Picking Cotton: A crash Course on the Criminal Justice System Jennifer Thompson-Cannino was raped at knife point in her apartment. She was able to escape and identify Ronald Cotton as her attacker. The detective conducting the lineup told Jennifer that she had done great, confirming to her that she had chosen the right suspect. Eleven years later, DNA evidence proved that the man Jennifer Identified, Ronald Cotton was innocent and wrongfully convicted. Instead, Bobby Poole was the real perpetrator. Sadly, there are many other cases of erroneous convictions. Picking cotton is a must read for anybody because it educates readers about shortcomings of eyewitness identification, the police investigative process and the court system. Eyewitness …show more content…
Because police investigators are usually under pressure to arrest criminals and safeguard the community, they often make mistakes. Sometimes, detectives become convinced of a suspect 's guilt because of their criminal history or weak speculations. Once they are convinced, they are less likely to consider alternative possibilities. They overlook some important exculpatory evidence, make weak speculations and look only for links that connect a suspect to a crime, especially if the suspect has a previous criminal record. Picking Cotton provides an understanding of some common errors of the police investigation process. During Ronald Cottons interrogation, the detectives did not bother to record the conversation “But I noticed he wasn 't recording the conversation, so I felt that he could be writing anything down”(79) unlike they did for Jennifer. They had already labelled Ronald Cotton as the perpetrator and they told him during the interrogation “Cotton, Jennifer Thompson already identified you. We know it was you”(82). Jenifer Thompson 's testimony along with Ronald Cotton 's past criminal records gave the detectives more reason to believe Ronald committed the crime. Ronald Cotton stated “ This cop Sully, though, he had already decided I was guilty.”(84). Many investigative process have shortcomings and are breached because the officials in charge make …show more content…
The court system includes the judges, jury, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The Attorneys convince the suspects to take plea bargains, the judges are sometimes unfair in the decisions they make, and the prosecutors overlook exculpatory evidence. Picking cotton shows in detail some common errors of the court system. During Ronald Cotton 's first trial, His Attorney, Phil Moseley, tried to bring a memory expert to testify on the unreliability of memory but the judge denied his request. After Ronald 's case was overturned by the supreme court, he got a new trial in another court which had even more problems and bias. First, there was racial prejudice during the jury selection. “Four black people from the community got called in for jury duty. The judge himself dismissed one of them and then Mr turner made sure none of the rest sat on my jury” Ronald cotton stated. Because he was black, the four jurors were dismissed and he was left with an all white jury and two white Alternates. Second, the judge “Held something called a “voir dire” hearing, which Phil explained meant he would have to put up all the evidence about Poole in front of the Judge, but not the Jury”(129). Also, Ronald Cotton 's defense attorney explained to the judge the parallelism between Bobby Poole 's case and the rape Ronald Cotton was charged with. Despite the weak physical evidence against Ronald Cotton, the
The details disclosed that the prosecution highlighted the names of the potential black judges and tinted every black potential juror’s name in a different color. There were four different duplicates of the record of all of the individuals summoned for the task in the case. Evert record had a key, which indicated that the highlighted names represented the blacks. Besides, there were no any blotches made for the white jurors on the lists. There were also many marks made on the black people’s names on the juror questionnaires, and there was no any other race that was
This is a case about Antonio Beaver. Antonio was innocent, yet still went to prison. His story was that there was unnamed lady that was walking to her car and got stabbed by a gangster. The police officer selected three men, and Antonio Beaver made it a match due to A gap in his teeth and A hat he had on and sent later that year to prison. Antonio Beaver was charged to prison April 17, 1997. 400 years ago Eyewitness Misidentication was a commonly seen in courts, and it today’s society it’s still ongoing.
In the fact pattern provided, Mark Quickdraw, a detective is conducting an investigation case whose main mission is to capture a drug dealer named Sally Martin. Detective Quickdraw relies on what he heard about the drug dealer. That leads him to believe that she will be selling cocaine in the street she lives in. In connection to his belief, that shows the reasonable suspicion he had towards the drug dealer. Followed by reasonableness, he sends an informant Sneak Pete to her residence with police money in attempt to buy cocaine. The informant comes back and hands over a small bag of cocaine he obtained from a man in the residence. He also informs the detective that he suspects the drug dealer to be having amounts of drug since he observes a white plastic bags and digital scales. Not satisfie...
In order to incriminate Danial Williams, Joseph Dick, Eric Wilson, and Derek Tice with the rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko, Detectives Maureen Evans and Robert Ford conducted long, grueling interrogation sessions using many provocative and manipulative tactics. Throughout this process, Ford and Evans coerced the suspects into renegotiating their perception of the crime until an entirely new reality was created. This new reality evolved as the police elicited additional confessionary evidence to account for each new piece of physical evidence from the crime scene. Eventually, in an iterative process that had police editing their theories of the crime and then forcing the suspects to claim this new reality as their own, the reconciled reality of the crime became one that was consistent with both the criminal evidence and the suspects’ new perception. An analysis of empirical m...
Thompson, Jennifer. Cotton, Ronald. “Picking Cotton.” Ferris State University. Williams Auditorium, Big Rapids, MI. 15 April 2014. Guest Lecture.
In the 1930’s a plethora of prejudiced persons are present amidst the prominent Scottsboro trials, a seven-year-long case consisting of false rape allegations made against nine black boys from Scottsboro. When citizens fail to acknowledge their own preconceived ideas and look past the prejudice present in society, justice cannot be served. In the Scottsboro case, the court of Alabama disregards the societal issues surrounding racial discrimination and endorses the guilty verdict and conviction of the nine African American boys. Failing to look past their own personal biases, the jury ignores the unquestionable evidence that would support the boys’ case. Instead, the jury focuses on their predilection
One of the biggest pushes for this change in the judicial system, was the Thompson Vs. Cotton case. Ronald Cotton was accused of raping twenty two year old college student, Jennifer Thompson. During a lecture at Ferris State University, Thompson recalled thinking over and over again that “once I [survive] and live, I will make sure that I know everything about you […] to help the police find you”. Little did she know, the man that she chose in both picture and physical lineup was an innocent man.
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
(Kennedy & Haygood, 1992; Williams & Loftus, 1994), which is worrying considering the growing and substantial body of evidence from laboratory studies, field studies, and the criminal justice system supporting the conclusion that eyewitnesses frequently make mistakes (Cutler & Penrod, 1995; Huff, 1987; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998). According to a number of studies, eyewitness misidentifications are the most common cause of wrongful convictions (Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Wells et al., 1998; Yarmey, 2003) and, through the use of forensic DNA testing, have been found to account for more convictions of innocent individuals than all other factors combined (Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006).
Faith is the key to surmounting physical and spiritual obstacles. Believers ken and understand the potency of faith in their lives when times become arduous. There is no obstacle that cannot be overcome by the power of faith in God. The book Picking Cotton, the Bible, the movie Conviction, and many gospel songs are inspired by individuals who overcame obstacles of faith. These individuals include Ronald Cotton, Peter, Phillip, Betty Waters, Kenny, Kurt Carr, Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir, and Kirk Franklin.
Eyewitness reports are not reliable in court. There are many reasons why eyewitness reports are unreliable. Some reasons are that people don't have a good memory and mistake the real criminal, another reason is that people don't have a perfect eyesight and even the mind plays tricks on you. on a report in 1984 there was a report that jennifer was raped. jennifer picked ronald cotton out of a photo and a physical lineup. she was sure that ronald was the rapist but a decade later dna proved that ronald wasn't the real rapist. elizabeth loftus said that “jennifer did not recognize the real rapist because she picked ronald first and in her mind she thought he was the real rapist” so her mind was set on ronald and no one else.
These are not the only reasons for urgency to find a killer; the Solicitor General of Atlanta’s circuit, Hugh M. Dorsey, desperately needed a successful conviction because he had recently failed to convict two accused murderers. He was concerned about putting together a case that would hold up in court; no matter what lengths he had to go to in order to accomplish this. Overtime, it became obvious that Dorsey did not necessarily believe that Frank was guilty, but recognized that the political values of his position were uncertain.
It was a mistaken identity case where the distressed raped women picked out the wrong black man. Even though the conviction was overturned due to DNA evidence, a mistaken eyewitness testimony led to a wrongful conviction that the Burlington Police upheld without question due to prejudice feelings toward determine Ronald Cotton (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton and Torneo 283). Ronald had his whole family testify that he had been home the night Jennifer was raped however because he had mixed up his dates when he originally confessed that police assumed he was lying despite what he and his family said. The other indication of racism on the police force was when the second rape victim did not pick Ronald Cotton out of the physical lineup; she claimed she was terrified of the black men standing in front of her and just needed to leave, even though she knew it saw Ronald that had raped her (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton and Torneo 129). Ronald was believed to be guilty and was trying to prove his innocence from the beginning. This simply cannot occur in a justice system where one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty; racism played a part in convicting this innocent man. Even during the second court case when he was trying to prove his innocence he remembered feeling the jury turn and look at him, "every single one of their white faces" believed how terrible of a man he was (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton and Torneo
...lice or lawyers used their integrity. The police skirted around the law and use evidence that the witnesses said was not correct. They had a description of the suspect that did not match Bloodsworth but, they went after him as well. They also used eyewitness testimony that could have been contaminated.
The judge was a middle-aged male who looked intimidating and seemed to be well respected. To my surprise, we did not have to stand up when he entered the room. After the judge came out I assumed the jury would follow quickly after. However I quickly learned that there would be no jury for this particular trial. After a few minutes, the handcuffed defendant entered the room wearing an orange prison jumpsuit. He was a middle-aged, African-American male who was involved in a narcotic conspiracy case. In addition to the defendant a probation officer, the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer were also present. Aside from me, my classmate and a student from Georgetown the defendant’s wife and sister were in the