Question

Innocence Project Written Assignment

Provide answers to the following questions. Remember, to receive full credit you must answer each of the QUESTIONS OF THE CASE THAT FOLLOWS , along with the summary questions.

Case Name (1/2 Page): ___________________

1-In ONE complete sentence describe the crime that occurred in your own words, informed by the Innocence Project website or as found in your web-based research.

2-What is the status of the case? Has the person convicted of the crime been exonerated and if so, by what means?

3-Was human memory accurate or inaccurate in this case?

4-Be sure to describe evidence that you believe supports your position.

Summary Questions (1/2 Page):

1-Identify the goals of the Innocence Project.

2-Choose ONE of the cases you’ve already summarized. What features of the situation (i.e., memory for crime, investigation techniques used, reliance on psychological evidence or not) might have impacted the outcome of that case?

3-Be sure to reference information you learned in the lab.

4-Now, look back to the Eyewitness Memory Survey you took during lab. After learning more about false memories and the effect they can have in real-life situations, did any of your answers changes? Why or why not?

The only evidence implicating Clifford Jones of murder was the testimony of a woman, who admitted that she had a $50-a-day heroin habit and was high when she picked Jones in the photo array and the live lineup. He was released on parole in 2010 after 30 years in prison and exonerated in Nov. 2016.

The Crime

On June 2, 1980, a woman agreed to go into an apartment building in Manhattan, New York to have sex with a man she had just met. The woman later told police she had second thoughts after they entered the building, but when she tried to walk away, the man pulled a knife and raped her.

Investigation and Trial

The woman reported that the man left and went down a flight of stairs. She followed and saw the man with the knife still in hand, fighting with another man, 62-year-old Ramon Hernaiz, in the stairway. The woman said her attacker stabbed Hernaiz, rifled through his pockets, and fled.
The woman told the police that her attacker was a black man, wore a black hat, had a chipped tooth, and a gap between his teeth. Police recovered a blood-stained blue baseball cap and a bloody knife from the scene.

Four months later, the woman went to a police station and viewed 58 photographs of black men who had been arrested in the vicinity of the crime in recent years. She selected the photograph of 26-year-old Clifford Jones as the man who raped her and murdered Hernaiz.

On October 25, 1980, Jones voluntarily went to the police station after learning that the police were looking for him. He stood in a live lineup and the woman picked him as the rapist and killer.

Jones went to trial in New York County Supreme Court in April 1981. The only evidence implicating him was the testimony of the woman, who admitted that she had a $50-a-day heroin habit and was high when she picked Jones in the photo array and the live lineup. At the end prosecution’s case, the judge ordered Jones—despite his attorney’s objection—to open his mouth and display his teeth to the jury. One of the teeth was chipped and there was a gap between them—as the woman had described.

On April 15, 1981, the jury convicted Jones of second-degree murder, rape and attempted robbery. He was sentenced to 18 years to life in prison.

Post-Conviction Investigation

In 2008, after his convictions had been upheld on appeal, Jones filed a motion seeking DNA testing of any physical evidence, including the rape kit, the baseball cap and hairs recovered from the cap. The prosecution located 18 hairs from the cap, but the cap and rape kit—along with the knife and the victim’s clothes—had been destroyed.

Ultimately, the hairs were sent to Mitotyping Technologies, LLC, a laboratory specializing in mitochondrial DNA testing of hair. The result was a “consensus profile” that was “very different” from Jones’s profile and excluded him as the source of the hairs. Jones then filed a motion to vacate his convictions and grant him a new trial. Soon after, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in New York analyzed seven fingernail scrapings recovered from the murder victim. Only one of the scrapings was suitable for DNA testing and the analysis of that scraping excluded Jones.

The court denied Jones’s motion. It stated that although Jones was excluded as the source of a few of the items of evidence, those exclusions did not rule him out as the perpetrator. Meanwhile, in June 2010, Jones was released on parole after nearly 30 years in prison.
In 2013, the Appellate Division upheld the denial, citing the eyewitness testimony of the rape victim.

In December 2014, the New York Court of Appeals overturned that ruling and held that Jones was entitled to a hearing on the new evidence.

The case was then reviewed by the Manhattan District Attorney’s conviction integrity unit. Further DNA testing on 12 more of the hairs revealed the same profile identified by Mitotyping and also excluded Jones. In September 2015, William Darrow, head of the conviction integrity unit, informed the court that the prosecution had agreed to vacate the convictions. On November 3, 2016, the prosecution dismissed the charges.

– Maurice Possley, National Registry of Exonerations

Answer 1

It is a case, that happened long time back, say 15 years. It was a drunken driving case. The person drove on the road platform causing death and fatal injury to the homeless people sleeping there. The driver was convicted for his crime later. The human memory seemed to be accurate in this case. This is because, it was later found that police tried to change the accused and his records in the police books, as the car was driven by an influential person. Hence, upon further probe of the involved people, the human memory was proved to be right.

The evidence was the survivor of the incident and is sensitive because it happened in a flash of a second and the person would have sleepily witnessed the incident. These things would have definitely questioned the reliability of the evidence, but however it later seemed to be accurate and the person was convicted for his crime.