http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Eyewitness_Identification_Reform.php

http://www.pickingcottonbook.com/home.html

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Reforming_Criminal_Lineup_Procedures.php

As a result of DNA technology, the number of men and women have been exonerated, many after having spent 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years and more in prison.  Can you wrap your head around spending just one day in prison as an innocent person? According to the Innocence Project, “Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.”  

            In cases where the victim is the person who misidentifies the perpetrator of the crime (s), it doesn’t mean that there was an attempt by the victim to deceive. The victim could 100 percent believe that he/she is correct in the identification.  I’ve had the opportunity to become acquainted with Jennifer Thompson- Cannino. She was a rape victim who wrongfully picked out Ronald Cotton. Cotton served 11 years in prison as a result of this victim misidentification (see the book Picking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption. Jennifer thought for sure that she’d picked out the right person. She wanted Cotton to rot in jail, at the very the least. Nothing could have convinced her otherwise.  Eleven years later, she had to accept the truth. Again, read the book.  Jennifer is a very remarkable individual who really believed she was right in her identification of Ronald Cotton.

   It is hard to hold ill-will towards her. I say the same for others in this category.  Jennifer came to accept the truth; fortunately, the DA in the case accepted the truth as well and approached Jennifer with evidence proving Cotton’s innocence (Jennifer is willing to talk to anyone on Rodney’s behalf. She’s made calls to the Mobile District Attorney’s office since Ashley Rich has been the DA and innocence projects on behalf of Rodney.   Responsible district attorneys can lead to true justice.  It shouldn’t be politically liable to admit that a mistake was made.   

Click on this document for trial testimony. This testimony includes Rodney's supervisor and co-workers, as well as eyewitnesses on the scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEVURKsGoMI

Here is a copy of the testimonial agreement that the prosecuting attorney, Buzz Jordan, gave to Terrell Moore.  After watching the video above, read provision number 3 in the agreement: /assets/docs/20100914155256.256155350.pdf

It basically says as Jordan

confirms during pre-trial agreement that Moore could not be arrested for statements made.  Read additional comments and the confession and victim misidentification by clicking on this link.

How did the identification of Rodney come about?

The victim's initial interview with Detective Fletcher. Notice that a voice on the transcript says she doesn't now who did this. The Detective provides photos (supplied by Rodney that included his friends) and said do you recognize anyone on this picture who could have been at your house. When he pointed to Rodney, the victim squeezed a hand in response that he could have been at her house.

Again, as mentioned, there was no intention for deception, a question was asked by the detective and an honest response was given in return.

~

Here's a link to an article entitled Time Served or Justice Denied by Bill Riales.

Click on this document for trial testimony, includes individuals who saw Moore at the victim's house and Rodney's co-workers and supervisors who state that Rodney was at work (full transcript is available upon request)

 A ruling by the Federal Appeals Court that could be helpful for Rodney if he had an attorney.

From the Innocence Project:

Innocence Blog

Federal Court of Appeals Upholds Ruling in Identification Case

Posted: October 17, 2012 7:30 pm

A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed the reliability of eyewitness identification when it ruled Tuesday that defendant Rudolph Young’s constitutional rights were violated by a tainted identification procedure. The unanimous decision in Young v. Conway relied heavily on an amicus brief from the Innocence Project and the scientific research that it presented about witness memory