Blind Injustice (book)

In the chapter on "blind denial", Godsey addresses prosecutors' and law enforcement's psychological denial of their fallibility and the possibility that they could have made a mistake. He gives the example of Clarence Elkins, who was convicted on rape, assault, and murder charges in 1998. He was initially convicted on the basis of "looking like" the attacker, despite an alibi and an absence of physical evidence. When later DNA testing showed that he was not the source of the skin cells and semen found at the crime scene, prosecutors put forth improbable theories to explain why Elkins must still be guilty. Godsey uses this example to illustrate the judicial system's resistance to new evidence and the possibility of having been wrong.[2]^: 600

The chapter "blind ambition" addresses the political factors affecting judges and prosector. Godsey writes that elected judges know that a "tough on crime" approach wins votes, leading some judges to lean on a record of toughness rather than fairness.[3] Here, Godsey cites the case of Chris Bennett, who was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and sought to overturn the conviction based on evidence that he was a passenger rather than the driver of the car involved in an accident. In the cases of both Clarence Elkins and Chris Bennett, local prosecutors and judges denied the validity of new evidence, and the convictions were over turned at the state level. Godsey sees these local officials' unwillingness to overturn a conviction as a symptom of the political system that incentivizes conviction over exoneration.[2]^{: 602–603}

The bias Godsey refers to in the "Blind Bias" chapter is confirmation bias, the tendency of people to favor evidence that supports what they already believe.[2]^: 603 In this chapter, he notes that prosecutors often tell forensic specialists what the prosecutors want to find or believe to be correct; that foreknowledge undercuts the scientific method and primes the forensic experts to come to particular conclusions.[2]^: 605

The "blind memory" chapter addresses the fallibility of human memory and memory's susceptibility to the power of suggestion. Citing memory expert Elizabeth Loftus, he notes that human memory is subject to constant subconscious editing that changes the details of what is remembered, while leaving the thinker unaware of how the memory has changed over time.[2]^: 610 He gives the example of John Jerome White, who was convicted of rape, and who served twenty-two years before being exonerated by DNA evidence. White did not match the description of the perpetrator that the victim gave to police, but his face was in the first batch of photos shown to the victim, and she selected his as a possible culprit. When the victim was then shown a lineup of possible suspects, she again selected White as the perpetrator. DNA evidence later showed that the probable actual perpetrator was in the lineup as well, but was not selected. Godsey hypothesizes that when the victim was initially shown an array of photographs and selected White, White replaced the actual attacker in her memory.[2]^: 610 Similarly, Godsey notes a study showing that police interrogation techniques can cause a person to form new artificial memories.[2]^: 611 Godsey contends that human memory is highly fallible, but is treated as evidence all the same.

In the "blind intuition" chapter, Godsey discusses human's belief in their ability to correctly identify deceptive behavior. He cites the case of David Ayers, who spent twelve years in prison before his murder conviction was overturned. When he sued the detectives whose testimony had led to his wrongful conviction, one claimed to have never arrested an innocent person in her career, saying that she was "a human lie detector, with no rate of error."[2]^: 612 Ayers won his suit.

In the chapter on "blind tunnel vision", Godsey describes a prosecutorial penchant for becoming attached to one interpretation of events and being unwilling to consider alternatives. He returns to the case of Clarence Elkins and the prosecutor's adherence to a version of events not supported by a preponderance of evidence. He notes that while Elkins spent seven and half years in jail for crimes he did not commit, the actual perpetrator remained free for several years and committed further crimes before being caught. Thus, the prosecutor's attachment to an incorrect version of events led to both Elkins's unjust imprisonment and to several additional crimes.[2]^{: 613–614}

In a final chapter entitled "Seeing and Accepting Human Limitations", Godsey argues that knowing the human propensities outlined in the preceding chapters, the justice system needs to be reformed to limit the impact of these failings. He writes that greater care in handling witnesses and more comprehensive use of video recording to capture interrogations from beginning to end can help fight the "massive disaster" of wrongful convictions.[6]