i

Exoneration of Verneal Jimerson's Wrongful Conviction

Student Name

University

Course

Professor Name

Date
 1

Introduction

Wrongful conviction is the conviction of an individual who is factually innocent. In

the United States, wrongful conviction accounts for about one to five percent of the total

convictions. Both intentionality and procedural flaws that have had a significant impact on

the first conviction are included in the category of wrongful convictions. Even after being

freed and proven not guilty of the allegations, a person may still be subject to consequences

related to the accusations, such as civil lawsuits and a criminal background reflecting served

time in jail. For records of criminal background to disappear, the convict must be exonerated.

However, only a few wrongful conviction cases are always exonerated.

Flawed evidence from an eyewitness is the major cause of wrongful convictions.

However, there are several other error sources that have significantly accounted for wrongful

convictions. According to The Innocence Project (n.d.), these error sources include racism,

prosecutor misconduct, forensic errors, and perjured testimony. Each of these factors,

individually or in combination with others, can have a significant impact on the likelihood of

a wrongful conviction and have an overall impact on specific instances.

Furthermore, it has been established that wrongful conviction has a tremendous

human cost, both financially and physically. The hardships of jail, such as a heightened

incidence of psychiatric problems linked to incarceration, are experienced by those who have

been falsely convicted, along with a deprivation of freedom and liberty that prevents many of

these individuals from participating in ordinary everyday activities after parole. This paper

will therefore discuss Verneal Jimerson's wrongful conviction and further suggest the

necessary measures that need to be taken to increase the reliability of police investigations

and ultimately prevent wrongful convictions

Verneal Jimerson's Wrongful Conviction

 2

In 1978, a newly engaged young couple was brutally killed in Chicago. Following

their abduction from the gas station where the young man worked, both victims were shot

dead, with the young woman being sexually assaulted before being killed. Later, an

eyewitness named Paula Gray claimed that she was present in the house where the corpses of

the murdered couple were found (Dieter,1997). Furthermore, Paula Gray placed Jimmerson

and his three other friends, namely: Williams, Rainge, and Adams, at the crime scene.

Although Gray later changed her tale and Jimerson's accusations were withdrawn, in 1985,

she used her old account once more to accuse Jimerson.

Owing to her retraction, Paula Gray was found guilty of both perjury and being a

collaborator. She consented to testify in Dennis Williams' second trial in 1985  because she

wanted to ensure her own freedom (Dieter, 1997). At this time, Jimerson was also facing

previous rape and murder charges. Notwithstanding the finding of A antigens, while both

Jimerson and the slain victim were type O, the scientist who was called to give testimony

failed to rule out Jimerson. Consequently, Jimerson was found guilty and given the death

penalty as a result of the scientist's and Gray's evidence. Jimerson was already given

opportunities to testify against his friends in order to avoid going to jail. Willie Rainge

received a life sentence, while Dennis Williams received the death penalty. Kenneth Adams

received a sentence of 75 years.

Rob Warden, David Protess, together with other Northwestern journalism students

studied the case. They discovered proof that a witness had given police information about the

identities of three additional individuals who would subsequently be identified as real

criminals (Dieter, 1997). Until the journalism students found out, the information about the

tip remained concealed in police records. Furthermore, DNA testing conducted on the

biological evidence excluded Jimmerson, Williams, Rainge, and Adams from the crime scene

(Dieter, 1997). Based on the false testimony of the government's witnesses, Jimmerson was
 3

given a new trial in 1995 and released on bond. Jimmerson was later released in June 1996

after the DNA test results.

Racial Bias and Wrongful Convictions

The American justice system is permeated with the idea that race is a check for

criminality. According to Swarns (2022), Black people are more likely to be wrongfully

convicted compared to their white counterparts. Furthermore, police misconduct accounts for

about 50% of Black people's exonerations (Swarns, 2022). Among the falsely accused

convicts, rape was the most common charge. Additionally, Swarns (2022) established that

Black individuals are nineteen times more likely to be falsely accused of selling drugs than

their white counterparts, although there is no major disparity between the number of white

and Black drug users and sellers.

In order to prevent wrongful rape convictions of the black population, it is essential to

ensure the reliability of DNA test results. Swarns (2022) discovered that routinized DNA

testing in cases of sexual assault charges had greatly prevented wrongful rape convictions.

Given the long history of Black males being unfairly imprisoned for sexual assault offenses,

DNA testing technology is revolutionary. But while new technology makes it possible to

analyze thinner and more intricate DNA samples, that technology also needs to be subjected

to close examination. Furthermore, more information should be gathered, evaluated, and

regulated about innovations like facial recognition technology that now harm people of color.

Remedies to Prevent Wrongful Convictions

Eyewitness Identification Reforms

Although evidence preservation and DNA tests might result in an exoneration, it's

crucial to consider strategies to avoid future wrongful convictions. It is critical to examine the

problems with eyewitness identification because eyewitness mistake is the primary cause of

wrongful conviction and continues to be a significant component in several cases today (The
 4

Innocence Project ,n.d.). Furthermore, police agencies still emlploy outdated eyewiteness

identification methods and this has significantly increased the number of erroneous

convictions resulting from the use of antiquated procedures and deceptive lineups.

The Innocence Project (n.d.) claims that many police agencies still employ lineups

that are performed without adequate instructions as their primary approach for identifying

eyewitnesses. These techniques have been demonstrated to cause pressure on the witnesses

and victims since they tend to coerce them into making identification even when they are

unsure about it (Morgan, 2014). As was already indicated, the eyewitness may also

experience a cognitive gap which can lead to mistakes and incorrect identifications.

Furthermore, mistakes could occur if police make any kind of innuendo toward a certain

defendant, whether on purpose or not.

The Innocence Project (n.d.) asserts that all such errors could have been avoided by

using a blind administrator and that updating the processes for verifying eyewitness

identification would not be difficult. The blind administrator will be responsible for handling

the management of eyewitness identification (Morgan, 2014). This would significantly

reduce the likelihood of misidentification, partly because the officer conducting a lineup

cannot make cues about the suspect's identity through movements or statements.

Secondly, it has been suggested that lineup practices be altered as part of an

eyewitness identification reformation. This modification could involve adding more

suitable uninvolved parties resembling the offender to the lineup. The accused person must

also not stand out significantly from the other people in the lineup, for example, as the sole

one with facial hair or of distinct racial origin. Instead, the eyewitness identification process

should be less suggestive. In particular, the individual watching the lineup must be informed

that the offender might not be in it.

 5

Numerous supporters have noted that in addition to these enhancements, jurisdictions

have to think about adopting sequential lineup processes. Sequential lineup techniques, or

displaying lineup participants each at a time, have been demonstrated to reduce wrongful

convictions. According to studies, witnesses are often more inclined to select the suspect who

most closely resembles the crime's commission despite the fact that they might not actually

be the culprit.

Forensic Science Oversight

Although there are numerous instances of specialists performing subpar forensic

testing, it is also stated that a contributing factor to the problem is a lack of funds to keep up

with the need for forensic analysis and the expanding caseload. Evaluation of the authenticity

and dependability of existing methods, quality assurance, expanded research, certification,

and accreditation processes are among the suggestions for enhancing the forensics field (The

Innocence Project, n.d.). Furthermore, advisory or state oversight commissions could serve to

oversee the forensic analysis process to ensure that the results of the analysis are credible and

authentic.

Furthermore, this organization could raise the standard of forensic evidence used in

the judicial system by emphasizing accreditation procedures, quality assurance, evaluation of

the authenticity and dependability of prospective and current techniques, and expanded

research and certification of laboratories. In order to develop and enhance current procedures,

it is crucial to identify research requirements, set priorities, and develop review criteria for

forensic disciplines (Morgan, 2014). Additionally, more money is required to boost research

as well as to aid in the creation of new technology that can be used to combat crime (Morgan,

2014). In order to establish if a methodology, gadget, or process is scientifically accurate, it is

vital to review both recent and old study data.

Evidence Preservation
 6

Although there are more laws allowing for postconviction DNA tests, there remain

significant restrictions on these tests, particularly if the proof has been misplaced, damaged,

or tainted by inappropriate custody. According to The Innocence Project (n.d.), many states

have established laws requiring the retention of genetic evidence automatically after a

conviction. But most of these regulations have restrictions on the length of time that data

should be retained and the kinds of proof that should be retained.

Due to the limitations in the storage of forensic evidence, several jurisdictions now

have laws that permit the destruction of old evidence, even when it is connected to old

unresolved cases. As a consequence, a significant amount of proof is lost between the period

of the trial and the filing of the appeal in many jurisdictions (Morgan, 2014). These

jurisdictions suggest that this procedure is done to make room for new proof owing to storage

capacity problems. In recent years, notably with the 2004 enactment of the Justice for All

Act, there has been a drive for stricter laws for maintaining material proof. This law offers

states cash benefits to effectively preserve evidence.

To properly address the issue of damaged or distorted forensics evidence, all physical

evidence be carefully maintained while the accused is in jail or prison, under any form

of supervision, such as parole or probation in a civil case concerning the alleged offense, or is

required to register as a sex offender. Furthermore, irrespective of whether the accused

submits a petition for postconviction Genetic testing or not, all solid evidence connected to

felonies should be maintained.

Other proposals include keeping all evidence from crime scenes in unsolved crimes

and tougher punishments for individuals who improperly destroy evidence. Moreover, the

court system must intervene when evidence is illegally erased, ideally by overturning the

verdict, ordering a retrial, and notifying the new jury about the illegal destruction of the case's
 7

evidence. This would prevent further punishment for individuals who are wrongfully

convicted.

Generally, the conservation of physical proof is essential for the expanded utilization

of postconviction DNA tests and proving the innocence of those who have been unfairly

convicted. If the proof is not stored properly, it might lead to additional punitive action for

those who have been wrongfully convicted because they might have no other way to

demonstrate their innocence and risk spending even more time behind bars or, in the worst-

case scenario, receiving the capital punishment uncommitted crimes

Conclusion

Despite the fact that case law and earlier studies both indicate that there is a serious

issue with false convictions and that there are numerous contributing causes, it is critical to

establish measures to address the issue in order to keep it from happening again. Furthermore,

wrongful convictions affect innocent people, as well as an increasingly overwhelmed system

of criminal justice. Such suggestions for the improvement of the criminal justice system

should therefore include improved forensic scrutiny, recording interrogations, eyewitness

testimony reforms, credible evidence protection, increased postconviction DNA testing, and

widespread establishment of innocence commissions to review wrongful convictions.

 8

References

Dieter, R. C. (1997). Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Executing

the Innocent: a Death Penalty Information Center Report. Death Penalty Information

Center.

Innocence Project (n.d.). Innocenceproject.org. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from

http://www.innocenceproject.org

Morgan, B. L. A. (2014). Wrongful Convictions: Reasons, Remedies, and Case

Studies (Doctoral dissertation, Appalachian State University).

Swarns, C. (2022). Op-Ed: Black people are wrongly convicted more than any other group.

We can prevent this. Los Angeles Times.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-10-07/black-people-wrongful-

convictions-exonerations