Whose Justice? Prosecution and Defense Reactions to Capital-Case Reversals

Abstract

As many as two-thirds of capital cases are reversed due to serious error, an aggregate rate critics interpret as evidence of a malfunctioning system and which others portray as a system correctly functioning to detect errors. This article investigates reactions of prosecutors and defense attorneys to reversals in individual cases. Theoretically, both sets of actors are officers of the court with a duty to promote justice and may be pleased to see courts upholding due-process standards of legal guilt. However, defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys have different commitments and incentives that likely affect their views of individual cases. From news articles reporting reversals in death penalty convictions and sentences between 1981 and 2005, we code reported reactions regarding the case outcomes and examine these reactions relative to case characteristics. We find a difference in the reactions of prosecutors and defense attorneys, which is better explained by a commitment to winning the case than by the theoretical role to see that justice is done. Notably, while the aggregate rate of reversals might be evidence the system is working, prosecutors rarely interpret an individual loss this way. Whether a sentence or conviction was overturned; whether this was done by a state or federal court; the reason for the reversal; and the length of time since the crime do not influence reactions.