A Controversial Judicial System Who Convicts the Innocent

The United States organized a structured system to protect citizens from unfair bias trails.  Innocent individuals have been wrongfully convicted based on at least one of the following occurrences: the inaccuracy of eyewitnesses, perjured testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, inadequate defense representation, police misconduct, and pretrial criminal process.

Daryl Morris a young black man, 22 years old at the time residing in Greenville, MS who had never been in any trouble fell victim to this system. Morris was an upstanding citizen, following all rules of his parents and the government.  Morris was a college student majoring in nursing because he loves to care for others.  He has never harmed anyone but has only rendered help to others.  Morris, who is innocent, was wrongfully convicted for murder in 2005 by erroneous eyewitnesses’ testimony.

“Eyewitness misidentifications contributed to the initial convictions in over 80 percent of documented exonerations.”  Inaccurate eyewitness identifications are often caused by “the imperfect manner in which human beings process visual information at the time of an event, and the design of most police identification procedures, which can serve to reinforce, or exacerbate, any potential flaws in the original observation.”

One major factor that contributes is the minimizing the amount of time between when the witness reports the crime and when the identification of the suspect takes place and a second factor was the perjured testimony by witnesses and the jailhouse informant who knew that they did not provide accurate testimonies.

In Morris’s case, no line up was ever performed.  Two of the eyewitnesses are cousins.  One who at the time was the girlfriend of the deceased brother and the other which was the best friend of the deceased, both came forward a month after the murder giving different accounts as into what they claimed to have witnessed.  One of the other witness several years after the trial recanted his testimony.  The last witness a jailhouse informant was caught in several miscounts during the trail of what he claimed to have overheard while he was incarcerated.  His testimony was also used to make a conviction against Morris.

Just based on bias, untruthful, and inaccurate testimonies of these witnesses a conviction of murder and a sentenced to life without the possibility of parole was made unto Morris.  No line-up, no gunpowder residue test was performed, no murder weapon recovered, no mask or even a description of the mask, no camera footage of what occurred, no tire tracks or skid marks at the scene of the crime, how far were the witnesses from the crime scene, at what angle did they perceived the crime that had occurred, where there any obstacles in their point of view, how can one for certain make an identification of someone wearing a mask, was the scene chaotic, how many people were around, who all did they see out there, what was the victim wearing, what was the suspect wearing, what occurred after the shooter shot the victim, where did he go, what happened next, who, what, when, where, why, and how was never answered, or any other things by the said witnesses were accounted for; but yet a conviction was made.  All the witnesses were caught, while on the stand in several accounts of discrepancies of what they claimed to have seen.  The courts still failed to grant Morris a new trial, or evidentiary hearing after several appeals.

For example, Kin-Jin “David” Wong was indicated for a 1986 murder based on the eyewitness testimony of Richard LaPierre and his story was corroborated by Peter Dellfava.  Dellfava later recanted his testimony and swore in court he had never seen David Wong.  Dellfava was promised an opportunity to improve his situation if he testified.

Prosecutors have the ethical duty to seek the truth and ensure that justice is done in every case, but what about the innocent that is behind bars? Most prosecutors are less than willing to assist in post-conviction reviews for many reasons, not least of which is whether the claim has merit.  A variety of personal, institutional, and political pressures are upon prosecutors which can lead to misconduct.

In Morris’s case also he had ineffective defense representation.  His defense attorney failed to communicate with him as into what was occurring during the trail.  The defense failed to do a proper investigation.  The defense failed to retain needed experts and/or test physical evidence; minimal preparation, weak trail advocacy, and superficial or tentative cross-examination.  Morris defense attorney advised him not to testify that he would argue through witnesses.  Morris never had a real chance at defending himself relying on the trust he placed in his attorney.

The affidavit of one of the witnesses in Morris’s case proves police misconduct and a false confession.  In Morris’s case, the police officers coerced each witness.  Tore up original statements and rewrote the statements on their own and had witnesses to sign the statements.  The police officer also false imprisoned one of the witnesses by not allowing him to leave and threatening him with incarceration if he did not indicate Morris as the shooter in the crime.  The jailhouse informant was promised a deal if he indicated Morris as the shooter by him claiming to have heard Morris make a confession to the murder over a loud fan. The jailhouse informant also was housed with a cellmate who never heard Morris confess to anything and was also never questioned.  Upon the jailhouse informant own testimony, he stated that he couldn’t really hear because it was a loud fan and that Morris was a few cells down from him and then he doubled back and stated that he heard Morris make this confession. The jailhouse informant also claimed to have intercepted a letter supposedly having a confession on there giving accounts to the murder, but no such letter was ever recovered.  Also, an inmate (accused by the other jailhouse informant to have written him a letter attesting to these occurrences) housed in a cell right next to Morris testified that Morris never admitted to any murder or even spoke on anything concerning his case.

Even though, Morris had an alibi for his where about it was overlooked by the courts.  Morris had several witnesses including a police officer testifying on his behalf which gives accuracy to his alibi.

Even with the courts knowing this, an unfair conviction was still made.  Morris’s family having exhausted every avenue to find a solution to free him and have spent well over fifty thousand dollars.  All appeals have been denied.  What about the innocent, those who told the truth and obeyed the law?

The true victim here is Morris.  Many fallacies were used in this trail.  Unspoken truths, for example, the police department knew of an ongoing family feud between the two families.  The deceased shot Morris’s uncle three months prior to his death and was out on bail.  The deceased had attempted to kill Morris, but his uncle intervenes and jumped in front of the weapon. Morris had never had any encounters with the deceased or had even been involved in any of the fights that had occurred prior.  He was targeted because he is apart of the family.  Morris life was spared that day but not for long only to be taken by the system, which is supposedly in place to protect the innocent.  When you are poor, things go overlooked.  Where is the justice for Morris?