Alex Kozinski Research Essay

In the summer of 2015

An essay by Alex Kozinski that appeared in the Georgetown Law Journal generated a lot of debate among various parties. People should be disturbed by the judge’s decisions and facts, especially African Americans, whose interactions with the criminal justice system are frequently upsetting. It is evident from the piece that some of the most relied-upon factors in making decisions are suspect.

The judge claims that there are flaws in the nation’s justice system

that lead to incorrect case judgments. This essay examines the judge’s claims in relation to the various elements of the justice system that he criticizes. The judge in the article starts by questioning the eyewitness accounts where he says that they are unreliable. The unreliability is even more severe where the case involves people of different races. Relying on eyewitnesses becomes erroneous where they are asked to recount a situation where they were probably under the duress of violent crime or disaster. In totality, mistaken eyewitness accounts were attributable to one-third of all unfair conviction cases according to the judge (Kozinski 1). Courts have been reluctant in allowing the defendants to present expertise evidence on the weakness of eyewitness accounts. Only a small section of the courts instruct juries on the drawbacks of eyewitness identification or restraint them to be cynical of eyewitness testimonies. From a personal thought, it is possible that eyewitnesses make erroneous statements when testifying for the case. It could come either innocently or through personal prejudice towards a particular party privy to the case. For this reason; I concur with the judge in the article, that it is necessary to complement eyewitness accounts with other forms of evidence when executing the case.

According to the article, the fingerprint evidence too is a potential candidate for gross errors

when hearing a case. A significant number of defendants have had to spend lengthy periods in custody, but were later proved to innocent. The print which is left in the field after crime is committed is often incomplete and smudged and hence it is difficult to identify the exact perpetrators of crime. In the article, the judge argues that fingerprint examiners have significant error rates when tested through rigorous scientific approaches (Kozinski 2).

The forensic fingerprint identification does not deal in the entire thumbprints

Instead, technicians utilize latent fingerprints which are invisible impressions developed by the use of a powder or chemical developing agents. The latent prints are blurred, fragmentary, distorted, and overlapping. It is an error that was evidenced in the year 2004 when the FBI conceded to have made a mistake when linking a print found in a terrorist attack site to a wrong person. In this sense, it is likely that in the current judicial system, there has been erroneous decisions made, relying on the wrong fingerprints (Kozinski 2). The prints should be used when they are collected by the police using the appropriate techniques and equipment in order to reduce the probability of making mistakes. It is true that some errors are made when relying on the fingerprints and it could be important to seal loopholes that could be providing for the commission of errors.

Kozinski asserts that courts mainly rely on human memory when hearing the cases

The more people learn about the manner in which memories are recorded, stored, and retrieved, there is less confidence that memoirs can be undistorted by external influences and unembroidered by the mind. Courts rarely provide for expert testimony on the account of memory. The notion that innocent people do not confess is refuted by the element that they do it, but with surprising regularity. They do it for various reasons such as the need to end interrogations, halt financial and emotional exhaustions, and prevent potential charging of various offenses (Kozinski 4). In this sense, the judge says that confessions do not always come objectively. Innocent persons accused of crime often find themselves conceding to charges for their personal sake. I agree with the judge on this point fully. Personally, I have had to admit committing traffic offenses which I had committed, so that the jury slaps me with a fine, pay up, and earn my freedom. Other than going through the entire legal process to prove my innocence, it was more reasonable to plead guilty and follow the court’s directive.

Judge Kozinski states that very little is known regarding the manner in which juries conclude cases

There is the assumption that supposition of innocence remains intact until it is compromised by evidence. On the contrary, the innocence disappears immediately any form of evidence is presented to the court. Further, Kozinski poses the question to the effect that the jury distinguishes between a preponderance of evidence, convincing and clear evidence, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt (Kozinski 5).

Research has proved that the prosecutor makes the first input in the case

and hence he or she has a significant advantage over the respondents who deny the assertions. In the court, the jury first hears from the prosecutors and the defendants are left with the responsibility of unpacking and deconstructing the prosecutor’s claims. It is technically difficult to unpack a statement than to make one. In this matter, the judge with his vast experience in the justice system is justified to conclude that this feature alone works to the detriment of the accused parties (Kozinski 5). Again, the fact that the judge questions the functioning of the judicial system means that throughout his vast experience in the courts, he lacks objectivity in the process that is pursued when executing cases. His thought pattern is understandable by a common man who does not comprehend legal terminologies and in this respect, he raises genuine concerns that should be addressed within the country’s judiciary.

Police investigations precede prosecutions

and in this order of events, the police officers have the discretion that leads to pursue and witness to the interview. From the beginning, the police direct the turn which the case is likely to take in the long run. They have the opportunity to create or ruin evidence, extract confessions, influence witnesses, and put the blame on the people that they feel are supposed to be convicted (Kozinski 7). The judge says that there has been a history of lengthy convictions that have taken place as a result of acts of commissions or omissions on the side of the police. From my point view, I agree with Kozinski on this issue because the police personnel are also humans who could be influenced by different factors in the case. However, it is important to observe and respect the independence of the police in conducting their business of investigations.

The judge postulates different reforms

such as all interrogations of suspects, allowing judges to ask questions and take notes during trials, and limiting the utilization of jailhouse informants. It is a matter of concern that a significant number of prosecution officers engage in unethical conduct when going about their work (Kozinski 7). For example, there have been cases of prosecutors concealing evidence so that the case takes a certain predetermined course. From the issues raised by the judge in the article, the country’s judicial system could require an overhaul sometime in the future.

Work Cited

Kozinski, Alex. “Criminal Law 2.0.” Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 44 (2015): iii.