False convictions

SIGNIFICANCE: In addition to being grossly unfair to defendants who are erroneously convicted, false convictions damage public confidence in the criminal justice system. Moreover, public safety becomes an issue when convictions of the wrong persons allow guilty criminals to remain at large.

The criminal justice system is designed to protect society by identifying and bringing to justice individuals who have violated the law. Determining guilt or innocence requires the services and expertise of police officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and jurors. The system, therefore, contains numerous decision points involving human judgment and, because fallible human beings are involved in the process, errors can sometimes occur which produce a false conviction.

False convictions have long been a concern of responsible members of the criminal justice community. In the eighteenth century, British theorist and philosopher Jeremy Bentham , whose ideas influenced the US Constitution and the American criminal justice system, called false convictions “mis-seated punishment.” Modern research concerning the causes and frequency of false convictions did not begin until the early twentieth century, when Yale law professor Edwin Borchard published case studies of sixty-five false convictions that occurred in the United States between 1812 and 1930. Borchard’s pioneering work was followed, from the 1950s through the early 1980s, by a small number of other publications identifying additional cases.

During the mid-1980s the topic of false convictions began receiving increased attention from both researchers and the popular media—primarily as a result of the unprecedented availability of DNA testing. Because each person’s DNA is unique, it has become possible for some prisoners to have old evidence that was used to convict them—evidence such as specimens of blood, hair, tissue, semen, or other body fluids—reexamined in order to determine if the results of earlier, less accurate tests were misleading or faulty. Between 1989—when the first DNA exoneration occurred—and 2004, at least 145 falsely convicted individuals were cleared using DNA testing. Additionally, several hundred other cases of false conviction have come to light using other investigative techniques. Many of these cases have received widespread newspaper and television coverage. According to data from the Innocence Project, an organization formed in 1992 that is dedicated to exonerating people who have been wrongfully convicted through the use of DNA testing, 375 convicted individuals have been exonerated through DNA testing as of 2020. Some of the reasons cited for these false convictions include eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, and unvalidated forensic science. The Innocence Project's data shows that of these cases, 69 percent involved eyewitness misidentification, 29 percent involved false confessions, and 43 percent involved misapplication of forensic science. Due to the concerted effort of organizations such as the Innocence Project, as of 2017, 152 true suspects and perpetrators had been identified.

Amidst the increasing concern over the possible number of innocent people losing several years of their lives in prison, the University of Michigan Law School published the National Registry of Exonerations in 2012, tracking exonerations of the wrongfully convicted beginning in 1989. According to their data in an updated edition, as of 2022, 3,284 people had been exonerated of the crimes of which they were convicted. Along with DNA, the factors behind the exonerations included victim recantations, misconduct by authorities, and fabricated crimes. The most exonerations occurred in Illinois, Texas, New York, and California.

Repercussions of False Convictions

False convictions in the criminal justice process carry high personal and social prices. First, they compromise public safety. When a falsely accused person is convicted of a crime, that individual is punished in place of the one who actually committed the offense. Therefore, for virtually every person falsely convicted of a crime, there is a corresponding guilty person who has not been brought to justice and who may be continuing to commit crimes in the community.

False convictions also undermine the public’s confidence in the judicial system. Every year, stories are published in the media concerning individuals who have languished in prison for years and are later found to have been falsely convicted. Stories of this nature can shake citizens’ faith in the ability of the criminal justice system to separate the innocent from the guilty and to do justice. False convictions can, therefore, damage the symbolic status of the criminal justice process—a process that symbolizes the United States’ moral stance against crime and the desire to achieve justice. A loss of confidence in the criminal justice system can have serious and widespread negative consequences. For example, if jurors become skeptical of police testimony or prosecutorial judgment, they are more likely to acquit a guilty individual. A loss of confidence in the criminal justice system can also lead to vigilante-style justice.

Additionally, when an innocent person is falsely convicted, several separate injustices occur. Primarily, the falsely convicted persons unjustly suffer. They are often subjected to the horrors of prison life, are denied freedom (often for several years), and possibly face execution. Death-penalty opponents are quick to point out that individuals falsely convicted of capital crimes may be executed before they can be exonerated. The average time between sentencing and exoneration in false-conviction cases is slightly more than ten years. By contrast, the average time between sentencing and execution of death penalties is also approximately ten years.

The families of the falsely convicted also unjustly suffer when there are separations of husbands from wives, parents from children, and brothers from sisters, as well as possibly substantial losses in income and public shame. Moreover, family members typically exhaust all their available resources when attempting to correct their relatives’ false convictions. Other participants in the criminal justice process may also suffer. Often jury members, witnesses, police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges are distressed when they discover their actions have contributed to sending innocent persons to prison, or worse, to death row.

Dysfunctions in the Criminal Justice System

False convictions allow researchers opportunities to analyze system dysfunctions. Once victims of false conviction are identified, details of their cases can be examined from the moments when they enter the system until their convictions, in order to determine where the system has failed. For example, analysis of a false conviction case may reveal flawed procedures used by police in the handling of eyewitnesses. Evidence of police or prosecutorial overzealousness or corruption may be exposed. Errors by defense attorneys or forensic experts might be discovered. Knowledge of this kind can be used to improve the criminal justice process through implementation of better procedures and increased training, accountability, and funding. Ultimately, this information should lead to improvements in the criminal justice process that will reduce false convictions and advance the system of justice.

How frequently false convictions occur is unknown. The hidden nature of so many aspects of false convictions creates numerous challenges to researchers attempting to determine the true extent of the problem. In the past, criminal justice professionals tended to believe that false convictions only rarely occurred. Edwin Borchard’s 1932 book Convicting the Innocent was written in response to a local district attorney who had commented, “Innocent men are never convicted. . . . It’s a physical impossibility.” Even as late as the mid-1980s, some members of the criminal justice system were stating that false convictions never occurred. However, such notions have now been largely dispelled because hundreds of individuals have been proved to be victims of false convictions since 1989.

Many researchers believe that the cases revealed so far represent only the “tip of the iceberg.” Cases that have been discovered are sometimes the result of modern DNA testing, which is only available in a small percentage of criminal cases in which evidence such as hair, tissue, or body fluids is present. Also, the great majority of false convictions exposed since 1989 have involved only two types of cases: rape—in which DNA testing has unique detection power—and death-penalty cases—in which intense appellate court review is most likely to occur. It is probable that many false convictions involving other types of offenses such as theft, assault, or drug crimes would be uncovered if similar appellate efforts were expended or if powerful tools similar to DNA testing could be used. Of the cases included in the National Registry of Exonerations, only 17 percent were for crimes such as robbery and drug; however, many of the exonerations did not involve the use of DNA.

Why False Convictions Occur

Research has isolated many factors associated with false convictions. These factors generally fall into the categories of unintentional error or misconduct. Every major study of false convictions has concluded that unintentional eyewitness error is the primary factor associated with false convictions. Crime witnesses or victims are notoriously unable to provide precise accounts of what they see. Mistaken identification is particularly harmful to innocent defendants because judges and jurors tend to believe the veracity of eyewitnesses’ claims over those of accused defendants.

Another type of unintentional error associated with false convictions is the presentation of evidence by prosecution “expert” witnesses that is later found to be misleading or erroneous. Unintentional errors by criminal justice officials often occur because of heavy caseloads. Judges, in order to move cases and relieve heavy dockets, encourage plea bargaining instead of full fact-finding trials. Police and prosecutors, without the time and financial resources necessary to properly process cases, can take part in rushes to judgment that ultimately result in false convictions.

Poorly trained or underprepared defense attorneys also contribute to the incidence of false conviction. Competent counsel can uncover police practices responsible for misidentifications, coerced confessions, or false confessions, and faulty forensic science. Because falsely convicted individuals are usually indigent, even competent attorneys may not have the necessary financial resources or time to investigate and defend their clients’ claims of innocence properly. Young offenders and individuals with diminished mental capacity are especially vulnerable to system pressures.

Some of the more unsettling findings in cases of false convictions are incidents of intentional misconduct by police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. All members of the criminal justice profession are subject to biases, prejudices, and personal ambitions that may affect their judgment and decision making. Police, in order to bolster their cases, have been found to suppress exculpatory evidence or to make unduly suggestive comments to witnesses during pretrial identification procedures.

In some cases, police officers have been found to have planted evidence on innocent people in order to gain convictions. For example, between 1999 and 2000, the Rampart scandal in Los Angeles involved police officers who planted evidence or otherwise framed nearly one hundred suspects. In 2003, a dishonest undercover police officer from Tulia, Texas, was found to have framed thirty-nine innocent people during a drug-operation investigation.

False convictions involving prosecutorial misconduct most often entail the suppression of exculpatory evidence and knowingly using false testimony. When prosecutors have weak cases, they may also elicit testimony from so-called jailhouse snitches, who are willing to testify they overheard other inmates confess to crimes in return for reduced sentences. Several cases of false conviction have occurred because of the use of these snitches.

Although errors can be categorized as unintentional or intentional, the practice of listing cases by a single type of error can be misleading and can present an oversimplification of the dynamics of false conviction. In most cases of false conviction, multiple factors are simultaneously at work.

Bibliography

Christianson, Scott. Innocent: Inside Wrongful Conviction Cases. New York: New York UP, 2004. Print.

Connors, E., T. Lundregan, N. Miller, and T. McEwen. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial. Alexandria: Natl. Inst. of Justice, 1996. Print.

Gross, S., et al. Exonerations in the United States: 1989-2003. New York: Open Soc. Inst., 2004. Print.

Huff, C. R., A. Rattner, and E. Sagarin. Convicted but Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996. Print.

"Interactive Data Display." The National Registry of Exonerations, Newkirk Center for Science & Society at University of California Irvine / University of Michigan Law School / Michigan State University College of Law, 16 Jan. 2018, www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exonerations-in-the-United-States-Map.aspx. Accessed 26 June 2024.

Radelet, Michael L., Hugo A. Bedau, and Constance E. Putnam. In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases. Boston: Northeastern UP, 1992. Print.

"Researchers: More Than 2,000 False Convictions in Past 23 Years." NBC News. NBCNews.com, 21 May 2012. Web. 27 May 2016.

Scheck, Barry, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer. Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution, and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted. New York: Random House, 2000. Print.

"2023 Annual Report." National Registry of Exoneration, 18 Mar. 2024, www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/2023%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2024.