http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/nyregion/05dna.html
Yesterday, Freddie Peacock was released from prison after 28 years because DNA evidence did not link Peacock to a rape he was convicted of in 1977. This exoneration is the 250th for the Innocence Project, and is of particular interest because Peacock was originally convicted based primarily on faulty eyewitness identification (there is no indication of the race of the victim, but it is possible it is a cross-race situation). These kind of stories always make me wonder how many people have spent a chunk of their lives in prison for crimes they were falsely accused of.
These types of stories are always heart-breaking. I will say I'm not surprise that he was convicted primarily because of faulty eye-witness memory. According to several legal psyc research articles and the Innocence Project, approximately 70% of the individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and later exonerated based on DNA evidence were originally convicted because of erroneous eyewitness identification. False confessions follow at a close second.
This is the aspect of the case that interests me the most since my thesis will deal with false confessions. One common theme that I have found throughout the false confession literature is that once a confession is presented in a case, all other evidence falls by the wayside. There have been various wrongful conviction cases in which there has been solid evidence, (including DNA evidence) proving the innocence of the defendant, and the jury will STILL convict them. Why you ask? People can't grasp the concept that sometimes individuals do confess to something they did not do. In their minds they feel like "Why would anyone confess to a murder or a rape if they are innocent? I would NEVER do that", etc, etc.
I think in the case of Freddie Peacock, his confession was the last nail in the coffin, and not the faulty eyewitness testimony.
Another thing I found disturbing was the Judge's lack of remorse or empathy for this man:
With barely a comment, Judge David D. Egan of the State Supreme Court in Rochester vacated the 1977 conviction in the face of new DNA testing that proved Mr. Peacock’s innocence. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor directly addressed Mr. Peacock during the five-minute procedure, and neither offered an apology. Mr. Peacock spoke only once, at the end. “Thank you, Your Honor,” he said.
Maybe if Mr. Peacock was white it would have been a different story.
This story is a compelling story were justice is proven wrong once again. Mr.Peacock served a sentence were he he was convicted of rape, during the 1970 DNA was not used, or could it also be because of the color of his skin. If he claimed his innocence for so long then why did not the prosecution or the defense listen. If it was not for DNA and science Mr. Peacock would still be serving a sentence for a wrongful conviction. Who knows if Mr. Peacock is institutionalized was most men and women are after serving a sentences 5 years or longer. To me he has the right to sue the city of Rochester, for his time served, the thing I don't understand is why no one apologized to him, even though they were not the one how convicted him. Who knows what Mr. Peacock faced in prison, most men and women who are convicted of sex offender, or rapist labels them as open game for other inmates to violate them or in other words rape them or take if from them.
For the eyewitnesses, prosecution, or defense for not presenting the the just cause to the judge accurately, and the arresting/investigating officers for not following procedures. I believe something should happen to them as well either get fired or get there license taken away for a bullshit conviction in taking Mr. Peacocks rights away.