Case Study Assignment: William Dillon The William Dillon case (1981–2008) highlights multiple failure points we’ve studied—especially misapplied forensics (dog scent “science”), eyewitness error, inf Original Papers

Case Study Assignment: William Dillon

The William Dillon case (1981–2008) highlights multiple failure points we’ve studied—especially misapplied forensics (dog scent “science”), eyewitness error, informant incentives, and official misconduct. Do an AI deep dive or thorough Google search to learn more, then answer the questions below. 

AI Use:  Sanctioned – Use AI or search tools to find sources and learn about the case. Unsanctioned – Using AI to draft your answers.Write in your own words and cite sources.

Case Study Questions:

1) Definitions

• Was William Dillon factually innocent?
• Does this case illustrate a wrong-person conviction, a no-crime case, or something in between?

2) History

• Where does Dillon’s case sit within the broader timeline of wrongful convictions we studied (e.g., Borchard’s catalog, pre-DNA practices, rise of the Innocence Movement)?
• How did post-conviction DNA testing change the landscape compared with earlier eras?

3) Prevalence

• Considering estimates that 0.5–5% of felony convictions may be wrongful, what does Dillon’s case suggest about the risk from small-sample forensic methods (e.g., dog scent, bite marks)?
• How might official secrecy or lost evidence contribute to undercounting wrongful convictions?

4) Process and Production

• Identify failure points at each stage: investigation (focus on Preston’s testing), charging, trial (eyewitness + informant + dog scent), appeals, post-conviction.
• What gatekeeping should have been applied to Preston’s methods (Daubert/Frye factors such as validation, error rates, peer review, standards)?

5) Causes and Correlates

• Which causes from our reader are most evident (misapplied forensics, mistaken ID, informants, official misconduct, inadequate defense resources)?
• Explain precisely how each cause manifested here using concrete details from the record.

6) Forensics Focus

• Briefly explain how a dog-scent lineup is supposed to work and why it is scientifically controversial. What did courts and experts later conclude about John Preston’s methods?
• Contrast the dog-scent claims with the DNA results from the T-shirt. What does this reveal about hierarchies of scientific reliability and the need to preserve testable evidence?

7) Impact and Effects

• How did the wrongful conviction affect Dillon (time served, re-entry, compensation, stigma)?
• What are the broader community effects when the actual perpetrator isn’t held accountable?

8) Summary

• What is the single most important lesson from Dillon’s case for preventing wrongful convictions today?
• Propose one concrete policy you would implement (who does it; how it will be measured).

Submission

Upload your completed Case Study Assignment to the Case Study 2: William Dillon assignment folder no later than Sunday, 11:59 p.m. Include citations and link to primary sources when possible.

Starter Sources (expand beyond these):• National Registry of Exonerations — William Dillon (case narrative, evidence timeline).• Innocence Project and Innocence Project of Florida — case pages, litigation updates.• Court filings and orders related to vacatur and dismissal; news coverage of DNA testing on the T-shirt.• Scholarly/forensic critiques of dog-scent lineups and testimony.