In the Netflix series Mindhunter, there’s a scene where the main character describes getting a confession from a murderer based largely on instinct. In response, his girlfriend asks a simple question:
“Is it fair if you’re working backwards from a conclusion?”
This question points to something very real in criminal investigations: tunnel vision.
It’s an issue that played a significant role in a new MTIP case we will be sharing more about in the coming weeks, and it prompted us to explore how tunnel vision can shape the course of an investigation.
What Tunnel Vision Is
Legal scholars Keith Findley and Michael Scott describe tunnel vision as a set of cognitive patterns that can influence every stage of a criminal case. Once a theory becomes established, evidence that supports it may receive greater attention, while inconsistent information can be more easily discounted or left unexplored.
This effect is often strengthened by urgency. The pressure to solve a serious crime and bring closure can make a single theory feel validated earlier than it should. Once that happens, other possibilities—including alternative suspects or conflicting interpretations of evidence—can fade from consideration.
Findley and Scott also emphasize that tunnel vision rarely acts alone. It often interacts with other documented contributors to wrongful convictions, including unreliable confessions, mistaken eyewitness identification, junk science, incentivized informants, and failures to disclose exculpatory evidence.
The Psychology Behind Tunnel Vision
Tunnel vision is closely connected to confirmation bias—the tendency to prioritize information that supports an existing belief while discounting information that challenges it.
A 2022 study published in SAGE Open examined how investigators and non-investigators respond to uncertain criminal scenarios. Researchers found that investigators were more likely than members of the public to form early judgments of guilt in ambiguous situations and often expressed greater confidence in those assessments in the presence of both exonerating and incriminating evidence.
The study underscores an important point: bias is not eliminated by experience or training. It is a feature of human decision-making that can shape how cases develop from the very beginning.
What Happens to Alternative Suspects
One of the clearest consequences of tunnel vision is the loss of investigative breadth.
When attention settles on one suspect, other leads may not receive the same level of follow-up. Information pointing elsewhere may be viewed as less significant simply because it does not fit the working theory of the case.
Over time, this can result in alternative suspects never being fully evaluated—not because they were conclusively eliminated, but because the investigation has already narrowed its focus.
This question often comes up in post-conviction work: what possibilities were present at the time that were never fully explored?
A Well-Known Example: The Central Park Five
One widely discussed example of tunnel vision comes from the case of the Central Park Five.
In 1989, five teenagers were arrested and convicted in connection with the assault of a jogger in New York City’s Central Park. The investigation quickly focused on the group amid intense public pressure and widespread media attention.
Their confessions—later challenged as unreliable and inconsistent with one another and with physical evidence—became central to the prosecution’s case. As the investigation narrowed, alternative explanations received little attention.
Years later, the convictions were vacated after another individual, Matias Reyes, confessed to the crime and DNA evidence supported his involvement.
The case is frequently cited in discussions of wrongful convictions because it demonstrates how difficult it can be to revisit alternative explanations once an investigation becomes anchored to a particular theory.
A Montana Innocence Project Case: Freddie Joe Lawrence and Paul Jenkins
This issue has also appeared in cases we have worked on here in Montana.
Freddie Joe Lawrence and Paul Jenkins were convicted in 1995 of the murder of Donna Meagher and spent more than two decades in prison maintaining their innocence.
The nephew of David Nelson—whose DNA would later be linked to the crime scene—told law enforcement that his uncle had admitted involvement in the murder. That information was not pursued further at the time because investigators believed there was insufficient corroborating evidence.
In 2015, the Montana Innocence Project took on Lawrence and Jenkins’ case and sought DNA testing. While those efforts were underway, Nelson’s nephew again came forward with the same information he had reported decades earlier.
DNA testing ultimately identified David Nelson’s DNA on evidence connected to the crime. No DNA belonging to Lawrence or Jenkins was identified on the evidence that was tested.
Lawrence and Jenkins were released after serving 23 years in prison each.
This case raises a broader question that sits at the heart of many wrongful conviction cases: what happens when evidence suggesting another possible suspect is available, but never fully investigated?
Paul Jenkins’ daughter, Crystal, reflected on that question, telling KPAX-TV:
“I don’t understand how all the opportunities were there to get the right person, and my entire life was changed.”
Her words capture the human cost of tunnel vision. When investigations narrow, the consequences extend far beyond the courtroom—to victims’ families, to the wrongfully convicted, and to entire communities left without the truth.
Looking Ahead: A New MTIP Case We Will Share Soon
In a case we will be sharing more about in the coming weeks, we believe tunnel vision played a significant role in how the investigation unfolded.
An alternative theory of the crime was available early in the process and supported by information that warranted serious consideration.
More concerning still, our client was ultimately prevented from presenting that alternative theory to the jury.
The Work of Staying Open
The purpose of an investigation is not to confirm the first workable explanation. It is to understand what actually happened.
That requires staying open to competing possibilities—even when one theory feels complete or persuasive.
The pressure to solve crimes is real. But so is the responsibility to ensure the answer is correct.
The pursuit of justice must be about reaching the truth.