PBS Frontline has been giving lots of attention to criminal justice systems this fall. . . . This week Frontline will broadcast a new documentary “The Confessions,” which examines the case of the “Norfolk Four” involving a quartet of Navy men who were wrongfully convicted after being coerced into giving false confessions.

A preview is at this link.

All four sailors are now out of prison — one served his sentence, and the other three were granted conditional pardons last summer, after some 11 years in prison. But the men were not exonerated as felons or sex offenders. “I basically built myself a new cell, my bedroom, … because that’s where I’m safe,” Derek Tice, another of the “Norfolk Four,” tells FRONTLINE. “All I did was trade one cell for another.”

In the press release for the show they mention the detective who got these confessions to be Glenn Ford. SL&P has this rather interesting piece.

Earlier this summer, Detective Glenn Ford was indicted for extorting money from defendants in exchange for getting them a favorable treatment. He was tried in U.S. District Court in Norfolk and took the stand in his own defense. On Oct. 27, Ford was found guilty on two of four extortion charges and one charge of lying to the FBI. Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 25, 2011.

Here are some media reports on the Glenn Ford prosecution: here, here, and here. One notes that,

In the Lafayette Grill case in 1990, he coerced confessions from three teenagers who later had the charges dropped against them when it was determined they could not possibly have been at the crime scene.

New research shows how people who were apparently uninvolved in a crime could provide such a detailed account of what occurred, allowing prosecutors to claim that only the defendant could have committed the crime. An article by Professor Garrett draws on trial transcripts, recorded confessions and other background materials to show how incriminating facts got into those confessions — by police introducing important facts about the case, whether intentionally or unintentionally, during the interrogation.

This is the issue of confession contamination. The issue is not new, but Professor Garrett’s research will go some way in establishing the point to be considered.

Instead, he said, “almost all of these confessions looked uncannily reliable,” rich in telling detail that almost inevitably had to come from the police. “I had known that in a couple of these cases, contamination could have occurred,” he said, using a term in police circles for introducing facts into the interrogation process. “I didn’t expect to see that almost all of them had been contaminated.” . . . Jim Trainum, a former policeman who now advises police departments on training officers to avoid false confessions, explained that few of them intend to contaminate an interrogation or convict the innocent. “You become so fixated on ‘This is the right person, this is the guilty person’ that you tend to ignore everything else,” he said. The problem with false confessions, he said, is “the wrong person is still out there, and he’s able to reoffend.”

This is the issue I talk about frequently with bad investigations – confirmatory bias. These same issues can and do arise in court-martial under the UCMJ.

In a court martial trial that concluded after a panel’s deliberations stretched into the early hours of Saturday morning at Andrews Joint Base, a local Airman First Class was found not guilty of the charges brought against him. As ABC 7 News reported last week, the charges were brought against A1C Marvin Skipper, Jr., after he fell asleep a second time while on security duty–even though doctors had ordered that he not be placed on that type of duty for medical reasons. Skipper, Jr., an Iraq war veteran with an exemplary record, first fell asleep while on security duty in May 2008. Although he was baffled at why this had happened, Skipper, 28, agreed to receive an Article 15 . . . But he also immediately sought medical treatment. And doctors diagnosed him with sleep apnea. After two surgeries failed to correct the problem, doctors ordered that he not be deployed, drive government vehicles, or carry a gun. A medical discharge was in process. But after acknowledging the document citing his medical condition, base command placed Skipper back on security duty again in April (emphasis added). And he fell asleep again.

This one goes in the why did they do that category. Watch to see if a report shows up in the Capital Flyer the base paper.

Queerty.com asks:

Did Dan Choi Violate Military Law By Wearing His Uniform After He Was Discharged?

I think the answer is probably yes that he may have violated a federal statute. But as a practical matter this ought to remain an interesting question and nothing more. Sounds like he would raise an affirmative defense of mistake as to whether he was still “a member,” whether believable or not. See, 10 U. S. Code 771.

Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear— (1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or (2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.

Interestingly no reference to the Coast Guard or the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service or NOAA. See, Article 2(8), UCMJ, 10 U. S. Code 802(8).

The guardian.co.uk has this book review:

The blackest hearts: War crimes in Iraq. In March 2006, four US soldiers, strung out after months in the deadly battleground south of Baghdad, hatched a plan: to carry out one of the worst war crimes ever committed in Iraq. This is an edited extract from Black Hearts: One Platoon’s Descent Into Madness In Iraq’s Triangle Of Death, by Jim Frederick, published on 6 August by Macmillan[.]

The Marines website has this new liberty policy:

All service members assigned to Marine Corps Bases Japan/III Marine Expeditionary Force in pay grades E3 and below, and all red card holders, must have a liberty buddy for off-base liberty.

You remember discussion of the CSI effect in criminal trials. Well here’s a new piece on the impact of “Lie to Me” a TV show which claims to teach people how to detect liars.

Timothy R. Levine, Kim B. Serota, Hillary C. Shulman (in press). The Impact of Lie to Me on Viewers’ Actual Ability to Detect Deception Communication Research first published on June 17, 2010 doi:10.1177/0093650210362686 The new television series Lie to Me portrays a social scientist solving crimes through his ability to read nonverbal communication. Promotional materials claim the content is based on actual science. Participants (N = 108) watched an episode of Lie to Me, a different drama, or no program and then judged a series of honest and deceptive interviews. Lie to Me viewers were no better at distinguishing truths from lies but were more likely than control participants to misidentify honest interviewees as deceptive. Watching Lie to Me decreases truth bias thereby increasing suspicion of others while at the same time reducing deception detection ability. Hat tip to Karen Franklin.

And to Deception Blog.

This report is consistent with research that shows police officers are no better at detecting liars than the average person, and no different to tossing a coin. See e.g., Meissner & Kassin, “He’s guilty!”: Investigator Bias in Judgments of Truth and Deception, 26 Law & Human Behavior 469 (2002); Kassin, Meissner, & Norwick, “I’d Know a False Confession if I Saw One”: A Comparative Study of College Students and Police Investigators, 29(2) Law & Human Behavior 211 (2005); Max Mizner, Detecting Lies Using Demeanor, Bias, and Context, 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 2557 (2008)