Welcome to Carolina Journal Online’s Friday Interview. Today the John Locke Foundation’s Donna Martinez discusses the issue of wrongful convictions in North Carolina with Christine Mumma, executive director of the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission. The interview aired on Carolina Journal Radio (click here to find the station near you).
Martinez: There’s the case of Darryl Hunt, and we’ve also heard about Alan Gell. They are really troubling. Regardless of one’s politics or ideology, no one wants an innocent person to be imprisoned. It’s also true that we hear a lot of claims from convicted felons, claiming that they are innocent. How many real cases of wrongful conviction do we know of in this state?
Mumma: Well, as you mentioned, Darryl Hunt, Alan Gell — we’ve also had Terence Garner, Ronald Cotton. So we have some history of strong cases of wrongful conviction that people spent 10, 15 — in Darryl Hunt’s case, 18 years in prison — for a crime they did not commit, so we certainly know that it happens. How often it happens? There’s been all kinds of estimates on that, from 5 percent, down to a tenth of a percent, but regardless of how often it happens, it does happen. So the question is, what can we do to prevent it?
Martinez: Now with the advent of more sophisticated scientific analysis, primarily DNA — we’ve all heard about that — are there now more convicted people claiming that they’re innocent in the hopes that DNA will prove that? Or, has that [DNA] had any effect on this whole question at all?
Mumma: I don’t think it increases the number of people who claim that they’re innocent for the crime they were convicted of. We always have a large number of people. Everybody hears people say, “Everybody who’s in prison says they’re innocent,” and that’s always been the case. DNA, though, has proven to us that it does happen, and has turned even the greatest skeptics on the issue to believers that it does happen, because it’s conclusive proof of innocence in many cases.
Martinez: Tell us briefly about the Actual Innocence Commission. What is it, and why was it created?
Mumma: It was created by Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake in November 2002 because we had some highly publicized cases of wrongful conviction — Terence Garner and Ronald Cotton in particular at that point. Alan Gell and Darryl Hunt actually happened after the Commission was established. It was established by the Chief Justice because of his concern regarding public confidence in the court system, and exoneration is absolutely one of the most deteriorating factors in confidence in the courts. The public hears that someone has been wrongfully convicted, and not only that, but the true perpetrator has been out on the streets, committing additional crimes.
Martinez: Certainly that’s equally as troubling.
Mumma: Absolutely. So the Commission is a group of about 30 members right now that covers the full perspective of the criminal justice system. It includes law enforcement, district attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, representatives from the attorney general’s office, and victim advocates. And, we look at the causation issues in wrongful convictions in trying to determine whether there are procedural process changes that can be implemented to decrease the chance of a wrongful conviction — increase the reliability.
Martinez: Now, the Commission recently completed a yearlong study of the judicial system in trying to determine how prevalent this is, or if there need to be changes in procedures. What are the recommendations?
Mumma: Well, the recommendations really came from the fact — looking at a case like Darryl Hunt — where it took him 18 years to convince a court of his innocence, and he filed 11 motions during those 18 years, asking the court to reconsider his conviction. So, it’s not only troubling that he was convicted in the first place, but it’s troubling how long it took him to prove his innocence, and how many motions it took before a court would hear his case. The Commission’s recommendation is to establish an independent review commission to remove cases from the adversarial system and put them in a truth-seeking, independent, objective investigation.
Martinez: How would that group then weed out the many claims that might not be correct, where a person really was convicted correctly of a crime? How do you get to the ones who really need the attention?
Mumma: There certainly would be a lot of weeding out that would have to be done. These cases would be carefully screened to make sure there’s credible evidence, and the evidence was not heard previously by a jury or a judge. So there has to be some new evidence that is being considered. Another way of weeding those cases out, besides just a screening process, is [that] there has to be consequences for inmates who claim innocence when indeed they are not. So anything that is uncovered during an investigation, whether it further proves their guilt in the case they’re claiming innocence for, or establishes guilt for other crimes, would be turned over to the prosecution.
Martinez: So the hope is then, it would seem, that this is going to make clear to those who are making claims of innocence, this is serious stuff, and that if you are falsely making a claim of innocence, there will be consequences. Hopefully then, that would help weed out some of the bogus claims, frankly.
Mumma: It will help weed out some. We’ll still have a heavy screening process to go through before it actually makes it to a formal commission for review.
Martinez: Tell us about what would be required for these recommendations to be implemented. Does this have to go before the General Assembly for approval?
Mumma: We actually submitted it to the General Assembly — the Innocence Commission did — in March of this past year. It was heard by the House and passed by the House in a vote of 80 to 24, which is incredible for criminal justice-type legislation. So we were hopeful that it would be heard by the Senate before they broke, and it didn’t make its way through, so we’re hoping for the next session.
Martinez: As I was reading through some of this information about the issues involved in the justice system, I found a number of references to questions over misidentification. Does that seem to be the reason there are people who are wrongly convicted?
Mumma: Misidentification is the leading factor in about 80 percent of wrongful convictions, so it typically is the step that starts law enforcement on their way in identifying a suspect and can sometimes lead to tunnel vision in investigation of a case. So misidentification is a leading factor, false confessions are a leading factor, and there are some concerns with snitch testimony. The Commission itself has been looking at those factors. In 2003 the Commission issued recommendations to change the way identification is conducted by law enforcement of North Carolina. Those recommendations were adopted by law enforcement training, and all new officers and officers receiving annual updates on training, will start with those new procedures in January.
Martinez: So it sounds as if, then, the law enforcement community is friendly to the work that the Commission is doing.
Mumma: I think they recognize that the Commission is made up of a lot of experts, and that the Commission put a lot of time and study into the recommendations they’ve put forward. We’ve spent about a year on identification, so they took those recommendations seriously.
Donna Martinez is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.