where Beltran did not deny committing the crime and 2 of his friends backed the fact that it was him.  However, because of the neglect of his attorney, the conversation was omitted from court because it was never translated into English.  This case brings about the importance of adequate defense in these cases and shows how clear errors that are not addressed can lead to wrongful convictions.  The other fact in this case is the determination that there was evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that proved he was guilty.  The argument can clearly be made that there were errors and questionable parts of the case when the verdict was laid down.

 

The case of Michael Evans is a case of both witness perjury and police misconduct.  Evans was charged with a crime he simply did not commit because of the efforts of Judith Januszewski, the lead witness who claimed to see the event occur and had the ability to identify the perpetrator despite not even being at the place she claimed.  Additionally, police officials changed records and corroborated with Judith in order to push forth for a conviction.  On top of this there were major red flags throughout the case such as the hearsay of accusations that supposedly happened during interrogation.  This not only undermines the integrity of the police force but poses questions of why they would continue on with a case that may not have been certain or clear.  Additionally, this proves the importance of interrogation recordings as this would take away possibility for hearsay.  This calls for additional investigation on the police procedures in a trial and stands as an example that cases with major red flags and concern are still a part of our criminal justice system.

 

The case of Marcus Lyons was a result of official misconduct, eyewitness misidentification, and inadequate legal defense.  Despite measures that could have been taken to prove his innocence such as a blood test or measures that pointed away from Lyons such as the testing of the clothes not showing signs of him at all, he was convicted based on eyewitness testimony. While this may seem reasonable and obviously the woman that was raped did not mean to identify the wrong person, she was presented with the witnesses in a way that made it seem like Lyons was the suspect.  His picture was the only one selected that was not a mugshot and out of the photos shown to the woman, he was the only one in the lineup.  This clearly plants a seed in the mind of the victim that he was her attacker despite this not being the case.  Additionally, his defense team never made a move to request the blood test that would have proved him innocent or a move to question the reliability of the witness process.  All of these factors lead Lyons to spend years behind bars for a crime he did not commit.  This case in particular is challenging because on the surface it may not raise as many concerns as the prior two cases in terms of misconduct or mistakes and in particular because the victim had close contact with the perpetrator and so her testimony would carry a lot of weight.  This is not unreasonable.  However, this shows the extent to which small changes in lineups or witness procedures can lead to a seed being planted in the mind of the witness, even one with close contact to the perpetrator.  This highlights the importance of procedural changes to limit the possibility of this happening as much as possible.

 

This article was extremely important for me as I can not only include these as case studies on my site but I can also use these to explain how shortcomings of specific factors have led to wrongful convictions in specific cases.