Litigating tunnel vision: Litigating tunnel vision: analysis and thoughts on the Colina case
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
La publicación se distribuye bajo la licencia Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Los derechos de los trabajos publicados en esta revista son propiedad del autor y son libres de distribuir y difundir las mismas fuentes siempre que cite correctamente la fuente de publicación y estos actos no tengan fines comerciales.
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper seeks to contribute to the knowledge regarding tunnel vision, through the analysis of the phenomenon under the circumstances of a specific case. Thus, the main aspects litigated during the trial will be presented through the analysis of the interactions between lawyers and police investigators during cross-examinations. At the same time, those interactions will be commented in light of the cognitive biases that produce tunnel vision. Finally, some thoughts on the implications of tunnel vision are presented.
References
Bandes, Susan (2006): “Loyalty to One’s Convictions: The Prosecutor and Tunnel Vision”, Howard Law Journal, 49, 2: pp. 475-494.
Beltrán Román, Víctor (2021): “Visión de túnel y persecución penal: Comentario a la sentencia absolutoria del Tribunal de Juicio Oral en lo Penal de Colina RIT 1-2019”, Revista Justicia y Derecho, 4, 1: 1-11.
Castillo, Ignacio (2013): “Enjuiciando al proceso penal chileno desde el inocentrismo (algunos apuntes sobre la necesidad de tomarse en serio a los inocentes)”, Política Criminal, 8, 15: pp. 249-313.
Charman, Steve; Douglass, Amy y Mook, Alexis (2019): “Cognitive Bias in Legal Decision Making”,
en Brewer, Neil y Douglass, Amy (editores), Psychological Science and the Law (Nueva York: The
Guilford Press), pp. 30-53.
Duce, Mauricio (2013): “¿Debiéramos preocuparnos de la condena de inocentes en Chile?: Antecedentes comparados y locales para el debate”, Ius et Praxis, 19, 1: pp. 77-138.
Findley, Keith (2010): “Tunnel Vision”, en: Cutler, Brian (editor), Conviction of the Innocent: Lessons from Psychological Research (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), pp. 303-323.
Findley, Keith y Scott, Michael (2006): “The Multiple Dimensions of Tunnel Vision in Criminal Cases”, Wisconsin Law Review, 291: pp. 291-397.
Gigerenzer, Gerd; Hertwig, Ralph y Hoffrage, Ulrich (1997): “The reiteration effect in hindsight bias”, Psychological Review, 104: pp. 194-202.
Godsey, Mark (2017): Blind Injustice (Oakland, University of California Press).
MacFarlane, Bruce (2008): Wrongful Convictions: The effect of Tunnel Vision and Predisposing Circumstances in the Criminal Justice System (Toronto, Government of Ontario).
Medwed, Daniel (2012): Prosecution complex. America’s Race to Convict and Its Impact on the Innocent (New York: NYU Press).
Oswald, Margit y Grosjean, Stefan (2004): “Confirmation bias”, en Rüdiger, Pohl (editor), Cognitive Illusions. A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory (London: Psychology Press), pp. 79-96.
Poder Judicial Chile (2019a): “Caso Basura: Alegatos de apertura arista Colina. TOP de Colina. 5 de marzo (2)”. Disponible en: https://youtu.be/jf8Ct2b0koI [Fecha de consulta: 24/2/2021].
Poder Judicial Chile (2019b): “Caso Basura: Lectura de veredicto de juicio oral contra alcalde de Colina y otros por fraude”. Disponible en: https://youtu.be/llgPPXJo4GI [Fecha de consulta: 24/2/2021].
Public Prosecution Service of Canada: “Chapter 2 – Understanding Tunnel Vision”. Disponible en:
https://cutt.ly/Wd4Zkfz [Fecha de consulta: 24/2/2021].
Public Prosecution Service of Canada: “Chapter 4 – Tunnel Vision”. Disponible en: https://cutt.ly/
Sd4ZhKp [Fecha de consulta: 24/2/2021].
Reichart, Brian (2016): “Tunnel Vision: Causes, Effects, and Mitigation Strategies”, Hofstra Law Review, 45, 2: pp. 451-478.
Risinger, Michael; Rosenthal, Robert; Saks, Michael y Thompson, William (2002): “The Daubert/
Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion”, California Law Review, pp.1-56.
Roach, Kent (2010): “Wrongful Convictions: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Themes”, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 35, 2: pp. 387-446.
Simon, Dan (2012): In Doubt. The psychology of the Criminal Justice Process (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).
Vega, Maximiliano (2019): Fiscal metropolitano occidente: “Lo lógico hubiera sido un solo juicio en el caso Basura”. El Mercurio. 26 de mayo. Disponible en: https://cutt.ly/Bd3Xzgm [Fecha de consulta: 24/2/2021].
Bibliografía sugerida
Carrano, Julia; Gould, Jon; Leo, Richard y Hail-Jares, Katie (2014): “Predicting Erroneous Convictions”, Iowa Law Review, 99, 2: pp. 471-522.
Clements, Cory (2013): “Perception and Persuasion in Legal Argumentation: Using Informal Fallacies and Cognitive Biases to Win the War of Words”, BYU Law Review, 2: pp. 319-362.
Duce, Mauricio y Villarroel, Romina (2019): “Indemnización por error judicial: una aproximación
empírica a la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de los años 2006-2007”, Política Criminal, 14,
: pp. 216-268.
Findley, Keith (2020): “Lessons from Wrongful Conviction Cases: Litigating Tunnel Vision”. Disponible en: https://cutt.ly/td4ZoFJ [Fecha de consulta: 24/2/2021].
Forst, Brian (2013): “Wrongful convictions in a world of miscarriages of justice”, en Huff, Ronald y Killias, Martin (editores), Wrongful conviction and miscarriages of justice: causes and remedies in North American and European criminal justice systems (New York: Routledge), pp. 15-43.
Martin, Dianne (2004): “Lessons About Justice from the ‘Laboratory’ of Wrongful Convictions: Tunnel Vision, the Construction of Guilt and Informer Evidence”, University of Missouri Kansas City Law Review, 70, 4: pp. 847-864.
Pastene, Paulina (2016): “El principio de objetividad en la función persecutora del Ministerio Público ¿Abolición o fortalecimiento?”, Cuadernos del Tribunal Constitucional, 63: pp. 1-197.
Sherif, Muzafer y Sherif, Carolyn (1969): Social Psychology (New York: Harper International Edition). Tversky, Amos y Kahneman, Daniel (1974): “Judgment under certainty: heuristic and biases”, Science, 185, 4157: 1124-1131.
Jurisprudencia citada
Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F2d 693 (1986): Corte de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos, Décimo Circuito, 25 de junio de 1986 (apelación).
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995): Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos, 19 de abril de 1996 (apelación).
Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034 (1985): Corte de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos, Quinto Circuito, 07 de octubre de 1985 (apelación).
Ministerio Público con Olavarría (2019): Tribunal de Juicio Oral en lo Penal de Colina, 2 de mayo de 2019 (sentencia juicio oral).