Sight Unseen

A Chicago man has been cleared of murder charges after it was revealed that his conviction relied on testimony from a witness who was legally blind.
Darien Harris freed from prison after trial's key witness was found to be blind

"They didn't do anything wrong because they didn't know," [Dexter] Saffold[, the main witness of the shooting,] said of the prosecutors in the case. "I didn't have to tell nobody about my medical history."

Mr. Saffold is, of course, correct. At least, as far as that goes. This is mostly one of those headlines that prompts people to say "Really? This happened?" After all, "legally" blind and "actually" blind aren't the same thing. If there is a legal problem here, it's less Mr. Saffold's medical history than it is about the willingness of prosecutors to put anyone who they think can help them put someone away on the witness stand. I'm sure that some vetting goes on; after all, no-one wants to be the prosecutor of a case where it turns out that the witness's ability to see, let alone see the defendant clearly, is being questioned. But cases being overturned because it turned out that witnesses were too far away for an accurate identification to be believable are more common than they should be.

But I think that a lot of this can also be laid at the feet of juries, who seem willing to believe people who claim that the defendant is guilty more readily than perhaps is wise. Why, for instance, someone would believe that any sane person would commit a crime, then confess the details to a random stranger who just happened to be in the same cell as they, is a mystery to me. Were I to find myself in jail, I wouldn't say word one to anyone else in my cell, especially if I'd actually committed the crime. Because of course that person is going to seek to sell me out for a break in their own case. Why wouldn't they?

For a justice system to actually work, its verdicts have to be perceived as accurate. as the steady trickle of dubious or flatly incorrect convictions continues, suspicion that the system is more random than it lets on will grow. While this won't be a problem for everyone, it is something that should be looked into, in the name of maintaining credibility. Social trust is low enough as it is (which is part of the problem), having that distrust continue to spread may cost more than people expect.