Wrongful Convictions Through Police Tunnel Vision

Nathaniel Van Putten 101142248

SOCI 3410B

Darryl Davies

Carleton University

February 10th, 2022

 Van Putten 2

Introduction

Police play a vital role in the criminal justice process, and the power they hold over

everyday citizens can manifest into a variety of issues if that power goes unfettered. Throughout

the decades, police tunnel vision has contributed to an increasing number of wrongful

convictions of many innocent people who would otherwise live ordinary, law-abiding lives. As

bias and prejudice becomes more apparent, and the practice of targeting overtakes the purview of

justice enforcement, objectivity and fact become ignored or obliterated entirely. According to the

Department of Justice, tunnel vision has been identified as one of the leading causes of wrongful

convictions throughout the world, but particularly in Canada. This tunnel vision is often the

result of cultural and personal biases that associate certain harms or certain behaviors with a

particular group of individuals. This leads to the marginalization of groups and eventually poses

a high risk for incarcerating a morally innocent and blameless person. This is where the line must

be drawn, and biases set aside to allow for objective policing and justice for each and every

individual. After all, even one wrongfully convicted individual robbed of their freedom to live a

prosperous life is one wrongful conviction too many.

The concept of tunnel vision comes when the police believe that they have found the

culprit of a crime, and they choose to look no further than that individual, regardless of other

leads or evidence. This can include many unethical practices such as planting all evidence onto

who they believe to be the criminal, and even eliminating evidence that points to other suspects,

which eventually leads to the conviction of the innocent party. As outlined by Innocence Canada,

not all police officers who are affected by tunnel vision are deviant or have bad intentions. In

many cases, those same officers who look to conduct their enforcement in an ethical and just

way may not even realize that they are suffering from the effects of tunnel vision (Innocence
 Van Putten 3

Canada, 2021). Tunnel vision can cause otherwise morally competent police officers to commit

unscrupulous actions to fit the schema surrounding who they believe to be the culprit. Rather

than developing a logical theory based on existing evidence, officers place a focus on more

circumstantial evidence that might not be as definitive, but is more aligned with their subjective

ideals (Innocence Canada, 2021).

It is important to understand tunnel vision and its effects so as to effectively limit and

ultimately prevent, the wrongful convictions of innocent civilians. It is worth putting time and

effort into educating both police officers and the public, because in doing so, officers would be

held to a higher responsibility of ensuring that tunnel vision does not affect their investigations.

This can be done through careful policy changes to educate officers on remaining cognizant of

their biases and the signs of tunnel vision so as to ensure that they do not send an innocent

person to prison. Moreover, if the public is aware of this issue, it would also allow them to avoid

falling victim to the tactics of tunnel vision if ever they were in this situation, while also making

for more informed police interactions in day-to-day situations.

Ultimately, when analyzing the role that tunnel vision plays in wrongful conviction cases,

it is first important to understand what factors and issues contribute to the tunnel vision

phenomena. Moreover, it is also important to look at real life cases in which police were subject

to tunnel vision, which ultimately led to the wrongful conviction of an innocent civilian. The

cases that will be examined in this paper are the cases of Thomas Sophonow, Guy Paul Morin,

and David Milgaard. And finally, after knowing what can cause tunnel vision, and learning about

individuals’ experiences, it is important to ask how tunnel vision can be prevented, so that

wrongful convictions can be avoided in the future.

 Van Putten 4

Causes of Tunnel Vision

As previously discussed, police tunnel vision is known to be one of the major

contributing causes of wrongful convictions, and therefore it is imperative that both the police,

the justice system, and the public understand some of the factors that can lead to and cause it.

Though there are many factors, one of the primary issues that can lead to tunnel vision is

inaccurate or false eyewitness identifications. Another cause of tunnel vision is majority expert

targeting of the suspect in question, which happens when experts know a suspect is being

targeted and form evidence to fit that individual. And lastly the issue of confirmation bias in

police officers during the investigative aspects of the case.

The first major factor that can lead to police tunnel vision in an investigation are

mistaken eyewitness identifications. When a confident identification is given by a witness, police

officers are often more likely to be convinced that the correct suspect has been identified.

Eyewitness identification is one of the least accurate methods of gaining circumstantial evidence,

yet for some reason police perceive this evidence as carrying more significance than it truly does.

If the police are convinced that a certain individual is guilty, they may then attempt to get a

confession from the suspect, even going so far as using coercion methods which has a higher

chance of leading to a false confession, and a wrongful conviction. Although it is well known

that eyewitness identifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions, police still find

themselves accepting them, which causes them to fall victim to tunnel vision, and to investigate

and question innocent individuals.

Another cause of tunnel vision occurs when other members of the case such as forensic

analysts, expert witnesses, or the Crown, are aware of who is being targeted as the suspect and

then act on those biases by concentrating on evidence pertaining to that one individual. This is an
 Van Putten 5

issue because they can then try to find evidence that can be traced back to that individual,

without accounting for other evidence, other suspects, or even ignoring facts that could exonerate

the targeted suspect. The more people who believe that a particular suspect has been identified,

there is a higher likelihood that an increasing amount of false evidence can be incorrectly traced

back to them, which could lead to a wrongful conviction. For example, if a forensic scientist is

aware of the desired outcome of a case, since they are considered an expert witness and

presumed to be unbiased in the case, they have strong influence over the evidence, data, and

results. If used in an unethical manner, this expert witness and evidence can be used to supported

unfounded theories and targeting practices brought on by police (Findley, 2010).

Another factor that can lead to police tunnel vision is confirmation bias, which is when

police officers or other members of an investigation interpret evidence in ways that support their

preexisting biases and presumptions of guilt (Nickerson, 1998). If an officer enters an

investigation with previous beliefs or assumptions of guilt, they will center their investigation

around that, and will collect evidence and testimony that supports their opinions. With

confirmation bias, police officers search for evidence to connect to a particular suspect, rather

than first building up the case to help identify multiple suspects. This approach is more of a top-

down approach rather than a bottom-up approach as is used in the majority of investigations.

When biases are present, it causes police to focus their investigation on their prejudices and

circumstantial evidence rather than focusing on the investigation as a whole, and trying to seek

true justice.

While it remains evident that there are many factors that can contribute to police tunnel

vision and the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals, these examples are just a few

instances of irresponsible practices conducted behind the scenes of justice. Not only is it
 Van Putten 6

important to understand some of the causes of tunnel vision, but it is also important to see just

how the effects of tunnel vision impact the justice system and supporting structures of society.

An effective way to do this is by analyzing previous wrongful conviction cases and identifying

when and where the officers were guided not by reason, but by tunnel vision, and how this

changed the lives of innocent people. By understanding these mistakes and addressing the causes

that lead to these issues, justice can begin to rebuild, and reparations can take form.

Landmark Cases

As previously mentioned, when discussing the connection between wrongful convictions

and police tunnel vision, it is important to examine previous cases and understand the

perspective of the individuals involved, the facts of the case, and how such an abhorrent mistake

happened. This is essential to ensure police are held accountable and the public is made aware of

the realities that wrongly convicted individuals face at the hands of those placed in positions of

power. This negligent abuse of power must be better controlled through legislative and legal

practices to ensure a fair and equitable society for all individuals. This section will discuss the

landmark cases of Thomas Sophonow, David Milgaard, and Guy Paul Morin, and will outline

how the role of police tunnel vision led to their wrongful convictions. These cases, though

unique in themselves, share many haunting similarities that make for excellent examples of what

needs to be reformed in the justice system of the past, present, and future.

Thomas Sophonow Case

In the Thomas Sophonow case, a young woman was found near-death in the bathroom of

a Winnipeg donut shop and was taken to hospital where she died a few days later. Although

Thomas Sophonow had an “ironclad alibi” (Innocence Canada, 2021), he would later be
 Van Putten 7

convicted of her murder on the grounds of circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted in

subjective ways. During the investigation, it was said that many eyewitnesses had seen

Sophonow lock the door of the donut shop, presumably to kill the young girl. Following these

eyewitness reports, the same witnesses identified Sophonow out of both a physical and photo

lineup, however these identifications were clearly incorrect as was later discovered. Although

two interviews were done with Sophonow, police did not record either of them, which then made

it difficult to determine exactly what happened that night (Innocence Canada, 2021). It was later

revealed that during his second interview, Sophonow was subject to extremely harsh and

traumatizing techniques, which were the result of police tunnel vision. The police did not

consider other suspects, nor did they conduct much of an investigation before they decided to

interview Sophonow. Even after the interviews, police did not regard other information or facts

pertaining to the case that would have cleared Sophonow, nor did they further consider his alibi,

even though an alibi is considered to be one of the strongest defenses.

One of the witnesses reported that the killer had thrown something into the river, and

when the police retrieved it, they traced it back to the sweater of the victim from that night. This

was the string that was used to kill the young girl, and it was concluded that Sophonow had used

it. Here, it is clear that this is not enough evidence to suspect or convict Sophonow as the guilty

party of this crime, however because the police were convinced of his guilt before finding out all

the facts, Sophonow was convicted of a crime he did not commit. The evidence presented against

him was subject to a great amount of interpretation and was circumstantial at best, yet authorities

pursued Sophonow to no end until they convicted who their biases perceived to be the guilty

individual. After going through three trials and spending almost four years in custody, with a lot

of false evidence presented against him, Sophonow was acquitted and granted his freedom. As
 Van Putten 8

stated by Innocence Canada, the root cause of Sophonow’s wrongful conviction was in fact

police tunnel vision (Innocence Canada, 2021). The police in this case fell victim to tunnel vision

at an early stage of the investigation, and from then on, they did not look into the possibility that

there may be other suspects. They had very little evidence to get a conviction, and rather than

letting a killer escape justice, needed to hold someone accountable even if it was a morally

innocent man. They focused all of their time on one suspect, and they planted any found

evidence onto Sophonow, which ultimately led to his wrongful conviction.

Guy Paul Morin Case

The Guy Paul Morin case was the second landmark case dealing with the issue of police

tunnel vision during an investigation. Morin was 25 years old at the time of his arrest, and had no

prior criminal record to his name (Ministry of the Attorney General, n.d.), which would have

made him a very unappealing suspect in most investigations. Morin was charged with the murder

of his 9-year-old neighbor Christine, even though he was not home when this crime occurred,

and there was no plausible explanation for how he could have committed the crime. The timeline

of events and the evidence presented did not align with what the police had accused Morin of

doing.. It was later discovered that the trial and the handling of evidence was greatly flawed, and

that jurors were not presented with all of the evidence which lead to a biased decision and an

uneducated, circumstantial assessment of Morin’s guilt.

In this case, the veteran detectives felt public pressure to find Christine’s killer, which is

why they focused all of their attention on Morin after hearing from the victim’s family. The

family described Morin as an odd man, and the investigators carried this description in their

minds throughout the entire investigation. Though maybe not intentional, this generalized

schema of Morin inflicted bias on the police as they conducted the investigation and it was from
 Van Putten 9

this moment on that the police fell victim to tunnel vision. There were many flaws in this case

such as the mishandling of evidence from the scene, the use of an undercover officer, the hidden

evidence that was not shared with the jury, the missing information from the first autopsy, and

much more (R. v. Morin, 1988). Why was this evidence not brough forward in a clear and open

way for the jury to understand and the public to see? Because the police were convinced that

Morin was the killer, and rather than set him free and risk bad publicity, they wanted to prove

that they were right in their suspicions about Morin. When Morin first arrived at the police

station, he was presented with a large photo of his fingerprint and was told that it was found on

Christine’s sweater, when in reality, it was from his clarinet, and was being used to try and elicit

a confession (R. v. Morin, 1988). Morin never would have ben subjected to these tactics had it

not been for the tunnel vision of the police and the inability of police to suppress their personal

biases.

Every aspect of this case proves that the police had fallen victim to tunnel vision at a very

early stage of the investigation. From the moment that they heard Morin was odd, police

assumed his involvement with the murder, and they tried to build a case against him, rather than

first building up the case. This backwards approach is what ultimately led to his wrongful

conviction because the police would then fabricate evidence or only show evidence that fit the

narrative they were trying to create for the jury. Although they had information from other

witnesses about what they believe happened that night, they kept it secret, and did not share it

with the jury members. This proves that they were only presenting evidence that would help

point to Morin. Police were utterly convinced that he was the killer, so they looked no further

and sent an innocent man to prison, while the real killer walked free. This miscarriage of justice
 Van Putten 10

is a perfect example of the issues in the justice system and why accountability should be a top

priority of the courts, so as to ensure a tragedy such as this does not happen again.

David Milgaard Case

The case of David Milgaard is the third case that will be used as example for police

tunnel vision leading to wrongful convictions. In the case of Milgaard, a woman was found dead

in Saskatoon, with forensic evidence pointing to foul play and sexual assault. The handling of the

investigation was improper from the beginning, which led the police to believe that David

Milgaard was responsible for these horrendous crimes. It was not until one month after this crime

that someone spoke up and said that it was in fact David who sexually assaulted Gale Miller,

even though Gales clothing was later found close to David’s friend’s house.

As a result of police tunnel vision and the use of circumstantial evidence, David was

ultimately convicted and sentenced to life in prison for this crime that he did not commit.

Although police had investigated over 160 possible suspects, they never found any helpful leads

(Innocence Canada, 2021). Because of this, as soon as someone came forward and stated that

they saw David stab Gale Miller, the police focused all of their attention onto him, as they

wanted to bring this investigation to a close. While in prison, David maintained his innocence,

and even escaped to Toronto where he was later captured, but clearly police did not see this as a

sign of his innocence, because they were caught up in the cycle of tunnel vision.

Years later the same young man who told the police that David was the killer, confessed

that at the time, he was subjected to harsh police interrogations, and that is why he called out

David Milgaard. This proves that the police were influenced by tunnel vision, as they did

anything to ensure that they were correct in their beliefs, but instead focused on the one suspect
 Van Putten 11

and only considered evidence directing them to Milgaard. It was also found years later that the

evidence from this case was stored by the prosecutor, and it was tested once again, revealing that

David was in fact truthful. He did not commit this heinous crime and was then exonerated by

DNA evidence. The true killer was only convicted 30 years after this murder, and David was

given 10 million dollars in compensation for the life that he lost due to the effects of police

tunnel vision.

In this case it is extremely clear that police tunnel vision was the result of this wrongful

conviction. The crime scene and the evidence were not properly investigated, which caused the

findings to lose validity and objectivity in this case since much of the evidence would have been

tampered with to fit the profile of Milgaard. When the boy went to the police to confess a month

later, the police believed him because they were being put under extreme pressure to solve this

case, and eventually relied largely on eyewitness testimony above all else. As discussed above,

this is one of the reasons why police fall victim to tunnel vision, and it was very clear that these

public pressures affected the police in David’s case. Although there are many cases that deal

with police tunnel vision causing wrongful convictions, the three above cases are an excellent

prologue to understand how and why police may fall subject to tunnel vison within an

investigation. The cases of Thomas Sophonow, Guy Paul Morin, and David Milgaard are all

clear examples of innocent individuals being sent to prison as a direct result of police tunnel

vision, and it is clear that protocols must be put into place to avoid these miscarriages of justice.

How to Prevent Tunnel Vision

After discussing some of the causes of police tunnel vision that can lead to wrongful

convictions, and examining some of the pertinent cases, it is also important to look at how police

tunnel vision can be prevented. An issue such as this, that has devastating impacts on individuals,
 Van Putten 12

is not something that should be ignored and taken lightly. Although it would take great time to

eradicate police tunnel vision in full, there have been measures put into place to try and minimize

the issue. For example, the Department of Justice discusses the Canadian Commissions of

Inquiry, as well as outlines some of the efforts that could be put into place to educate members of

the justice system (Department of Justice, 2015). As part of the Canadian Commissions of

Inquiry, thorough investigations were conducted regarding the wrongful convictions of three

Canadian men; Donald Marshall, Thomas Sophonow, and Guy Paul Morin (Department of

Justice, 2015). These inquiries all focused on how police tunnel vision led to the wrongful

convictions of these three innocent men and made recommendations on how to educate people

about this topic and the devastating effects that it can have (Department of Justice, 2015).

As part of the Marshall inquiry, the need for separation between the police and the Crown

was emphasized (Department of Justice, 2015). Although at times it is important for police

officers and the Crown to discuss a matter, it is essential that the Crown does not become part of

the investigation, and that the police do not become part of the prosecution (Department of

Justice, 2015). Creating this barrier between the two will allow both sides not to be influenced by

one another, eliminating the possibility for tunnel vision to occur, and ultimately, decreasing the

chances of a wrongful conviction.

Thomas Sophonow’s inquiry recommended that police officers get regular, mandatory

training on tunnel vision (Department of Justice, 2015). Doing so would make police officers

aware when they begin to fall victim to tunnel vision and would teach them how to escape it

before it escalated into a wrongful conviction. In having these annual training sessions, police

officers would remain up to date on the causes, and effects of tunnel vision, allowing them to be

better prepared and impartial when conducting investigations.

 Van Putten 13

The third inquiry was on the Morin case, and the first suggestion was to also include

Crown Attorneys in the process of educating about tunnel vision (Department of Justice, 2015).

This inquiry also acknowledged that it is essential not to have investigators feel as though they

are competing to see who can identify the suspect, because doing so results in tunnel vision, and

isolates teams that should otherwise be working together (Department of Justice, 2015).

On a similar note, the Department of Justice also outlines some of the educational efforts,

and Crown initiatives that are currently in place to help avoid police tunnel vision. With regards

to education, a number of provinces are educating Crown Attorneys on the role of tunnel vision.

After the Morin Inquiry for example, Crown Attorney’s in Newfoundland were provided with

training, and Ontario hosted training for many members of the Justice System (Department of

Justice, 2015). It is also noted that there have been specialized courses conducted by police

services where the causes and effects of tunnel vision have been discussed, and that “Crown

policies on the role of the Crown have been issued in a number of provinces” (Department of

Justice, 2015).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the role of tunnel vision has shown to be a legitimate problem to the

justice system and the integrity of due process. To address the root causes of tunnel vision,

education and accountability are important factors that must be considered for the public, the

police, and the system as a whole. Once there is a clear understanding of the causes of tunnel

vision, this knowledge can be applied to landmark cases in which tunnel vision was the leading

cause of the wrongful conviction. Although there are measures in place, more work must be done

so as to educate, and ensure fair, impartial investigations, where tunnel vision does not lead to

wrongful convictions. Afterall, one life lost to wrongful conviction is one life too many.
 Van Putten 14

References

Canada, Department of Justice, FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee

Report of The Working Group on The Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice:(Ottawa:

Justice Canada, 2015).

Findley, K. A. (2010). Tunnel vision. Wisconsin Law School, 2010, 1-32.

Innocence Canada, Causes of Wrongful Convictions. (2022). Retrieved February 19, 2021, from

https://www.innocencecanada.com/causes-of-wrongful-convictions/#ftn5.

Innocence Canada, David Milgaard. (2022). Retrieved January 22, 2022, from

https://www.innocencecanada.com/exonerations/david-milgaard/.

Innocence Canada, Thomas Sophonow. (2022). Retrieved January 18, 2022, from

https://www.innocencecanada.com/exonerations/thomas-sophonow/.

Ministry of the Attorney General, Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving

Guy Paul Morin. (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2022, from

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/morin/morin_esumm.html.

Raymond S. Nickerson, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”

(1998) 2(2) Review of General Psychology, 175.

R. v. Morin, 1988 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1988] 2 SCR 345, <https://canlii.ca/t/1ftc2>, retrieved on

2022-02-02.