A new study pub­lished by Professors Jon Gould (l.) of American University and Richard Leo of the University of San Francisco, along with oth­er researchers, exam­ined fac­tors that have con­tributed to wrong­ful con­vic­tions in crim­i­nal cas­es. The study com­pared cas­es in which ​“guilty” defen­dants were even­tu­al­ly exon­er­at­ed to those in which defen­dants were not con­vict­ed in the first place. The researchers found a num­ber of vari­ables that sep­a­rat­ed wrong­ful con­vic­tions from so-called ​“near miss­es,” includ­ing the crim­i­nal his­to­ry of the defen­dant, with­held excul­pa­to­ry evi­dence, errors with foren­sic evi­dence, and inad­e­quate rep­re­sen­ta­tion. With respect to the death penal­ty, the researchers found that states with high­er use of the death penal­ty were more like­ly to pro­duce wrong­ful con­vic­tions, even in cas­es that did not involve cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. The authors offered a pos­si­ble expla­na­tion for this effect, say­ing, ​“In a puni­tive legal cul­ture, police and pros­e­cu­tors may be more inter­est­ed in obtain­ing a con­vic­tion at all costs (lead­ing to greater Brady vio­la­tions, etc.), and com­mu­ni­ty pres­sure may encour­age over­ly swift res­o­lu­tions to cas­es involv­ing seri­ous crimes like rape and mur­der.” The researchers rec­om­mend­ed changes to the jus­tice sys­tem to lim­it wrong­ful con­vic­tions, includ­ing bet­ter fund­ing for indi­gent defense, ear­li­er test­ing of foren­sic evi­dence, and sub­ject­ing foren­sic labs to peer review.

(J. Gould, et al., ​“Predicting Erroneous Convictions,” 99 Iowa Law Review 471 (2014) (avail­able on Westlaw); DPIC post­ed April 17, 2014). See Studies and Innocence.

Citation Guide