Research Essay: Hailey Riven

The Tennessee Innocence Project

How does the state make it difficult to exonerate an individual even though it isn’t hard to wrongly convict someone?

It was a hot July day in 1985 when Anthony Ray Hinton’s life went from working in the yard to death row. He was mowing his mother’s grass when he was arrested and charged for two murders he did not commit. When Anthony explained to the arresting detective that he had the wrong man, the detective exclaimed that he did not care whether or not Anthony was guilty Hinton recalled the detective telling him that regardless of the charge, he would be convicted no matter because “[he’s] black, the victim was white, the prosecutor is white, the judge is white, and the jury will be white.” At the time of the crimes, Mr. Hinton was working at a locked warehouse fifteen miles away. But because of racial injustices, Mr. Hinton was not given anything close to a fair trial. His lawyer had hired a ballistics expert who was blind in one eye. A polygraph test given to Mr. Hinton did exonerate him; however, the judge refused to admit it in court. The prosecuting attorney even “had a documented history of racial bias and said he could tell Mr. Hinton was guilty and ‘evil’ solely from his appearance ” (Anthony Ray Hinton). The court chose to slack off because a Black man did not deserve the same equality as a White man After the trial, an all-White jury convicted Mr. Hinton, and he was sentenced to death by the electric chair. He survived on death row for nearly 30 years before being exonerated. At the time, state officials relied on what they considered to be the only substantial evidence: the crime bullets that could have matched those used during the three robberies came from a dusty old revolver found in the back of Mr Hinton's mother’s closet (Williams) After years of petitioning to have Anthony Ray Hinton’s mother’s revolver re-analyzed, three independent experts concluded in 2015 that the bullets could not have been fired from the revolver. With the assistance of the Equal Justice Initiative, Mr. Hinton was exonerated on Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:30 am, embracing his family with his famous words, “The sun does shine ” The wrongfulness of our justice system cost him thirty years on death row.

It is not hard to wrongly convict an individual Every scenario contains different circ presented, or at witnessed crime “The rworked vestigate, call prepare for o the innocent ses of nviction). The ent factors to victions are ness, perjury sation, false or orensic evidence, official misconduct, and false confession (The National Registry of Exonerations). According to Western Michigan University, “30% of DNA exoneration cases result in innocent defendants pleading guilty.” Oftentimes, pleading guilty, even if not guilty, can result in a lesser punishment and make it easier to reach a sentence, so for someone on trial, this might end up being their best way to get a lesser sentence. The justice system also leaves a lot of room for human error which is a big component that leads innocent victims to a wrongful conviction: “criminal justice is a human endeavor and the possibility for negligence, misconduct and corruption exists” (Causes of Wrongful Conviction)

Since 1989, there have been 3,355 exonerations. Overall, wrongly convicted individuals have lost 28,770 years in prison for crimes they did not commit (The National Registry of Exonerations). State governments make it incredibly difficult to exonerate individuals: funding and extreme costs make exonerations incredibly taxing and hard work; a lack of Conviction Review Units limits the work that can be done to prove innocence; DNA testing and other resources are not often readily available, and racial prejudices continue to make proving a person ’ s innocence difficult.

Funding is a big component that makes exonerations difficult. “Shrinking funding and access to resources for public defenders and court-appointed attorneys is only making the problem worse (Causes of Wrongful Conviction). Wrongful convictions disproportionately affect individuals of low economic status. Approximately 80% of defendants cannot afford counsel when they are first charged with a crime, and fewer can hire representation post-conviction. Post-conviction cases (what the Tennessee Innocence Project takes on) are often assigned to the newest attorneys and pay a maximum of $2,000 per case, no matter how much time is involved, which offers little incentive to provide effective representation. There are also no available resources for appointed post-conviction attorneys no investigators, no expert witness funds, and no social work support. The post conviction attorney would be responsible for finding and obtaining all of these resources on their own which would lower their desire to take on a claim of innocence. Even pro bono lawyers need resources for research and scientific testing. As a result of these challenges, few victories for wrongfully convicted individuals have been achieved on behalf of innocent Tennesseans until the Tennessee Innocence Project (TIP) was formed (Hayley Levy). The TIP offers services at no charge to the client and takes on all costs of the case, working to get rid of the financial barrier that wrongly convicted individuals might worry about Some of the financials involved in an exoneration case include scientific testing and legal representation.

The lack of Conviction Review Units are yet another reason that States make it difficult to exonerate an individual. Conviction Review Units (CRU) are offices that work to prevent, recognize, and then solve wrongful convictions. There are 43 CRUs in the United States that have recorded exonerations (The National Registry of Exonerations). There is only one in Tennessee. In Davidson County, the TIP collaborates effectively and has access to multiple resources with its collaboration with the CRU to reach success; all four of the TIP’s exonerations were in collaboration with the Davidson County CRU The TIP-Davidson County CRU collaboration allows for an accessible, open, and transparent exchange of case files and records, ensures that all evidence was and is turned over to the defense, promotes routine agreement on testing (fingerprint, DNA, ballistics, etc.) that could exclude or identify alternate suspects, and supports a mutual, earnest goal of seeking truth and a willingness to correct a past wrong. Specific to Tennessee, this partnership is crucial to the administration of justice because 1) in Tennessee, a District Attorney’s office cannot vacate a conviction without the defendant initiating proceedings; 2) TIP is the only innocence organization in the state; and 3) both the Davidson County CRU and TIP have seen an increase in applications for review of cases (Hayley Levy) Hayley Levy, the Tennessee Innocence Project Director of Development, says that “We are proud of our exonerations to date, but data suggests at least 750 people remain wrongfully incarcerated in Tennessee state prisons, meaning there is significant work still to be done.”

Much of that work needs to be done in Memphis where the TIP currently has twenty-three cases that are either active or under review. Memphis recently elected a new District Attorney, Steve Mulroy, who helped create what Shelby County is calling the Shelby County Justice Review Unit (JRU). The JRU “is an independent unit operating within the DA’s Office, reporting directly to

DA Mulroy” (Justice Review Unit). The TIP actually helped advocate for its creation and hopes to create a similar partnership as it has with the Davidson County CRU. While the JRU is a step in the right direction and definitely serves a cause, there is the lack of a CRU elsewhere in the state of Tennessee CRUs are difficult to form because they are dependent on the District Attorneys in any county being willing to open one and then investigate former cases prosecuted by their own offices. Most people do not want to look internally at their own mistakes or the mistakes of others under their supervision. Jessica Van Dyke, lead counsel and executive director of the TIP says, “We believe a collaborative justice model could transform innocence work in Tennessee, so we are actively advocating for the establishment of CRUs across the state.” With more CRUs in Tennessee, more exonerations will be possible.

The TIP has many goals for generating more success and expanding into Memphis and Shelby county. They plan to advocate for the creation of another CRU, provide a thorough review of applicants convicted in Shelby County and referrals from Memphis attorneys, and offer increased litigation of Shelby County innocence cases by hiring additional counsel. The TIP currently has twelve cases from Memphis that have passed the TIP’s strict internal review process but do not yet have an attorney assigned. These are twelve individuals who have valid claims of innocence but do not have the financial resources or the legal knowledge to access post-conviction resources and are therefore reaching out for help As the funding base grows, the TIP will be able to serve more of these individuals.

DNA testing and other forensic science resources are yet another major component that makes it hard to exonerate an individual, and with a lack of CRUs in the state of Tennessee, it is hard to overturn faulty forensics According to the Equal Justice Initiative, many forensic techniques are not even scientifically validated. Such “junk science” techniques are shoe print comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis, hair microscopy, and bite mark comparisons (LaPorte). However, the techniques that have provided great accuracy with exonerations include: hair, blood, saliva, semen, and skin (DNA Testing and the Death Penalty). With more laws being created to allow for DNA testing to be presented in an exoneration case, 375 individuals have now been exonerated by DNA testing (Exonerate the Innocent). In 1989, the first man was exonerated by DNA evidence (DNA's Revolutionary Role in Freeing the Innocent in the U.S.) Oftentimes, when reopening a case, involving DNA testing and evidence makes it more difficult for the courts. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “for many inmates the most important obstacle to DNA testing is the fact that in many jurisdictions officials refuse to enable inmates to have evidence tested using modern DNA testing methods, arguing that this would reopen too many old cases ” (DNA Testing and the Death Penalty). If DNA can prove someone ’ s innocence, it will show the mistakes of the court on the initial ruling. Wrongful convictions also isproportionately affect people color. Much like with Anthony ay Hinton’s case, race played a ajor component in etermining whether or not he as guilty. During the 1980s, the eep south was entangled with cial implicit biases that fluenced the minds of White itizens. The South had perienced the influx of effects om the Civil Rights Movement, t White and Black people were ill not equal When it came to crime, this inequality helped misconstrue the conviction of the crime, simply because it was easier to blame a Black man than a White man. And while White notorious criminals roamed around the South uncaught, Black people were constantly convicted purely because of their skin color. Today, race still plays a role in America’s justice system

Every day, innocent individuals sit in prison because a court locked them up for a crime they did not commit. But, with the hardwork and determination from non-profits like the Tennessee Innocence Project, hopefully all of the wrongly convicted individuals will one day be exonerated. In the meantime, our justice system needs to find ways to make sure innocent individuals do not end up in jail

Works Cited

“Anthony Ray Hinton.” Equal Justice Initiative, Equal Justice Initiative, 15 Nov. 2022, Web 15 Jan. 2023 eji.org/cases/anthony-ray-hinton/.

“Anthony Ray Hinton: Reject Hatred, Demand Change.” Neumann in the News, Neumann University, 16 March 2016, Web 23 Jan. 2023 https://learn.neumann.edu/news/anthony-ray-hinton-reject-hatred-demand-change

“Causes of Wrongful Conviction.” Western Michigan University, Department of Sociology, 9 Sept. 2016, Web 15 Jan. 2023 wmich.edu/sociology/causes-wrongful-conviction#:~:text=Mistaken%20witness%20id,convictions%20over turned%20through%20DNA%20testing. www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Conviction-Integrity-Units.aspx. innocenceproject.org/dna-revolutionary-role-freedom/.

Conviction Integrity Units, National Registry of Exonerations. University of Michigan, Web 16 Jan. 2023.

“DNA's Revolutionary Role in Freeing the Innocent in the U.S.” Innocence Project, Innocence Project, 1 May 2019, Web 16 Jan. 2023.

“DNA Testing and the Death Penalty.” American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, Web 20 Jan. 2023 www.aclu.org/other/dna-testing-and-death-penalty.

“Exonerate the Innocent.” Innocence Project, Innocence Project, 20 Aug. 2020, Web 20. Jan. 2023 innocenceproject.org/exonerate/.

“Exonerations by Race/Ethnicity and Crime .” The National Registry of Exonerations, University of Michigan, 1 Jan. 2023, Web 20 Jan. 2023 www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsRaceByCrime.aspx.

“Justice Review Unit.” Justice Review Unit, Web 18 Jan. 2023 www.shelbyjru.com/.

LaPorte, Gerald M., et al. “Wrongful Convictions and DNA Exonerations: Understanding the Role of Forensic Science.” National Institute of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 7 Sept. 2017, Web 20 Jan. 2023 nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/wrongful-convictions-and-dna-exonerations-understanding-role-forensic-science www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx.

Levy, Hayley. Personal Interview. 15 June 2022.

“% Exonerations by Contribution Factor.” The National Registry of Exonerations, University of Michigan, 1 Jan. 2023, Web 15 Feb. 2023.

Williams, Tamara. Death Row Exoneree Anthony Ray Hinton Tells His Compelling Story to over 300 at the Law School, School of Law, The University of New Mexico, 23 Nov. 2016, Web 25 Jan. 2023 lawschool.unm.edu/news/2016/11/death-row-exoneree-anthony-ray-hinton-tells-his-compelling-story-to-o ver-300-at-the-law-school.html.