David R. Hoffman: The dangerous tunnel vision of the US justice system

EDITOR'S NOTE: The views and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not of Ottawa News Network.

Recently I found an unspent bullet in my front yard.

So, here’s what I think happened: A hitman tried to shoot their intended target, but the gun jammed, so they ejected the bullet. Then, the intended victim drove away, but the hitman caught and shot them. I believe it happened by a river, because no body was found, so the victim must have fallen into the water, and then they were swept away by the current and ultimately entangled in some weeds on the bottom.

Some of you are probably laughing at how far-fetched it is that I deduced this entire scenario from hypothetically finding an unspent bullet. But it’s not so far-fetched when you look at some so-called “investigations” that frequently result in questionable convictions. Two in Michigan come to mind: The 1976 conviction of Maurice Carter, and the ongoing case of Kenneth Grondin III.

With the plethora of true crime television dramas and podcasts, there is an increasing proclivity for law enforcement and prosecutors to suddenly transform a seemingly clear sequence of events into conspiratorial puzzles, even when they are contrary to the evidence. Once they’ve developed this tunnel-visioned mindset and contort evidence to fit it, a person they suspect cannot win, regardless of how much they cooperate. 

This is because, once this tunnel-vision entrenches itself, many in the criminal justice system, who will sometimes not even cross the street to find the truth, will frequently travel to the ends of the earth to perpetuate a lie. This demand to maintain the illusory veneer of “infallibility” makes it anathema to ever admit a mistake, even when the innocent pay the price. This was confirmed when I attended a talk by Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row inmate in the United States to be exonerated by DNA evidence. He stated that a judge actually said that releasing him would undermine faith in the justice system, apparently meaning that knowingly keeping an innocent person in prison somehow affirms the system’s “integrity.”

Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of a bogus case being manufactured out of nothing was that of David and Sue Ellen Hunt, Richard Thompson, and Doug Lainer. They spent years in pretrial detention based on a fanciful prosecution theory, backed by zero evidence, that they had committed the copycat murder of a young couple in order to make it appear that Hunt’s half-brother, serial killer Gerald Gallego, had been wrongfully accused of committing a similar crime, when in truth Hunt despised Gallego and had no desire to help him.

Here are some of the common tactics that increase the risk of wrongful prosecutions and convictions.

The 911 call: A person calls 911 because they find a loved one injured or deceased due to a crime. Regardless of what they say, or how they say it, their words will invariably be used against them.

For example, if they are too calm, they must have committed the crime because they lack emotion. But if they are excited, then they are “acting.” If they fail to make certain statements, such as "How long will it take you to get here,” it means they don’t care. But if they make such a statement, they are doing so to gauge how much time they will have to hide evidence.

Then there is the “I wouldn’t have reacted that way” scenario. Someone has just walked into one of the most traumatic scenes in their lives, yet they are supposed to react according to some unwritten script. Countless times, particularly on these true crime shows, police and prosecutors say, “If that would have been me, I would have acted differently.” 

The next is “they changed their story.” A person who just experienced the tragic death of a loved one is often immediately taken to the police station, seated in a claustrophobic room, sometimes for hours, and then asked to give an accurate and detailed account of all their activities leading up to the incident.  Then, if they later amend their statement to include something they forgot, or an investigation reveals something they left out, suddenly they are automatically guilty because they were hiding something.

Then there is the tactic of questioning a person for hours, often giving them little food or water and no sleep, then telling them they can go home if they confess.

While there are other tactics, the last one I will discuss is the bogus lie detector test. Many Americans don’t know that the police can legally lie to you during an interrogation. So, a common tactic is to ask a suspected individual if they will take a lie detector test. If they refuse, this only reinforces law enforcement’s belief in their guilt, but if they agree, they are frequently told, regardless of the test results, that they failed, so they might as well confess.

Granted, occasionally juries see through these machinations, and acquit people who were charged under them. But not only is this rare, but it is also small consolation to those who spent months, often years, in pre-trial detention awaiting trial. In addition, the financial impact from job loss and attorney fees can be devastating, and, if the alleged crime remains unsolved, those accused perpetually live under a cloud of suspicion. 

America’s legal system was created and is controlled by fallible human beings, so mistakes and injustices are inevitably going to occur. The problem is that too many of those who work in it exploit the system for personal or political vendettas, to gain votes, to pad their conviction rates, or to avoid paying monetary damages for wrongful convictions. And they frequently get away with it due to ill-advised “immunity” doctrines.

A comedic saying by Alley’s Axiom is “Justice always prevails ... three times out of seven.”

Given the number of people today manipulating America’s legal system for personal or political gain, the odds aren’t even that good.

— David R. Hoffman is a retired civil rights and constitutional law attorney.

How to submit an opinion

Ottawa News Network accepts columns and letters to the editor from everyone. Letters should be about 300 words and columns should not exceed 1,000 words. ONN reserves the right to fact-check submissions as well as edit for length, clarity and grammar. Please send submissions to newsroom@ottawanewsnetwork.org.