Innocence Project Written Assignment

Provide answers to the following questions. Remember, to receivefull credit you must answer each of the QUESTIONS OF THE CASE THATFOLLOWS , along with the summary questions.

Case Name (1/2 Page):___________________

1-In ONE complete sentence describe the crimethat occurred in your own words, informed by the Innocence Projectwebsite or as found in your web-based research.

2-What is the status of the case? Has the person convicted ofthe crime been exonerated and if so, by what means?

3-Was human memory accurate or inaccurate in this case?

4-Be sure to describe evidence that you believe supportsyour position.

Summary Questions (1/2 Page):

1-Identify the goals of the Innocence Project.

2-Choose ONE of the cases you’ve alreadysummarized. What features of the situation (i.e., memory forcrime, investigation techniques used, reliance on psychologicalevidence or not) might have impacted the outcome of thatcase?

3-Be sure to reference information you learned in the lab.

4-Now, look back to the Eyewitness Memory Survey you took duringlab. After learning more about false memories and the effect theycan have in real-life situations, did any of your answers changes?Why or why not?

Nathan Brown was exonerated on June 25th, 2014 after servingnearly 17 years for an attempted rape that he did not commit. Brownwas 23 years old when he was convicted, and was eventuallyexonerated on the basis of DNA evidence which excluded him from theperpetrator’s profile. The Crime In the early-morning hours ofAugust 7th, 1997, a 40-year old white woman was walking through thecourtyard of her apartment building when she was attacked frombehind and thrown to the ground. The assailant bit the victim’sneck, ripped her dress open and took her purse before she was ableto fend him off by striking him with her high heels, which she wascarrying. The victim saw her assailant flee on a bike shortly aftershe reported the incident to a police officer who had been calledby neighbors who heard the victim’s screams. Investigation andTrial The victim told police that she had been attacked by a blackman who was wearing black shorts and no shirt. She also said theman had a very strong body odor. Although the victim believed herattacker lived outside of the apartment complex, a security guardfor the complex directed police to Nathan Brown—one of the fewblack people living in the apartment complex. Police knocked onBrown’s door just minutes after the crime. He was in his bedroomwearing pajamas, rocking his young daughter to sleep. The officersconducted what is called a one-on-one “show-up,” ahighly-suggestive identification procedure in which a singlesuspect is presented to the eyewitness at either the site of thearrest or near the site of the crime. Brown was told to getdressed. He changed out of his pajamas into black shorts and wastaken outside to the victim who was waiting in a patrol car. Brownhad no shirt on. The victim was asked to get out to take a closerlook and to smell Brown, at which point she identified him as herassailant. Although Brown did not have strong body odor, but rathersmelled of soap, she explained at trial that she believed he musthave taken a shower and that meant he was her attacker. Brown wenton trial on November 19, 1997. Brown’s mother retained a privatelawyer to represent him. The lawyer, Frank J. Larre, met Brown forthe first time on the day his trial was set to start. At trial, thevictim claimed that she recalled seeing a tattoo with the letters“LLE” on the assailant’s chest. A police officer testified that thevictim did not mention anything about the tattoo until after theshow-up, during which Brown was shirtless, exposing his chesttattoo of the name “MICHELLE.” Brown testified in his own defenseand told the jury that he was at home caring for his “fussy infantdaughter” at the time of the crime. Despite the fact that fourrelatives who were at home with Brown that night testified as alibiwitnesses, Brown was convicted in less than a day. He was sentencedto 25 years in prison without the possibility of parole for thecrime of attempted aggravated rape. Post-Conviction InvestigationBrown maintained his innocence throughout his 16 years in prisonand contacted the Innocence Project to help prove his wrongfulconviction. With the consent of the Jefferson Parish DistrictAttorney’s Office, the Innocence Project conducted DNA testing of astain on the shoulder of the victim’s dress where she was bitten.The stain tested positive for saliva and yielded a full male DNAprofile that excluded Brown. This profile was consistent with maleDNA found on three other areas of the dress, including the frontwhere the assailant ripped it open. The profile was entered intothe federal DNA database and there was a match to an offenderconvicted of a felony in Mississippi. The match was a black malewho was 17 years old at the time of the crime and living withinblocks of the apartment complex where the victim was attacked. Thelack of preparation evident in Brown’s legal defense alsocontributed to his wrongful conviction. “Mr. Brown’s mother paidfor an attorney who it appears did almost nothing to prepare forthe trial,” said Emily Maw, director of the Innocence Project NewOrleans. “Unfortunately we have seen that happen far too many timeshere in Louisiana. Of the 41 people who have been exonerated inLouisiana, more than two-thirds had less than effective defenselawyers.”