|
The Office of Public Defender includes as part of its responsibilities
advocacy for indigent citizens of the State of Rhode Island on issues
affecting the criminal justice system. The Public Defender plays an important
role in the criminal justice system, with a bird’s eye view of what
works in the judicial system and what doesn’t.
The Public Defender has a responsibility to do all it can to improve
the quality of justice and to ensure fairness and equality in the criminal
justice process. To that end, the Public Defender has been an energetic
participant in the state legislative arena, opposing proposals that jeopardize
the fairness of criminal justice and affirmatively initiating legislation
designed to improve the justice system.
During the 2002 session of the Rhode Island General Assembly the Office
of the Public Defender in cooperation with the Rhode Island Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers was successful in introducing and passing
the Rhode Island Innocence Protection Act which codified and standardized
procedures for post-conviction DNA testing for those who may have been
wrongfully convicted.
In 2003 the Office of the Public Defender was successful in introducing
and passing a Jury Diversity Act which addresses the gross disparity between
the ethnic and racial makeup of the community and the jury pool in Providence
and Bristol Counties.
The office hopes to continue its history of legislative success by sponsoring
three pieces of legislation, the goal of which is to improve the quality
of justice and ensure fairness in the Rhode Island criminal justice system.
These are legislation to provide much needed reform to the Rhode Island
common law grand jury system; to require the electronic recording of custodial
interrogations in their entirety in specified felony cases; and to enhance
the reliability and accuracy of eye witness identification procedures.
A summary of each of these three pieces of legislation and the numbers
assigned to them by the Rhode Island General Assembly follow:
THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S
LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE 2005:
Click on Bill # To View a Bill
in its Entirety
(Adobe Acrobat Required - Click
here to download)
COMPONENT #1
AN ACT TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY & ACCURACY
OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES
Similar to legislation (H-7575;
S-2229)
that passed both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and the full
Senate only to die on the floor of the House in the closing minutes of
the 2004 legislative session
Addresses the problem of mistaken and cross racial mis-identifications
which are the leading cause of wrongful convic tions in this country by
a wide margin (almost 90%)
Establishes "best practices" - whenever practicable the police
should use blind and sequential identification procedures in their investigations
Modest sanctions for non-compliance. Not an Exclusionary Rule! Court
may only consider non-compliance with bill's "best practices"
mandate as a non-dispositive factor in support of claims of misidentification
Independent social science research and studies conducted by the United
States Department of Justice, this country's chief law enforcement agency,
demonstrate that blind and sequential identification procedures are more
accurate and reliable.
WHAT ARE 'BLIND & SEQUENTIAL" IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES?
- A "Blind"
identification procedure is photographic or live lineup in which the
investigator conducting the identification procedure is not aware of
which person is suspected as the perpetrator of the offense.
- A "Sequential"
identification procedure is a photographic or live lineup in which the
photograph or person is viewed one at a time in random order.
The bill is modeled after procedures already in place in:
- New Jersey
- Hennepin County
(Minneapolis), Minnesota; Northhampton, Massachusetts; and Santa Clara,
California
- Pilot programs
across the States of Illinois and North Carolina
The bill is based on the recommendations of the:
- Report of
the Task Force on Eyewitness Evidence (Suffolk County/Boston, MA, July
2004
(the Task Force was made up of police, prosecutors, defense attorneys,
and social scientists and was formed in response to wrongful convictions
based upon mistaken identification across the Commonwealth)
- Eyewitness
Evidence: A Guide for law Enforcement (National Institute of Justice/United
States Department of Justice Reports, 1999 & 2003)
- Connecticut &
Illinois Death Penalty Study Commissions
COMPONENT #2
AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE ELECTRONIC RECORDING
OF INTERROGATIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY IN CAPITAL CASES
Bill would require that custodial interrogations including Miranda warnings
be electronically recorded in their entirety via either audio or video
tape.
Bill is limited in scope-applies only to capital cases where the stakes
are highest and potential sentence is life imprisonment.
Bill improves the quality of justice by enhancing the reliability of
the most powerful piece of evidence in a criminal case, a defendant’s
confession, while serving to protect those who may be least able to protect
themselves from the specter of false confessions - the young, the mentally
ill, and those who may otherwise be susceptible to suggestion or simply
be innocent.
The bill has several exceptions to the recording requirement to reflect
the realities of police work such as:
- defendants seeking
to spontaneously unburden themselves while enroute to the police station,
in a police car, or at some other location where recording equipment
is unavailable
- the bill permits
a defendant to waive the mandatory electronic recording requirements
Bill is modeled after similar requirements in Alaska, Minnesota, Texas,
the District of Columbia, and most recently Illinois, where such legislation
was enacted to address the problem of false confessions a leading cause
of wrongful convictions.
COMPONENT #3
AN ACT TO ENSURE FAIR & ACCURATE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE GRAND JURY
Bill would require that if a prosecutor becomes aware of
the existence of exculpatory evidence relating to the subject of the grand
jury's investigation he/she is obliged to inform the grand jury of its
existence.
Bill defines "exculpatory evidence" as, any evidence which
may directly negate the guilt of the subject of the investigation.
Once the prosecutor informs the grand jury of the existence of exculpatory
evidence it is up to the grand jury to decide whether or not it wishes
to heear that evidence.
If the grand jury decides to hear the exculpatory evidence it may order
that the evidence to be produced, and for that purpose may require the
issuance of compulsory process.
Modest remedy for non-compliance: only if a failure to comply with the
provisions of this section results in substantial prejudice, it shall
be grounds for dismissal of the indictment without prejudice, meaning
that the charges can be brought again.
Several states have similar if not identical provisions either via statute
or court rule. These include Alaska, California, Guam, Iowa, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. For example in this context, Alaska,
California, Iowa, and Nevada define "exculpatory evidence" as
evidence that would, "tend to negate guilt."
Similar to legislation that passed the Rhode Island House of Representatives
in 2002.
|
