1932

Abstract

In response to wrongful convictions, there has been a revolution in criminal procedure and research in law and science. This review seeks to summarize the cross-disciplinary explosion in work studying known wrongful convictions, examining their causes, and assessing policy reforms designed to help detect and prevent errors in criminal justice. Scholars have increasingly studied the characteristics of known wrongful-conviction cases, including by analyzing archival records and by creating public registries of exonerations. Scholars have conducted research in law, psychology, statistics, criminology, and other disciplines, as well as interdisciplinary research, designed to better understand the phenomenon of wrongful convictions and how to prevent errors. Scientific bodies, such as the National Academy of Sciences, have made important recommendations based on this research. Furthermore, the conversation is global, with litigation, research, and policy work across jurisdictions. A wide range of jurisdictions have adopted noteworthy changes designed to safeguard crucial types of evidence, such as confession, forensic, and eyewitness evidence, during police investigations and at trial. As a result, law and science have increasingly come together to produce tangible improvements to criminal justice.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024739
2020-01-13
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/3/1/annurev-criminol-011518-024739.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024739&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alschuler AW. 2016. A nearly perfect system for convicting the innocent. Albany Law Rev 79:919–40
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Am. Law Inst 2016. Restatement of the law: children and the law, projected overall table of contents Rep., Am. Law Inst Philadelphia, PA: https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/71/bb/71bb767c-a5df-4561-806c-d0b881945992/pages_from_children_and_the_law_-_pd_2_-_online.pdf
  3. Am. Law Inst 2019. Principles of policing Rep., Am. Law Inst Philadelphia, PA:
  4. Ask K, Granhag PA. 2007. Motivational bias in criminal investigators’ judgments of witness reliability. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37:3561–91
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Borchard EM. 1932. Convicting the Innocent: Sixty-Five Actual Errors of Criminal Justice Garden City, NY: Garden City Publ
  6. Boyle J. 2014. No GOP apologies for nasty McCollum ad. Citizen Times Sept. 6. https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/09/06/boyle-column-gop-apologies-nasty-mccollum-ad/15221163/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S 1141 1994a. (Blackmun, J., dissenting opinion)
  8. Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S 1143 1994b. (Scalia, J., concurring opinion)
  9. Candel I, Merckelbach H, Loyen S, Reyskens H 2005. “I hit the shift-key and then the computer crashed”: children and false admissions. Personal. Individ. Differ. 38:1381–87
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cole SA. 2006. The prevalence and potential causes of wrongful conviction by fingerprint evidence. Gold. Gate Univ. Law Rev. 37:39–105
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Death Penalty Info. Ctr 2015. The death penalty in 2015: year end report Rep., DPIC Database Washington, DC: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/YearEnd2015
  12. Denov MS, Campbell KM. 2005. Criminal injustice: understanding the causes, effects, and responses to wrongful conviction in Canada. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 21:3224–49
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Drinan CH 2012. Clemency in a time of crisis. Ga. State Law Rev 28:1121–58
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Drizin SA, Leo RA. 2004. The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. N.C. Law Rev. 82:891–1008
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dror IE. 2016. A hierarchy of expert performance. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 5:121–27
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dror IE, Charlton D, Peron AE 2006. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci. Int. 156:74–78
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dror IE, Hampikian G. 2011. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci. Justice 51:204–8
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Findley KA, Scott MS. 2006. The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wis. Law Rev. 2:291–397
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fisher SZ. 1993. “Just the facts, ma'am”: lying and the omission of exculpatory evidence in police reports. N. Engl. Law Rev. 28:11–58
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Forensic Sci. Regul 2015. Guidance: cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations Rep. FSR-G-217, Forensic Sci. Regul London: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/510147/217_FSR-G-217_Cognitive_bias_appendix.pdf
  21. Frank J, Frank B. 1957. Not Guilty Garden City, NY: Doubleday
  22. Frankfurter F. 1927. The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti University Park, PA: Grosset & Dunlop
  23. Garrett BL. 2008a. Claiming innocence. Minn. Law Rev. 92:1629–724
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Garrett BL. 2008b. Judging innocence. Columbia Law Rev 108:55–142
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Garrett BL. 2010. The substance of false confessions. Stanf. Law Rev. 62:1051–1118
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Garrett BL. 2011. Introduction. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong5–6 Cambridge, MA: Harv. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Garrett BL. 2015. Contaminated confessions revisited. Va. Law Rev. 101:395–454
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Garrett BL. 2017a. Actual innocence and wrongful convictions. Academy for Justice E Luna 193–210 Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Univ
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Garrett BL. 2017b. Convicting the innocent redux. Wrongful Convictions and the DNA Revolution: Twenty-Five Years of Freeing the Innocent DS Medwed 40–56 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Garrett BL. 2017c. Inevitability of innocence. End of its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice17–48 Cambridge, MA: Harv. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Garrett BL. 2017d. Towards an international right to claim innocence. Calif. Law Rev. 105:41173–222
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Garrett BL. 2019. Self-policing: eyewitness identification procedures in Virginia. Va. Law Rev. Online. 105:96111
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Garrett B, Mitchell G. 2013. How jurors evaluate fingerprint evidence: the relative importance of match language, method information and error acknowledgement. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 10:484–511
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Garrett BL, Neufeld PJ. 2009. Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Va. Law Rev. 95:11–97
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct 27262757–58 2015.)
  36. Godsey M. 2017. The global innocence movement. Wrongful Convictions D Medwed 356–78 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gross SR, O'Brien B, Hu C, Kennedy EH 2014. Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. PNAS 111:207230–35
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gudjonsson GH, Sigurdsson JF, Asgeirdottir BB, Sigfusdottir ID 2006. Custodial interrogation, false confession and individual differences: a national study among Icelandic youth. Personal. Individ. Differ. 41:49–59
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gudjonsson GH, Sigurdsson JF, Sigfusdottir ID 2010. Interrogation and false confessions among adolescents: differences between bullies and victims. J. Psychiatry Law 38:1–257–76
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Heise M. 2003. Mercy by the numbers: an empirical analysis of clemency and its structure. Va. Law Rev. 89:239–310
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Herrera v. Collins 506 U.S 390 1993.)
  42. Huff CR, Killias M. 2008. Wrongful Convictions: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press
  43. Innocence Proj 2018. DNA exonerations in the United States. Innocence Project http://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Int. Assoc. Chiefs Police 2013. National summit on wrongful convictions: building a systemic approach to prevent wrongful convictions Rep., US Dep. Justice Washington, DC:
  45. Johnson DT. 2015. An innocent man: Hakamada Iwao and the problem of wrongful convictions in Japan. Asia-Pac. J. 13:61–38
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kassin SM, Drizin SA, Grisso T, Gudjonsson GH, Leo RA, Redlich AD 2010. Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations. Law Hum. Behav. 34:33–38
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J 2013. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 2:142–52
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kassin SM, Leo RA, Meissner CA, Richman KD, Colwell LH et al. 2007. Police interviewing and interrogation: a self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law Hum. Behav. 31:4381–400
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Klarman MJ. 2000. The racial origins of modern criminal procedure. Mich. Law Rev. 99:48–97
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Koehler JJ. 2017. Intuitive error rate estimates for the forensic sciences. Jurimetrics J 57:153–68
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Koehler JJ, Schweitzer NJ, Saks M, McQuiston D 2016. Science, technology or the expert witness: What influences judgments about forensic science testimony?. Psychol. Public Policy Law 22:401–13
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Leuschner F, Rettenberger M, Dessecker A 2019. Imprisoned but innocent: wrongful convictions and imprisonments in Germany, 1990–2016. Crime Delinquency In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719833355
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Lieberman J, Carrell A, Terance C, Terance M, Krauss D 2008. Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence?. Psychol. Public Policy Law 14:27–62
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Liebman JS, Fagan J, West V 2000. A broken system: error rates in capital cases, 1973–1995 Rep. NCJ183787, Columbia Univ New York:
  55. Loeffler E, Jordan C, Jordan H, Ridgeway G 2018. Measuring self-reported wrongful convictions among prisoners. J. Quant. Criminol. 35:2259–86
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Manson v. Brathwaite 432 U.S 98 1977.)
  57. McCollum v. North Carolina 512 U.S. 1254 1255 1994. Blackmun, J. dissenting )
  58. Medwed DS. 2005. Up the river without a procedure: innocent prisoners and newly discovered non-DNA evidence in state courts. Ariz. Law Rev. 47:655–718
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Medwed DS 2017. Wrongful Convictions and the DNA Revolution: Twenty-Five Years of Freeing the Innocent New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  60. Miller JC, Redlich AD, Kelly C 2018. Accusatorial and information-gathering interview and interrogation methods: a multi-country comparison. Psychol. Crime Law 24:9935–56
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Morton M. 2014. Getting Life New York: Simon & Schuster
  62. Natl. Comm. Forensic Sci 2013. Testimony using the termreasonable scientific certainty Rep., Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol Gaithersburg, MD:
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Natl. Regist. Exonerations 2019a. Exonerations: summary view. National Registry of Exonerations https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/browse.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Natl. Regist. Exonerations 2019b. Glossary. National Registry of Exonerations http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Natl. Res. Counc 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  66. Natl. Res. Counc 2014. Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  67. Neff J. 2014. New DNA evidence could free two men in notorious Robeson County case. News Observer Aug. 30. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article10043633.html
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Norris RJ, Bonventre CL, Redlich AD 2017. Preventing wrongful convictions: an analysis of state investigative reforms. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 30:4596–626
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Perry v. New Hampshire 565 U.S. 228 2012.)
  70. Petraco N, Chan H. 2012. Application of Machine Learning to Toolmarks: Statistically Based Methods for Impression Pattern Comparisons Mannheim, Ger: Bibliogr. Inst. AG
  71. Pres. Counc. Advis. Sci. Technol 2016. Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods Rep. 57, 102 US Office Sci. Technol. Policy Washington, DC:
  72. Raab S. 1967. Justice in the Backroom Cleveland, OH: World Publ
  73. Redlich AD, Goodman GS. 2003. Taking responsibility for an act not committed: the influence of age and suggestibility. Law Hum. Behav. 27:2141–56
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Redlich AD, Summers A, Hoover S 2010. Self-reported false confessions and false guilty pleas among offenders with mental illness. Law Hum. Behav. 34:179–90
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Scheck B, Neufeld P, Dwyer J 2003. Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make It Right New York: New American Library
  76. Smithee JT, Keller S, Huffman J, Whitetree J, Herrero A et al. 2016. Timothy Cole exoneration review commission Rep., Tex. Judic. Counc Austin, TX: http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1436589/tcerc-final-report-december-9-2016.pdf
  77. Spotts R, Chumbley LS, Ekstrand L, Zhang S, Kreiser J 2014. Optimization of a statistical algorithm for objective comparison of toolmarks. J. Forensic Sci. 60:2303–14
    [Google Scholar]
  78. State v. McCollum 364 S.E.2d 112 (NC 1988)
  79. Thompson W, Black J, Jain A, Kadane J 2017. Forensic science assessments: a quality and gap analysis, latent fingerprint examination Rep., Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci Washington, DC:
  80. Trainum J. 2016. How the Police Generate False Confessions Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
  81. Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA 2011. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. PNAS 108:197733–38
    [Google Scholar]
  82. United States v. Garsson 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1923)
  83. United States v. Ortiz 23 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 1994)
  84. US Dep. Justice 2019. Approved uniform language for testimony and reports for the forensic latent fingerprint discipline Rep., US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.justice.gov/file/1037171/download
  85. West EM. 2010. Court findings on prosecutorial misconduct claims in post-conviction appeals and civil suits among the first 255 DNA exoneration cases Rep., Innocence Proj New York: https://www.innocenceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/pmc_appeals_255_final_oct_2011.pdf
  86. Zhong LY, Dai M. 2018. The politics of wrongful convictions in China. J. Contemp. China 28:116260–76
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024739
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error