On July 16, 1996, in Winona, Mississippi, an unidentified man entered a furniture store and shot four employees in the head. Curtis Flowers was charged with a crime and tried six times for the same crime. His most recent conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2019 on the grounds that the prosecutor engaged in racial bias during jury selection. However, the lengthy investigation into Flowers’ guilt in this crime also identifies issues such as witness memory, procedural aspects, confirmation bias, coercive interviewing tactics, as well as bad forensics resulting in wrong evidence. Together, these factors led prosecutor Evans to provide the jury with facts that would confirm his conviction that Flowers was guilty.
The six trials in the Flowers case were based on controversial evidence, which is largely based on Evans’s desire to get this particular suspect indicted. Beveridge (2021), in the report for USA Today, notes that the Flowers trials were eventually found to be the result of prosecutorial misconduct. Thus, the Flowers case presents a surprising amount of deliberately false evidence and testimonies that were used during the suspect’s 23 years of incarceration. Despite the fact that Flowers was released in 2019, the case is an example of how biased the prosecution can be and how expensive the cost of procedural errors is.
The emergence of Flowers as a prime suspect is particularly related to the phenomenon of witness memory when using a photo lineup, one of the classical investigation tools. Baran (2018) notes that “in the United States since 1989, nearly three-quarters were sent to prison at least in part by mistaken eyewitness identification.” Witness memory errors are one of the main causes of wrongful convictions. The two witnesses had to choose a photo of the suspect more than a month after the crime, and they pointed to Flowers. In the context of the case, it is surprising that the photo lineup was the main reason for making Flowers a suspect, as the procedure was carried out in such a way that all necessary procedural aspects were ignored.
This situation highlights how significant the procedural aspects are in obtaining correct evidence, especially when working with witnesses. The biggest concern is that when using a technique such as lineups, many factors affect the result. First of all, the detectives had to ensure the appropriate process during the procedure. First of all, it is surprising how little attention was paid to the details accompanying the lineup and how reliable the choice of witnesses was considered. The details of the description given in the original statement were not considered a fundamental factor in assessing how well the witnesses generally remembered the suspect. Additionally, they were not given clear instructions on the procedure, which could also result in misunderstandings and false choices. So there is also a confirmation bias in relation to the photo lineup, as the procedure was designed in such a way that witnesses would point to Flowers. Additionally, the interviews of the witnesses were not properly documented, which obviously makes the evidence questionable.
It is also surprising that Odell “Cookie” Hallmon Jr. was the main witness in the case against Flowers. The witness claimed that Flowers confessed to him the crime while in prison, but he himself had a long criminal history (Baran, 2018). Thus, the testimony of this witness was also controversial and could not seem reliable, but prosecutor Evans also insisted on validity. In this regard, again, there is an obvious confirmation bias since the prosecutor used the testimony that would confirm his guilt of Flowers, regardless of their reliability.
Another piece of evidence against Flowers in the case was the murder weapon. However, as with the testimony of witnesses, this evidence was doubtful but was accepted as direct and reliable. In this situation, again, the ballistic analysis was performed with procedural errors, and the main source of evidence was the opinion of the ballistic expert. In particular, the murder weapon was never found, and evidence that the bullets found were fired from the same specific pistol cannot be verified (Baran, 2018). In this situation, it is again surprising how much the procedural basis for obtaining evidence was ignored in the Flowers case. In court, only opinions were presented, but no evidence of the guilt of the suspect. Even the results of the ballistic examination turned out to be approximate and probable, which should have caused the jury to doubt their reliability. The main factor is also that the participants in the process did not assert the probable innocence of the suspect due to insufficient evidence.
Additionally, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2019, the prosecutor acted on the basis of racial bias. Prosecutor Evans used chose jurors on the basis of racial prejudice, which reduced Flowers’s chances of an acquittal (Flowers v. Mississippi, 2019). In this regard, it is surprising how openly the prosecutor showed his bias, showing distrust of the words of colored jurors, as well as hiding the evidence of other suspects (Baran, 2018). Evans paid much less attention to interviewing white jurors using aggressive tactics against African Americans, which revealed his bias (Flowers v. Mississippi, 2019). Thus, Evans not only violated the jury selection rules but also deliberately committed a Brady violation, which identifies a confirmation bias.
I think the jury also needed to be more focused on providing evidence of Flowers’ potential innocence and looking at other suspects. Prosecutor Evans responded unequivocally that there were no other suspects in the case, which was a lie and a Brady violation. In this regard, the most shocking thing is how little skepticism the jury reacted to such statements. The confirmation bias shown by the prosecutor was obvious at this stage since there was not even a discussion of potential suspects and no evidence of their innocence.
Thus, in the Flowers case, most of the evidence presented was not direct and did not prove the guilt of the suspect. However, Attorney Evans, through careful jury selection, was first able to assert that there was no doubt that Flowers was guilty. It is surprising how little criticism has been given to the evidence presented, which is based on opinion rather than fact. All of the Flowers trials were based on Evans’ confirmation bias, which most likely stems from racial discrimination motives. The judiciary needs to pay more attention in the context of trials directly to the ways in which evidence is acquired. This case illustrates how procedural errors and inaccuracies can lead to false evidence and condemnation of innocent people. Evans used the jury’s incompetence with regard to investigative mechanisms to advance his point of view, which resulted in a false conviction.
References
Baran, M. (2019). In the dark: Season 2[Audio podcast]. APM Reports. Web.
Beveridge, L. (2021). Curtis Flowers, wrongfully incarcerated for 23 years, will get maximum compensation, judge says. USA Today. Web.
Flowers v. Mississippi. (2019). Oyez. Web.