SOC3730 - Wrongful Conviction Paper PDF

Preview

Summary

For class, very good, SOC3730 - Wrongful Conviction Paper...

Description

Wrongful Conviction Paper - The Exoneration of Leighton Hay Adam Nowakowski - 1085482 Professor Dumas SOC*3730 - Courts and Society April 8, 2021

1 Summary of Leighton’s Case On July 6th, 2002, in Scarborough, Ontario, 19-year-old Leighton Hay was put under arrest for the killing of 51-year-old Colin Moore. On July 6th, 2002, four men and a woman attempted to enter the HHMS Nightclub in Scarborough without paying. Colins brother hit one of them over the head with a bottle to make them go away which seceded. Soon later, 3 men with handguns entered the kitchen of the nightclub and shot Colin Moore eight times where he died from his wounds. Colin’s wife was able to identify one of the shooters as Gary Eunick. Colin’s friend, Leisa was able to observe one of the shooters for 16 seconds where she was able to notice that one of the shooters had two-inch dreadlocks. The license plate of the get-away car was written down by the owner of the nightclub, the car belonged to Lydia Hay, Leighton’s mother. Upon the arrest of Leighton, police searched his home where they found short hairs in the garbage and found hairs in an electric razor next to Leighton’s bed. He told the police that he had shaved his face two days before the night of the shooting and advised them that he had not had dreadlocks for the past 18 months (Leighton Hay, n.d.). The issue that arose with the investigation of this case pertains with the use of Leighton’s short hairs as evidence, the police knew that the hair they had found was not long enough to accuse Leighton of cutting his hair the night of the incident, yet the police still took the evidence and presented it in court. With the use of this evidence, the Crown argued a theory where they believed that Leighton had returned home from the shooting and cut his own hair. As well, Leisa as the primary eyewitness was shown a photo line-up which included Leighton, she pointed at his photo and was 80% certain it was him, but two weeks later was shown another line-up and did not select Leighton’s photo (CBC News, 2014). Due to the evidence found of Leighton’s small hair clippings, he was wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder spending 12 years in prison, resulting in a miscarriage of justice (Leighton Hay, n.d.).

2 Factors of the Case Leading to Wrongful Conviction Denov & Campbell (2005) explain two important factors that are present in this case. First of which, that is very apparent is eyewitness error. Eyewitness error, as explained by Denov & Campbell (2005) states that the eyewitness misidentifies someone as the perpetrator of a crime, thus the witness mistakenly identifies the wrong person. Denov & Campbell (2005) go further by explaining how eyewitness errors occur, they state that suggestive police interviewing, unconscious transference, and the malleability of confidence are all reasons as to why eyewitness errors occur (Denov & Campbell, 2005). Eyewitness error is demonstrated within this case by Leisa Maillard, as she misidentified the perpetrator as being Leighton Hay. The police in this case showed Leisa a photo line-up which included Leighton, she said that she is 80% certain that Leighton was the perpetrator, but three weeks later she was shown another lineup with Leighton in it, and she did not pick his photo (Leighton Hay, n.d.). Eyewitness error in regard to malleability of confidence is definitely apparent within the case as malleability of confidence refers to the witness’s certainty of their testimony (Denov & Campbell, 2005). Judging from Leisa’s results from the photo line-up, her certainty was very low as she picked Leighton in one line-up but did not pick him in the second, three weeks after the first line-up. Furthermore, Denov & Campbell (2005) examined research which demonstrated that group photos or police line-ups used to identify suspects showed that eyewitnesses are much more confident in their choice if they are given positive feedback from authorities (Denov & Campbell, 2005). The police authority in the first line-up could have potentially given Leisa a boost of confidence when picking Leighton as the suspect. The second factor of wrongful conviction listed by Denov & Campbell (2005) is professional misconduct. Professional misconduct as explained by Denov & Campbell (2005) states that unprofessional conduct by police, the prosecution, and the judiciary can contribute to convicting innocent people. They also state that police play an

3 important role in the central focus of wrongful convictions as police can intentionally lose, suppress, misinterpret, or overlook evidence which supports the defendant’s claim of the innocent suspect. Police and prosecutors do this in order to strengthen the case as they believe the innocent suspect is guilty (Denov & Campbell, 2005). The factor of professional misconduct is demonstrated within this case as Leighton’s home was searched by the police, they found short hairs as well as hairs in an electric razor. Leighton stated that he had not had dreadlocks for the past 18 months, and the hair clippings the police found were his facial hair. The police must have known that there was no chance that the small hair clippings could of came from Leighton’s head, but because they believed that he was the offender, they continued on to give the evidence to the defendant where they produced a theory that Leighton must of flushed his dreadlocks down the toilet, which in fact did not happen (Leighton Hay, n.d.). The police and the defendant demonstrate professional misconduct by using this evidence to strengthen their case. How the Courts can Avoid Wrongful Conviction Jurors are unaware of the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies, the courts should educate and tell the jurors prior to the trial of the unreliability of eyewitness identification, without doing so the jury will have unwarranted faith in the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies potentially resulting in convicting the innocent (Denov & Campbell, 2005). If the jury is educated upon how eyewitness testimonies are not very accurate and unreliable, then wrongful convictions could potentially decrease. Regarding professional misconduct, I believe that with the use of technologies such as surveillance during an investigation or search could potentially lower the risk of the police intentionally losing, suppressing, misinterpreting, or overlooking evidence that would put the defence at a disadvantage. This can be accomplished by integrating cameras in the officer’s uniform which then the video can be used to make sure a fair investigation was done, and no evidence was thrown away or overlooked.

4 References CBC News. (2014). Leighton Hay, wrongfully convicted of murder in 2002, walks free. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. https://www.cbc.ca/ news/canada/toronto/ leighton-hay-wrongfully-convicted-of-murder-in-2002-walks-free-1.2853578 Denov, M. S., & Campbell, K. M. (2005). Criminal Injustice. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(3), 224-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1043986205278627 Leighton Hay. (n.d.). Innocence Canada. https://www.innocencecanada.com/ exonerations/leighton-hay/...