Student Number: 16019265

Case Study Analysis

In July 1984, Jennifer Thompson, a 22-year-old college student living in Burlington,

North Carolina, was burgled and sexually assaulted, after a man broke into her
apartment and severed the phone lines. One hour after this, another apartment was
broken into, with the same happening to the woman who lived there. The attacks were
believed to have been committed by the same person. The second victim was unable
to recall her attackers face, but Thompson made a deliberate point of studying the
assailant. With the police, she created a composite image of her attacker.
Thompson was then shown a photo line-up, where she proceeded to pick the photo of
Ronald Cotton. Cotton, along with six others, was brought before her in an in-person
line-up. Thompson picked number five of the line-up, which was Ronald Cotton. As
the victim had now picked Cotton in both a photo and in person line-up, the police
were confident that the right man had been found.
On the 1st of August 1984, Ronald Cotton was charged for the rapes. He had a record
of burglary arrests, and had previously spent 18 months in prison for an attempted
sexual assault. (This assault, he claimed, was consensual, and he had been
victimised.) In the January of the next year, a jury convicted Cotton of one count of
rape and one count of burglary, as the second victim couldnt identify her attacker.
Thompson however, had continued to stand by her claim, stating in court, that Cotton
was definitely the man who had raped her. Her confidence was the main ground for
conviction. Cotton claimed his innocence all the way through the proceedings.
While in prison, Cotton came into possession of information stating that another
inmate of the prison, Bobby Poole, had committed the crimes that Cotton was
convicted of.
Another trial in 1987, 3 years after the crime, and 2 years after the conviction, bought
the second victim forward, as well as include Bobby Poole, who was made to attend
by Cottons lawyer. However, the second victim was now identifying Cotton as her
attacker, and Thompson was as confident in her assertions as she had ever been,
looking at both men, and confirming that Cotton was the man whod raped her. With
the testimony of both victims, Cotton was convicted of both rapes, and sentenced to
life plus 54 years.
In 1994, new lawyers took the case. Burlington Police Department handed over all the
evidence, including a sample of the assailants semen for DNA testing, which had
been unavailable at the time of the conviction. The sample revealed no match to
Cotton, but did match with Bobby Poole.
On the 30th of June 1995, Cotton was released, and pardoned, after over ten years in
prison.
This case analysis will cover the system variables found in eyewitness evidence, and
the role of the jury in a criminal case, specifically, how the case of Ronald Cotton was
handled, and what could have been done in a better way.
Student Number: 16019265

The failure to undertake a line-up correctly is known as a system variable, something

that is the fault of the people involved, not of an uncontrollable situation. There are
many ways that the line-up in the case could have been handled better.
It was not well executed. It was simultaneous, with all the participants before the
victim at the same time, which is not always a bad way of conducting a line-up, but in
this case, was not handled well. While all the men were African-American, they were
not all of the same build or stature. They were all dressed differently, with each man
standing out for some reason. While this last point may have equalled out the effect
on the victim, because Jennifer Thompson had already viewed Ronald Cottons
picture in a photo line-up, she already recognised his face, and therefore, he was the
man she focused on. While this particular problem is hard to mitigate, as both types of
line-up are important, and in some cases, a necessity, the participants of the line-up
should have been all of the same build, height, and hair style, insofar as possible. In
short, they should have been as close to Ronald Cottons clones as the police were
feasibly capable of finding. Their physical characteristics were not the only thing that
should have been done with better care, as, with each man dressed differently, it was
too easy for the victim to differentiate between them. If they were all dressed the
same, as well as all being the same build etc. as stated above, then the line-up would
have been successful in achieving fairness to all involved, as the point of it was to
have Thompson pick pout the right person, but it is easy to be sure of an individual
when everyone looks different from each other.
There is also the emotional state of the victim to consider. During the process, there
was nothing separating the victim from the men of the line-up, which could have
added to her choice. She had been through a serious ordeal, and was then made to sit
in the same room as her potential assailant. The stress of having to be in that situation
could have rushed her, and, recognising Cotton from his mugshot photo, Thompson
may have chosen him in a (maybe subconscious) way to end the line-up. The victim
should have been behind glass, at the very least, so as to ensure that she did not have
to be in the same room with the man that she believed had attacked her.

The next point that needs addressing in this case analysis, is that of how the jury
handled their decisions. In the trail, most of the evidence was circumstantial,
naturally, as Cotton was innocent. The main points that aided the jurors in finding him
guilty, were Thompsons confidence, and Cottons facial expressions in regards to his
emotions. According to Posey & Wrightsman, (2005), Cottons face never changed
through the whole of the proceedings. He didnt react to anything throughout the trial,
which made him seem increasingly guilty to the jury. An unemotional state does not
indicate guilt. It can indicate shock. Cotton was on trial for a hideous crime he had not
committed shock would be the most likely factor for his lack of outword emotional
responses.
Its not just the defendants demeanour that can influence a jury. It is also down to
witness confidence as well. With no true evidence, the only solid information that the
jurors had to work with was Thompsons testimony, which hindsight reveals is false.
The jury should have been warned that eyewitness accounts are not always accurate,
no matter how confident the witness is. If they had been properly aware of this, then
they might have based their decision around other evidence, of which there was
nothing in-circumstantial, which could have resulted in an innocent man not going to
prison for almost 11 years.
The jury should have been made aware that it was up to them to use all the evidence
Student Number: 16019265

provided, not just the strongest seeming, because, as revealed, just because something
seems to be the key evidence, it doesnt necessarily mean it is accurate. Ultimately,
this is the fault of the court system, but it can be summarised with the jurys blindness
to the fact that all the other evidence was circumstantial, and that Cotton had alibis,
given by his family, if not fully confirmed.

In conclusion, the case was not handled well. The police failed to ensure that the line-
up was appropriate, and that the victims knew that the assailant might not be (and
ultimately wasnt) in the line. Keeping the victims and the suspects separate during
the proceedings, and ensuring that they all looked similar, would have fixed this issue.
The jury should have been made aware that eyewitness accounts are not always
reliable, as, while a judge and lawyers know this to be true, a layperson on the jury
likely does not. The jury should also have not used the emotional state of the
defendant as evidence. There are many things that could have caused his reaction, and
to blame it on guilt is making connotations that had no place deciding on the fate of a
man, innocent or otherwise.
The fact that Cotton was ultimately innocent matters little. Even if he had proved to
be guilty, he was convicted on the wrong reasons. The justice system needs to be
based on more than what people seem to be in a certain situation, and evidence that is
not always accurate.
The fault lies with the fact that this human bias and error is not explained to the
necessary people so they can avoid making these mistakes.
It took the jailing of an innocent man for 10 years before these failings were
revealed. If the jury knew how to handle the given information, Cotton would likely
have never been convicted. If courts explained this as standard, it would aid in
mitigating these issues.