Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Wikileaks suspect Bradley Manning enters no plea

Wikileaks suspect Bradley Manning enters no plea

Pte Bradley Manning appearing for his pretrial hearing at Fort Meade, Maryland, 22 December 2011 Bradley Manning is accused of leaking 700,000 files to Wikileaks

Related Stories

The US Army private accused of leaking classified documents to Wikileaks has chosen not to enter a plea at the start of his court martial.

The 24-year-old was read the 22 charges against him at a hearing at Fort Meade, Maryland.

If found guilty of leaking and "aiding the enemy" he could face a life term.

Pte Manning, who was first arrested in May 2010, appeared for a pre-trial hearing in December, following which a court martial was recommended.

Thursday's arraignment hearing offered the defendant his first opportunity to state his case personally.

As well as deferring a plea, he also passed on the opportunity to decide whether to be tried by a military jury or a single judge.

When asked if he understood his rights to counsel, Pte Manning told the judge: "Yes, your honour."

He spoke several times, giving brief replies to questions from lawyers and the judge.

Another procedural hearing has been set for 15 March.

Breaches

Defence lawyer David Coombs has asked that the court martial begin in June, but prosecutors want an August start date.

Mr Coombs says his client will have spent more than 800 days in jail by August.

During his pre-trial hearing in December, defence lawyers argued that Pte Manning was a troubled young man with gender identity issues.

They suggested he should not have been sent to Iraq, where he served as an intelligence analyst with access to classified material.

Pte Manning is alleged to have been the source of a series of high-profile stories that saw Wikileaks rise to global fame.

After a video showing US troops firing on Iraqis from a helicopter came caches of documents from both the Iraq and Afghan wars, and a huge haul of classified state department cables.

Source

Friday, October 28, 2011

An American Teenager in Yemen: Paying for the Sins of His Father?

An American Teenager in Yemen: Paying for the Sins of His Father?



An image of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, posted on a Facebook page dedicated to his memory

A wave of CIA drone strikes targeting al-Qaeda figures in Yemen is stoking widespread anger there that U.S. policy is cruel and misguided, prioritizing counterterrorism over a genuine solution to the country's raging political crisis.

Politics has never been a concern to Sam al-Homiganyi and his fellow teenagers. This month, though, they were shocked by the sudden death of a friend and are struggling to understand why.

Fighting back tears, his gaze fixed downward, al-Homiganyi, a lean-looking 15-year-old from the outskirts of Sana'a, told TIME, "He was my best friend, we played football together everyday." Another of his friends spoke up, gesturing to the gloomy group of jeans-clad boys around him: "He was the same as us. He liked swimming, playing computer games, watching movies ... you know, normal stuff." (See photos of Yemen on the brink.)

The dead friend was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old born in Denver, the third American killed in as many weeks by suspected CIA drone strikes in Yemen. His father, the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, also an American citizen, was killed earlier this month, along with alleged al-Qaeda propagandist Samir Khan, who was from New York. When Abdulrahman's death was first reported in the Western press, his age was given as 21 by local Yemeni officials. Afterward, however, the Awlaki family put out a copy of Abdulrahman's birth certificate.

According to his relatives, Abdulrahman left the family home in the Sana'a area on Sept. 30 in search of his fugitive father who was hiding out with his tribe, the Awalak, in the remote, rugged southern province of Shabwa. Days after the teenager began his quest, however, his father was killed in a U.S. drone strike. Then, just two weeks later, the Yemeni government claimed another air strike killed a senior al-Qaeda militant. Abdulrahman, his teenage cousin and six others died in the attack as well. A U.S. official said the young man "was in the wrong place at the wrong time," and that the U.S. was trying to kill a legitimate terrorist — al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who also died — in the strike that apparently killed the American teenager. (See a video on the volatile uprisings in Yemen.)

Abdulrahman's distraught grandfather is not buying the explanation. Nasser al-Awlaki, who received a university degree in the U.S., had for years sought an injunction in American courts to prevent the Obama Administration from targeting and killing his son, Anwar. He told TIME, "I really feel disappointed that this crime is going to be forgotten. I think the American people ought to know what really happened and how the power of their government is being abused by this Administration. Americans should start asking why a boy was targeted for killing." He continued, "In addition to my grandson's killing, the missile killed my brother's grandson, who was a 17-year-old kid, who was not an American citizen but is a human being, killed in cold blood. I cannot comprehend how my teenage grandson was killed by a Hellfire missile, how nothing was left of him except small pieces of flesh. Why? Is America safer now that a boy was killed?" As for Abdulrahman's father, Nasser says that the U.S. "killed my son Anwar without a trial for any crime he committed ... They killed him just for his freedom of speech." He levels the charges directly at the U.S. President. "I urge the American people to bring the killers to justice. I urge them to expose the hypocrisy of the 2009 Nobel Prize laureate. To some, he may be that. To me and my family, he is nothing more than a child killer."

Meanwhile, the U.S. is caught between prosecuting the campaign, which depends in part on intelligence provided by security forces loyal to Yemen's embattled government, and encouraging political change. Inspired by the Arab Spring, Yemen has been convulsed by nine months of antigovernment demonstrations that are now verging dangerously on civil war. U.S. diplomats have tried to manage a transition that will see President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down but keep the Yemeni state focused on counterterrorism. "America's view of our country is wrong, and motivated only by its own cynical interests," says Hassan Luqman, a demonstrator camped out in the indefatigable sit-in colony known as Change Square in Yemen's capital. "Its support for the regime is a dishonor to all the youths who have fallen as martyrs struggling against it." (See an interview with Ali Abdullah Saleh, the President of Yemen.)

Western diplomats contend that while terrorism figures prominently in their concerns on Yemen, they are refusing to let the recent killing of several prominent al-Qaeda leaders distract them from the task of seeking a constructive political solution. "I'm sure the government hoped recent successes against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would diminish pressure on them, but we maintain our line," a Sana'a-based Western diplomat said. "This hasn't changed the course on Yemen's long-term issues."

But the campaign of aerial bombardments in Yemen, accelerated by the Obama Administration, has all too often missed its intended targets and killed innocents, aggravating the country's already dire humanitarian and security situation. In December 2009, a U.S. cruise missile crashed into a caravan of tents in the rural south, killing dozens, among them 14 women and 21 children. Despite an uproar by Yemeni rights groups and a detailed investigation by Amnesty International, U.S. officials refused to take responsibility for the bombing.

More disastrously, an American warplane wiped out the deputy governor of the oil-rich Marib province along with his entire retinue last summer. They had gathered to accept the surrender of a wanted al-Qaeda militant who, finding the appointed site in flames, retraced his steps unscathed. A massive rebellion by the official's tribal kinsmen lingers to this day, and disturbances to the area's oil infrastructure have undercut the country's only lucrative export and severed the supply of electricity and fuel to millions of Yemenis every day. (See photos of the hand art of Yemen's protesters.)

Yemen's restive southern province of Abyan has also been a focus of drone attacks and has been at the center of a ferocious, months-long battle between army units — supplied with essential provisions by the U.S. — and al-Qaeda-linked militants. Refugees from the fighting angrily recall seeing and hearing drones, and believe the government is deliberately exploiting the chaos to garner political capital from foreign powers. Her eyes aflame beneath a full black veil, Maryam, one of the refugees, noted, "I swear some of these bombs were American." Packed into a makeshift shelter in the port city of Aden along with dozens of other families, she insisted, "We saw aircraft — small planes — we had never seen before, zooming above us 24 hours a day and terrifying our children."

Thousands of activists throughout southern Yemen, which had been an independent state until a bloody civil war imposed unification with the north two decades ago, see the al-Qaeda issue as a distraction from their legitimate grievances and calls for autonomy. "The south is rich in oil and sits along one of the world's biggest shipping lanes," says Hassan al-Bishi, a general in the former South Yemen and antigovernment activist. "If the United States continues to ignore our interests and focus only on one silly issue, we must seek other allies ... China or Iran, for instance."

Cutting deeply into the country's political conflicts and across its broad expanse, the U.S. bombing offensive risks alienating the youth who will inevitably inherit Yemen's future. "I have one question for you," said one of Abdulrahman's young friends, his gloom turning to anger. "Who can't America kill?"

Scott Olsen - You Did this to My Brother





" Marines around the world are outraged by the injuries inflicted by police on Scott Olsen at Tuesday's Occupy Oakland protests.

Olsen is in a medically-induced coma after getting hit in the head by a police projectile.

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-veteran-could-be-th...


The following picture is taken from the Reddit thread "How I feel, as a United States Marine, about what occurred in Oakland."

http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/lqjx2... /



This man is not alone. In the five hours since the thread went up there have been over 600 comments.




http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-to-police-you-did...


With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United

A little over a year ago the Supreme Court of the United States made a controversial ruling that says corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. The case known as Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allows corporations to use their general funds to buy campaign ads that was prohibited under federal law, and opened the door for unlimited contributions by corporations as well as unions. The high court cited the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of the right of free speech, and it was the first time a corporate entity was treated like a person. Detractors of the ruling cried foul and correctly pointed out that, “The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.” The ruling also opened the door for foreign governments to affect the outcome of United States elections.

There was an attempt to assuage the damage from Citizens United in the form of the Disclose Act that passed in the Democratic controlled House last year but failed in the Senate because Democrats couldn’t muster the super majority needed to overcome Republican’s filibuster threat. The failed legislation provided tough new disclosure rules for groups that invest in the election process. President Obama summed up the necessity of the Disclose Act calling it “a critical piece of legislation to control the flood of special interest money into our elections,” and, “that it mandates unprecedented transparency in campaign spending, and it ensures that corporations who spend money on American elections are accountable first and foremost to the American people.” Since Republicans are enamored with the notion of unlimited special interest money without transparency or accountability, it was not surprising they threatened to filibuster the measure. The 2010 midterm elections confirmed Americans’ fears with money from special interest groups and corporations flooding the airwaves with fallacious assertions and inaccurate characterizations of everything from the health law to socialist tendencies of Democratic candidates. It appeared that since the Disclose Act failed, elections would be bought by the highest bidder for years to come, but a report today gives some hope that democracy is not dead in America; yet.

On Wednesday it was reported that President Obama was drafting an executive order that would require companies pursuing federal contracts to disclose political contributions that have been secret under the Citizen’s United ruling. A senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Hans A. von Spakovsky, lambasted the proposed executive order saying that, “The draft order tries to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors.” Mr. von Spakovsky dutifully made all the right-wing, neo-con arguments including bringing Planned Parenthood and unions into the discussion. The draft order did not exempt any entity from disclosure rules and presents a reasonable requirement on contractors seeking government contracts. Several states have similar “pay to play” laws to prevent businesses from using unlimited donations to buy lucrative state contracts from slimy legislators. Thus far the only legislator who has railed against the proposed order was Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). McConnell called the proposal an “outrageous and anti-Democratic abuse of executive branch authority,” and went on to say, “Just last year, the Senate rejected a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress.

McConnell is working under the assumption that the draft order is an attempt to restrict free speech, but there is nothing in the order remotely resembling free speech violations. The exact wording of the president’s executive order says, “The Federal Government prohibits federal contractors from making certain contributions during the course of negotiation and performance of a contract.” There is no free speech issue and the order applies to union contractors as well as non-union contractors. There is no special dispensation of muzzles or prohibitions on political support; only certain contributions during negotiations and performance. Republicans must hate the idea of corporations like Halliburton or Koch Industries losing the ability to contribute unlimited money to legislators for special treatment in securing government contracts, especially no-bid contracts like the ones Dick Cheney’s company’s received in Iraq and Afghanistan. In lieu of veracity, McConnell accuses President Obama of muzzling critics and suppressing free speech when in fact, the order will bring increased transparency and accountability to the process of awarding contracts. Republicans made it their goal to increase transparency and accountability in government in the lead up to the midterm elections, so McConnell should be thrilled that President Obama is helping them achieve their goal.

The real objection Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have with the order is that it removes the possibility of corporate money influencing government more than it already does. The Citizens’ United ruling was a gift to Republicans who do the bidding of corporations in exchange for campaign contributions and it became obvious after reports that two Supreme Court Justices attended a secret Koch Industries strategy meeting prior to voting to extend free speech rights to corporations just in time for the 2010 midterm campaigns.

The midterm elections saw a record amount of campaign contributions from anonymous sources that were illegal for years until the high court broke with precedent and gave personhood to corporations. The rash of Republican governors’ victories and subsequent corporate favoritism and tax cuts at the expense of poor and working class Americans is evidence that there is a serious need for accountability and transparency in campaign financing.

The response from McConnell and the Heritage Foundation is not unexpected and is most likely the tip of the iceberg as far as criticism and false indignation are concerned. The screed from Hans A. von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation is a preview of the propaganda right-wing outlets like Fox News and their pundits will spew on an hourly basis once the order becomes common knowledge.

Conservatives are not known for their veracity, and based on von Spakovsky’s portrayal of the order, there is no telling how Fox, Limbaugh, Beck and myriad Republican presidential hopefuls will spin the story, or to what end their faux outrage will take. One thing is certain; Republicans will make the order tyrannical and un-Constitutional before the dust settles and that should be a signal that the president’s proposal is appropriate and in keeping with democratic principles of fairness. Of course, any attempt at ensuring fairness in government is contrary to Republican principles of corruption, fear mongering, and doing the bidding of the Heritage Foundation.

Source

Monday, October 24, 2011

Will Ruling On Tasers Change Police Procedure?

Will Ruling On Tasers Change Police Procedure?

Using Taser guns on civilians can be unconstitutional, a new court decision has found

In 2007, a University of Florida undergraduate created a rallying cry when he pleaded with a police officer, “Don’t tase me, bro.” Now, a powerful federal appeals court in California has given support to the anti-Taser movement. The court ruled last week, in a case involving a pregnant woman pulled over for speeding, that using Taser stun guns on civilians can in some circumstances be unconstitutional. The ruling, although not a complete win for tasered civilians, should prompt police across the country to rethink when and how they use Tasers — and to use them less.

Malaika Brooks, who was seven months pregnant, was driving her 11-year-old son to school when she was pulled over for doing 32 mph in a 20 mph zone. The police tried to force Brooks to sign the speeding ticket, but she refused, believing it would constitute an admission of guilt. Police told her to get out of her car because she was going to jail, and when she refused, they began to tase her.

Even though Brooks told the officer, “I’m less than 60 days from having my baby,” he still applied the Taser to her thigh, arm, and neck — while she cried. After the neck tasing, Brooks fell over in her car, the police dragged her out, lay her face down on the street, and handcuffed her. Brooks gave birth to a healthy girl, but she has several permanent scars from the tasing.

(MORE: Are Tasers Being Overused?)

Brooks sued the police for using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. By a 6-4 vote, the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in Brooks’ case — and another in which a woman was tased by police in Hawaii — the police may have violated the Constitution. The court explained just how forceful tasers are, noting that they can deliver 1200 volts of electricity, which when it strikes a person “instantly overrides the victim’s central nervous system, paralyzing the muscles throughout the body, rendering the target limp and helpless.” The three shocks applied to Brooks, the court observed, were “extremely painful.”

Whether a police action constitutes excessive force is fact-specific question. In this case, the court said that speeding at a rate of 32 mph and refusing to sign a citation are not serious offenses. And while she was uncooperative, Brooks was not posing an immediate threat to the police, nor was she trying to flee. Taking all of this into account — and the fact that before the tasing began Brooks told the officers she was pregnant — the court said that a judge or jury could conclude that Brooks’ constitutional rights were violated. (In a second case it considered at the same time, the court said police in Hawaii may have used excessive force when it responded to a domestic disturbance and tasered a woman who was fighting with her drunk husband.)

Although the court found that the tasering may have constituted excessive force, it ruled for the police on a key point: it said that that the law was sufficiently murky that the officers might not have known that their actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Because of this, the court gave the police “qualified immunity” to Brooks’ federal claims — meaning she could not win any money damages. The bottom line, though, is this: the Ninth Circuit — which establishes federal law for nine Western states, including California — made clear going forward that Taser use in circumstances where they are not necessary can be unconstitutional — and could lead to large damage awards in future cases.

Tasers were intended to provide police with a safer, non-lethal alternative to firearms that can be used in subduing hostile or fleeing suspects. Often, their defenders say, they can save lives — by making it less likely that police will fire their guns. That may be true — but it is also the case that police all too often use Tasers in circumstances where painful force is not needed. That was the case with Malaika Brooks’ arrest. It is hard to believe that an unarmed seven-months pregnant woman, driving her son to school at 32 mph, could not be subdued by two police officers without the use of painful electric shocks that leave permanent scars.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling sends an important message to police: that the Constitution requires that Taser use be reasonable. If the suspect is not putting police or civilians at risk, and there are no other extenuating circumstances — don’t tase them, bro.

Cohen, the author of Nothing to Fear, teaches at Yale Law School

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Man wrongly convicted of murder makes boxing debut

Man wrongly convicted of murder makes boxing debut

Dewey Bozella (left) versus Larry Hopkins
President Obama rang Bozella (left) last week to wish him luck

A man who spent 26 years in jail for a murder he did not commit has fulfilled his dream by making his professional boxing debut and winning.

Dewey Bozella, now 52, became a prison boxing champion while in New York state's Sing Sing jail.

He was freed in 2009 after his conviction for the the murder of 92-year-old Emma Crapser was overturned.

"I used to lay in my cell and dream about this happening...It was my dream come true," he said after the fight.

Bozella made his debut on the undercard of a world title fight between world light heavyweight champion Bernard Hopkins and Chad Dawson in Los Angeles.

Obama phone call

Start Quote

I'd like to see kids who are on the street have something productive to do. No more fighting for me”

Dewey Bozella

On Thursday President Barack Obama called to wish him luck in his fight with 30-year-old Larry Hopkins, no relation to the champion.

In 1983 Bozella was sentenced to 20 years to life for the murder.

While inside he not only honed his skills as a boxer but also earned two college degrees.

His case was finally taken up by two young New York lawyers, who discovered evidence that several witnesses had lied at his original trial and another man had confessed to the murder.

After being released Bozella said he dreamed of getting the chance to fight just one time as a professional boxer.

Golden Boy Promotions, run by former champion Oscar De La Hoya, agreed to put his bout with Hopkins on the undercard at the 20,000 capacity Staples Center.

Dewey Bozella
Bozella says he plans to go back to his home town and set up a boxing gym

When the judges announced he had won a unanimous decision the crowd stood and cheered.

Bozella plans to head back to the town of Newburgh, 60 miles (90km) from New York, and set up a boxing gym.

"I'd like to see kids who are on the street have something productive to do. No more fighting for me," he said.

In the main event Hopkins, himself no spring chicken at 46, lost his title after injuring his shoulder in the second round.

Source

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Witness Testimony and the Death Penalty: After Troy Davis, a Push for Eyewitness Reform

Witness Testimony and the Death Penalty: After Troy Davis, a Push for Eyewitness Reform


Virginia Davis, the mother of Troy Davis, holds a button in her lap pleading clemency for her son at her Savannah home, July 12, 2007. Georgia executed Troy Davis on September 21, 2011, for the murder of an off-duty police officer, a crime he denied committing.
Curtis Compton / Atlanta Journal-Constitution / AP

Nearly a week after the state of Georgia executed Troy Davis, the emotions surrounding his case have calmed. Protestors and reporters have long since dispersed from their vigil outside the prison. The Twitter hashtag #toomuchdoubt — as well as its Wednesday night successor #RIPTroyDavis — is no longer trending. That's not to say, however, that the case won't continue to have an outsized effect on the criminal justice system in the U.S. While his execution alone — no matter how passionate his supporters — won't bring the death penalty to an end, there is one area where activists are hoping to use Davis' death as an ongoing and emotional rallying cry for reform: eyewitness identification.

In the 48 hours leading up to Davis' execution, the nation heard that the case against Davis was built entirely on eyewitnesses who said they saw Davis gun down off-duty cop Mark McPhail. But of the nine witnesses who testified against Davis in his original trial, seven would go on to change their mind and recant. As many outside observers pointed out, they were either lying on the stand, or lying now. There are two essential takeaways, then, from Davis' execution: First, that eyewitnesses are extremely unreliable, and second, that because of that unreliability, the death penalty shouldn't hinge solely on eyewitness recall. (Read about whether Davis' execution will bring closure to the victim's family.)

That second point is why Al Sharpton and his National Action Network are now pushing for a new law in the wake of Davis' death. The law would forbid prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty in cases where there was no physical or scientific evidence. Under this law, he has said, "the Troy Davis case would never have been tried as a capital case in the first place."

Eyewitness problems plague non-death cases as well. In fact, the New York-based Innocence Project estimates that it's the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide. Some 75% of the false convictions they've uncovered not only involved non-matching DNA (the Innocence Project's specialty), but also eyewitness problems: poor handling, poor reliability, police coercion. The stories of hundreds of clients whose innocence was proven by DNA testing make up what Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck once referred to as "the greatest data set in the history of our criminal justice system." One clear finding in that data set is that a lot of Scheck's clients who were ruled innocent had also been positively (and ultimately, falsely) ID'd by witnesses in the original trial. As the number of cases where there is untested DNA dwindles in the U.S., Scheck says the Innocence Project is turning its attention to the next great area of need: eyewitness reform.(Read about Davis being executed in Georgia for killing an off-duty cop.)

Just what is so wrong with eyewitnesses? It depends on who you ask. UC Irvine psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has done considerable research into the inherent unreliability of memory, how easily suggestible and completely self-deceptive it can be. Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney Karyn Sinunu-Towery points to a number of potential variables that might affect a witness' ability to recall accurately: how far away they were from the scene, what the light was like, whether they were afraid, whether they are of a different race than the person they witnessed.

Each one of those factors can contribute to error and the cumulative result, watchdogs say, is an unacceptably high risk that witnesses might get something wrong — a prospect that pleases neither defenders nor prosecutors like Sinunu-Towery. "We had a case a few years ago where there was a bad identification and there was a reversal," Towery says. "We don't want that. Every time there's a wrong identification, it means the real criminal is still out there."

Read about the outrage on the Internet over Davis' execution.

For all the attention placed on the recanting eyewitnesses in the Davis case, there wasn't much coverage of the fact that the witnesses may have been mishandled from the outset. Setting aside the various accusations that police pressured people into saying Davis did it, the police also broke a cardinal rule of witnesses: They allowed these strangers to interact with one another and sync stories. That is, the police actually brought all the witnesses together in the Burger King parking lot where the shooting took place and recreated the crime. Whether by mistake or by design, it had the effect of creating identical eyewitness accounts that hued to a central narrative, rather that revealing the messier vagaries of nearly a dozen people trying to remember what they had seen in a dark parking lots.

"Should never happen." says Sinunu-Towery sharply. "Witnesses need to be able to tell their story alone." Sinunu-Towery says that local law enforcement in her area take this seriously, but even then, it's not always possible to keep witnesses from coordinating their stories. Even if police are a bit late responding to a scene, witnesses tend to start chatting and inadvertently match up their recollections. "I remember years ago there was a double homicide in a bar," she says. "There were a lot of inebriated witnesses, and it was pretty hard to keep them from talking with each other about what had happened." (Read about the failure of a legal 'safety' valve.)

False convictions, however, are not the fault of bad witnesses; they are the result of poorly trained judges and juries. And this is where Davis' case could make a lasting difference. Just two days before Davis' execution, the Innocence Project and a consortium of police and advocacy groups released a study that outlined best practices for lineups. For example, it turns out that if you have a full lineup that doesn't include the actual perpetrator, the witness will often just pick the one person in the lineup who looks closest to the guilty. Among the report's top findings: by far the most reliable practice is the double-blind sequential lineup, where the administrator doesn't know who the suspect is, and suspects or their photos are presented one-by-one instead of in a group.

There are other common-sense reforms that can help the courts use eyewitnesses properly. Standardizing police protocols would clearly help. So would better juror instructions. In California, jurors are told from the outset that eyewitness accounts may be unreliable, that they should be taken with a grain of salt. But not every state is so explicit. Without those wary-sounding juror instructions, many jurors in other states may think, as Sinunu-Towery once did, that the "best evidence in the world was having someone stand up in court and shout 'there's the guy that did it!'" In reality, she says, that could well be the least reliable evidence of the trial.(Read about five historically infamous executions.)

Some jurisdictions are taking action, while others are resisting. Santa Clara County, where Sinunu-Towery works, is one of the leaders in implementing best practices (the county will soon begin videotaping all lineups, for example). But California, under pressure from police groups who don't appreciate lawmakers telling them how to do their job, has blocked some legislative attempts to regulate the eyewitness process more heavily. Florida has been similarly reluctant. In August, New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that eyewitness identification is routinely flawed, opening the door to statewide reform. Georgia, for its part, instituted reforms in 2008 that were at least partially in response to the already-brewing controversies surrounding the Troy Davis case. But even those, as the Pew Center on the States' online publication Stateline.org points out, were not mandatory.

Activists argue that should be uniform protocols throughout the country for how police handle witnesses and what juries are told about eyewitness reliability. It's something both sides can agree on (for the most part), and would provide an extra insurance policy against convicting the innocent. And, for Davis' family and supporters, it would be a sign of progress, reform and redemption — that perhaps his death was not in vain.

Source