[0.000 --> 29.000]  The murder happened a little over 21 years ago. January the 18th, 1991. In a small bedroom
[29.000 --> 36.640]  community of Linwood, California just a few miles southeast of Los Angeles. Father
[36.640 --> 42.800]  came out his house to tell his teenage son and his five friends that it was
[42.800 --> 48.240]  time for them to stop forcing around on the front lawn and on the sidewalk to
[48.240 --> 54.080]  get home, finish their schoolwork, prepare themselves for bed. And as the
[54.080 --> 61.200]  father was administering these instructions, a car drove by slowly and just
[61.200 --> 66.120]  after it passed the father and the teenagers a hand went out from the front
[66.120 --> 76.040]  passenger window and bam, bam, killing the father and the car sped off. The
[76.040 --> 82.400]  police, investigating officers were amazingly efficient. They considered all the
[82.400 --> 88.240]  usual culprits and in less than 24 hours they had selected their suspect.
[88.240 --> 93.800]  Francisco Carillo, a 17-year-old kid who lived about two or three blocks away
[93.800 --> 100.160]  from where the shooting occurred. They found photos of him, they prepared a
[100.160 --> 106.760]  photo array and the day after the shooting they showed it to one of the teenagers
[106.800 --> 114.200]  and he said that's the picture. That's the shooter I saw that killed the father.
[114.200 --> 122.400]  That was all plenary hearing Judge had to listen to to bind Mr. Carillo over to
[122.400 --> 127.760]  stand trial for her first degree murder. In the investigation that followed
[127.760 --> 133.920]  before the actual trial, each of the other five teenagers was shown photographs,
[133.920 --> 139.540]  the same photo array. The picture that we best can determine was probably the
[139.540 --> 142.560]  one that they were shown the photo array is in your bottom left-hand corner of
[142.560 --> 151.160]  these mug shots. The reason we're not sure absolutely is because of the nature of
[151.160 --> 156.560]  evidence preservation in our judicial system but that's another whole TEDx
[156.560 --> 166.760]  talk for later. So at the actual trial, all six of the teenagers testified and
[166.760 --> 174.400]  indicated the identifications they had made in the photo array. He was convicted.
[174.400 --> 184.160]  He was sentenced to life imprisonment and transported to Fulsom Prison. So what's
[184.160 --> 192.160]  wrong? Straight forward, fair trial, full investigation. Oh yes, no gun was
[192.160 --> 198.940]  ever found. No vehicle was ever identified as being the one in which the
[198.940 --> 204.320]  shooter had extended his arm and no person was ever charged with being the
[204.320 --> 212.680]  driver of the shooter's vehicle. And Mr. Carillo's alibi, which of those
[212.680 --> 219.040]  parents here in the room might not lie concerning the whereabouts of your
[219.040 --> 225.660]  son or daughter in an investigation of a killing.
[225.660 --> 234.200]  Mr. Prison, adamantly insisting on his innocence, which he has consistently for 21
[234.200 --> 242.120]  years. So what's the problem? The problem is actually for this kind of case
[242.120 --> 250.560]  come many fold from decades of scientific research involving human memory.
[250.560 --> 255.160]  First of all, we have all the statistical analysis from the innocence project
[255.160 --> 262.760]  work where we know that we have what 250, 280 documented cases now where people
[262.760 --> 267.460]  have been wrongfully convicted and subsequently exonerated some from death
[267.460 --> 275.080]  row on a basis of later DNA analysis. And you know that over three quarters of
[275.080 --> 282.520]  all of those cases of exoneration involved only eyewitness identification
[282.520 --> 288.280]  testimony during the trial that convicted them. We know that eyewitness
[288.280 --> 294.140]  identification are followed. The other comes from an interesting aspect of
[294.140 --> 298.460]  human memory. That's related to various brain functions, but I can sum up for
[298.460 --> 307.480]  the sake of brevity here in a simple line. The brain abhors a vacuum. Under the
[307.480 --> 314.740]  best of observation conditions, the absolute best, we only detect encode and
[314.740 --> 319.620]  store in our brains bits and pieces of the entire experience in front of us. And
[320.020 --> 325.300]  they're stored in different parts of the brain. So now when it's important for us to be
[325.300 --> 332.220]  able to recall what it was that we experienced, we have an incomplete, we have a
[332.220 --> 340.300]  partial store. And what happens below awareness with no requirement for any kind of
[340.300 --> 347.980]  motivated processing, the brain fills in information that was not there, not
[347.980 --> 354.380]  originally stored from inference, from speculation, from sources of information
[354.380 --> 359.780]  that came to you as the observer after the observation. But it happens without
[359.780 --> 364.820]  awareness such that you don't aren't even cognizant of occurring. It's called
[364.820 --> 370.480]  reconstructed memories. It happens to us in all the aspects of our life, all the
[370.480 --> 375.940]  time. It was those two considerations among others, reconstructed memory, the
[375.940 --> 380.940]  fact about eyewitnessing of a fallibility. That was part of the
[380.940 --> 387.140]  instigation for a group of appeal attorneys led by an amazing lawyer named Ellen
[387.140 --> 392.860]  Eggers to pull their experience and their talents together and petition the
[392.860 --> 400.780]  superior court for a retrial for Francisco Corille. They retained me as a
[400.780 --> 406.740]  forensic neurophysiologist because I had expertise in eyewitness memory
[406.740 --> 412.180]  identification, which obviously makes sense for this case. But also because I
[412.180 --> 419.500]  had expertise and testify about the nature of human night vision. Well what's
[419.500 --> 425.540]  that got to do with this? Well when you read through the case materials in this
[425.540 --> 430.700]  Corille case, one of the things that suddenly strikes you is that the
[430.700 --> 436.320]  investigating officers said the lighting was good at the crime scene, at the
[436.320 --> 442.400]  shooting. All the teenagers testified during the trial that they could see very
[442.400 --> 450.420]  well. But this occurred in mid-January in the Northern Hemisphere at 7 p.m. at
[450.420 --> 458.580]  night. So when I do the calculations for the lunar data and the solar data at
[458.580 --> 464.540]  that location on earth at the time of the incident of the shooting, it was well
[464.540 --> 469.020]  passed the end of civil twilight and there was no moon up the night. So all the
[469.020 --> 471.860]  light in this area from the center of the moon is what you see on the screen right
[471.860 --> 478.740]  here. The only lighting in that area had to come from artificial sources and
[478.740 --> 483.360]  that's where I go out and I do the actual reconstruction of the scene with
[483.360 --> 488.340]  automators with various measures of illumination and various other measures of
[488.340 --> 494.460]  color perception along with special cameras and high-speed film. Take all the
[494.460 --> 498.540]  measurements and record them and then take photographs. And this is what the
[498.540 --> 501.940]  scene looked like at the time of the shooting from the position of the
[501.940 --> 507.540]  teenagers looking at the car going by and shooting. This is looking directly
[507.540 --> 512.700]  across the street from where they were standing. Remember the investigating
[512.700 --> 516.900]  officers report said the lighting was good. Teenagers said they could see very
[516.900 --> 525.740]  well. This is looking down to the east where the shooting vehicle sped off.
[525.740 --> 532.500]  And this is the lighting directly behind the father and the teenagers. As you
[532.500 --> 539.700]  can see it is at best poor. No one's going to call this well lit good lighting.
[539.700 --> 544.620]  And in fact as nice as these pictures are and the reason we take this I knew I was
[544.620 --> 549.540]  going to have to testify in court and a picture is worth more than a thousand
[549.540 --> 554.020]  words when you're trying to communicate numbers abstract concepts like
[554.020 --> 557.700]  lots the international measurement of illumination, the Ishaahara color,
[557.700 --> 563.660]  color perception test values. When you present those to people who are not well
[563.660 --> 568.220]  versed in those aspects of science and that they become salamanders in the
[568.220 --> 571.620]  new day sun. It's like talking about the tangent of the visual angle.
[571.620 --> 578.580]  Their eyes just blaze over. A good forensic expert also has to be a good
[578.580 --> 582.260]  educator. A good communicator. And that's part of the reason why we take the
[582.260 --> 586.340]  pictures to show not only the where the light sources are and what we call the
[586.340 --> 592.340]  light source. So these are some of the pictures that I used when I
[592.340 --> 596.340]  testified. But more importantly where to me and the scientists are those readings,
[596.340 --> 602.340]  the photometer readings which I can then convert into actual predictions of the visual
[602.340 --> 608.340]  capability of the human eye under those circumstances. And from my readings that I recorded at the
[608.340 --> 614.340]  scene under the same solar and lunar conditions at the same time so and so forth, I could predict
[614.340 --> 619.340]  that there would be no reliable color perception which is crucial for face recognition and that
[619.340 --> 623.340]  there would be only scotopic vision which mean there would be very little resolution
[623.340 --> 628.340]  what we call boundary or edge detection. And that furthermore because the eyes would have been
[628.340 --> 633.340]  totally dilated under this picture, I would say that the first thing I would say was that
[634.340 --> 638.340]  the edge detection and that furthermore because the eyes would have been totally dilated under
[638.340 --> 643.340]  this light, the depth of field, the distance at which you can focus and see details,
[643.340 --> 653.340]  would have been less than 18 inches away. I testified to that to the court and while the judge was
[653.340 --> 659.340]  very attentive it had been a very very long hearing for this petition for a retrial.
[659.340 --> 666.340]  And as a result I noticed out of the corner my eye that I thought that maybe the judge was
[666.340 --> 673.340]  going to need a little more of a nudge than just more numbers. And here I became a bit adacious
[673.340 --> 681.340]  and I turned and I asked the judge, I said, Geronner, I think you should go out and look at the
[681.340 --> 688.340]  scene yourself. Now I may have used the tone which was more like a dare than a request.
[688.340 --> 695.340]  But nonetheless it's to this man's credit and his courage that he said, yes I will,
[695.340 --> 702.340]  a shocker in American jurisprudence. So in fact we found the same identical
[702.340 --> 707.340]  convictions, we reconstructed the entire thing again. He came out with an entire brigade
[707.340 --> 714.340]  of sheriff's officers to protect him in this community.
[714.340 --> 721.340]  We had him stand actually slightly in the street. So closer to the suspect vehicle,
[721.340 --> 727.340]  the shooter vehicle, then the actual teenagers were. So he stood a few feet from the curb
[727.340 --> 735.340]  toward the middle of the street. We had a car that came by, same identical car as
[735.340 --> 742.340]  described by the teenagers. It had a driver and a passenger and after the car had passed
[742.340 --> 750.340]  the judge by, the passenger extended his hand, pointed it back to the judge as the
[750.340 --> 757.340]  car continued on just as the teenagers had described it. Now we didn't use a real gun in his hand.
[757.340 --> 761.340]  So we had a black object in his hand that was similar to the gun that was described.
[761.340 --> 768.340]  He pointed by, and this is what the judge saw. This is the car 30 feet away from the
[768.340 --> 775.340]  judge. There's an arm sticking out of the passenger's side and pointed back at you.
[775.340 --> 781.340]  That's 30 feet away. Somebody at the age of 10 said that in fact the car was 15 feet away
[781.340 --> 790.340]  when it was shot. Okay. There's 15 feet. At this point I became a little concerned.
[790.340 --> 797.340]  This judge is someone you never want to play poker with. He was totally stoic.
[797.340 --> 803.340]  I couldn't see a twitch of his eyebrow. I couldn't see the slightest bend of his head.
[803.340 --> 809.340]  I had no sense of how he was reacting to this. And after he looked at this reenactment,
[809.340 --> 814.340]  he turned to me and he says, is there anything else you want me to look at?
[814.340 --> 821.340]  I said, Your Honor, and I don't know whether I was emboldened by the scientific measurements
[821.340 --> 827.340]  that I had in my pocket and my knowledge that they are accurate or whether it was just sheer stupidity,
[827.340 --> 833.340]  which is what the defense lawyers thought. When they heard me say, yes, Your Honor,
[833.340 --> 838.340]  I want you to stand right there. I want the car to go around the block again.
[838.340 --> 847.340]  I want it to come and I want it to stop right in front of you, three to four feet away.
[847.340 --> 852.340]  I want the passenger to extend his hand with a black object to point right at you
[852.340 --> 862.340]  and you can look at it as long as you want. And that's what he saw.
[862.340 --> 867.340]  You'll notice, which was also in my test report, all the dominant lighting
[867.340 --> 871.340]  is coming from the north side, which means that the shooter's face would have been photo occluded,
[871.340 --> 877.340]  would have been backlit. Furthermore, the roof of the car is causing what we call a shadow cloud
[877.340 --> 887.340]  inside the car, which is making it darker. And this is three to four feet away.
[887.340 --> 893.340]  Why did I take the risk? I knew the depth of field was 18 inches or less.
[893.340 --> 900.340]  Three to four feet in might as well have been a football field away.
[900.340 --> 908.340]  This is what he saw. Went back. There was a few more days of evidence that was heard at the end of it.
[908.340 --> 913.340]  He made the judgment that he was going to grant the petition for retrial.
[913.340 --> 919.340]  And furthermore, he released Mr. Carillo so that he could aid in the preparation of his own defense
[919.340 --> 927.340]  if the prosecution decided to retry him, which they decided not to.
[927.340 --> 942.340]  He is now a freed man. This is him embracing his grandmother in law.
[942.340 --> 946.340]  His girlfriend was pregnant when he went to trial.
[946.340 --> 960.340]  And she had a baby boy. He and his son are both attending Cal State Long Beach right now taking classes.
[960.340 --> 968.340]  What does this example? What's important to keep in mind for ourselves?
[968.340 --> 975.340]  First of all, there's a long history of antipathy between science and the law in American jurisprudence.
[975.340 --> 983.340]  I could regale you with horror stories of ignorance. Over decades of experience as a forensic expert,
[983.340 --> 993.340]  of just trying to get science into the courtroom, the opposing council always fight it and oppose it.
[993.340 --> 1002.340]  One suggestion is that all of us become much more attuned to the necessity through policy, through procedures,
[1002.340 --> 1012.340]  to get more science in the courtroom. And I think one large step toward that is more requirements with all due respect to the law schools.
[1012.340 --> 1022.340]  Of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, for anyone going into the law because they become the judges.
[1022.340 --> 1029.340]  Think about how we select our judges in this country. It's very different than most other cultures.
[1029.340 --> 1035.340]  The only one I want to suggest, the caution that all of us have to have. I constantly, through my myself,
[1035.340 --> 1044.340]  about just how accurate are the memories that we know are true, that we believe in.
[1044.340 --> 1055.340]  There is decades of research, examples and examples of cases like this, where individuals really, really believe.
[1055.340 --> 1061.340]  One of those teenagers who identified here, thought that they were picking the wrong person.
[1061.340 --> 1070.340]  None of them thought they couldn't see the person's face. We all have to be very careful. All our memories are reconstructed memories.
[1070.340 --> 1077.340]  They are the product of what we originally experienced and everything that's happened afterwards. They're dynamic.
[1077.340 --> 1085.340]  They're malleable. They're volatile. And as a result, we all need to remember to be cautious.
[1085.340 --> 1096.340]  That the accuracy of our memories is not measured in how vivid they are, nor how certain you are that they're correct.
[1096.340 --> 1098.340]  Thank you.