Wrongful Convictions Research Articles

KESALAHAN PENJATUHAN HUKUMAN DALAM PROSES PENEGAKAN HUKUM (STUDI KASUS CRAIG COLEY DAN IMPLIKASI BAGI SISTEM PERADILAN)

This study discusses the problem of wrongful conviction or errors in sentencing, especially in the context of the death penalty. These errors often occur due to various factors, such as forced interrogation, errors in forensic evidence analysis, and institutional bias. The method used in this study is normative legal research that focuses on the study of literature and primary legal materials, such as laws and regulations and related legal theories. The results of the study indicate that to minimize errors in sentencing, especially in cases of the death penalty, there needs to be reform in interrogation methods, standards of proof, and access to adequate legal aid. The use of modern forensic technology, such as DNA testing, and broader review of death penalty cases have also proven to be effective steps in reducing the risk of wrongful convictions.

Online communities as arenas of "amateur expertise": examples from the social media activity for justice for Roman Zadorov.

This study examines online communities as arenas where diverse forms of expertise converge to influence discourse and public opinion. Using the case of social media activism advocating for justice in the wrongful conviction of Roman Zadorov for the murder of Tair Rada, it highlights how these communities serve as platforms for "professional amateurs" and demonstrates their similarities and differences from participants in the formal legal arena. The study employs a netnographic approach to analyze seven years of social media activity across 15 Facebook groups comprising over 300,000 members. Data collection included participant observation, interviews with 25 group administrators, and thematic content analysis of posts and interactions. This methodological triangulation provides a comprehensive understanding of the discourse and dynamics within these activist communities. Six categories of experts were identified in the online discourse: 1. Court-admissible experts, including People directly connected to the case, people who are knowledgeable about the involved parties and the surrounding area, expert witnesses who are professionals testifying based on their field-specific expertise, and circumstantial witnesses who have experienced relevant events firsthand. 2. Non-court-admissible experts, including people with deep, self-taught expertise and people relying on nonrational sources, such as supernatural insights. The findings highlight the unique character of online activism as a dialogic space where conventional and unconventional forms of expertise coexist, contributing to public narratives around justice. The study offers a novel conceptualization of online communities as platforms for expert-driven discourse. It underscores the importance of "pro-am" expertise and symbolic capital in shaping public understanding of contentious issues. While focused on a specific legal case, the study provides broader insights into the dynamics of expertise in online activism, emphasizing the duality of court-admissible and non-court-admissible expertise. Future research should explore these dynamics across varied contexts to further understand the role of online communities in social discourse and activism.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: where we have come from, trends, and future directions.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) refers to a range of conditions caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol. First described in the 1970s as fetal alcohol syndrome, continuing progress has been made in the understanding, recognition and treatment of what is now recognized to be a range of related neurodevelopmental disorders. FASD is common, especially in countries with higher levels of alcohol consumption such as those in Europe and North America, where the prevalence is estimated to be around 3%. A number of diagnostic systems are in operation in different countries, and work is ongoing to develop an internationally agreed set of diagnostic criteria. People with FASD often have other developmental, mental and somatic conditions, and there appears to be a high rate of traumatic and other adverse experiences in this population. People with FASD are at increased risk of being involved in the criminal justice system, but they may be ill-equipped to successfully navigate it and are likely to provide false confessions, leading to wrongful convictions. Some interventions and treatments have been shown to be effective in improving functioning in children and families affected by FASD, which tend to take the form of coaching, education, advocacy and support. People with FASD have many strengths, which are often overlooked in research. They have been described as skilled musicians, artists and sportspeople with wide vocabularies who are resilient, compassionate, hard-working, and kind. Increasing attention is being paid to FASD but this is not enough. More research, diagnostic capacity, recognition, understanding, infrastructure and support are needed across the world.

Reforming Legal Decision-Making: A Study of Hindsight Bias on Judicial Impartiality

Legal decision-making is heavily influenced by cognitive processes like memory and judgment, which are vulnerable to biases such as false autobiographical memories, hindsight bias, and pretrial publicity. These flaws can lead to wrongful convictions, biased negligence assessments, and compromised impartiality, undermining legal fairness. This study examines these cognitive vulnerabilities, analyzing their mechanisms and proposing strategies to reduce their impact. A literature review of empirical research from 2018 to 2023 integrates findings from psychology, neuroscience, and law. The study highlights how these biases affect legal outcomes and suggests practical solutions like simplified judge instructions, structured interrogation protocols, and bias awareness training. The research uses Cognitive Load Theory, aiming to enhance the integrity of legal processes and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve the fairness and accuracy of legal decisions.

Examining Wrongful Convictions in Chile: An Analysis of Supreme Court Exonerations in 2007 to 2023

Drawing on data from the Supreme Court case registry between 2007 and 2023, this study examines 63 cases of wrongful convictions in Chile. It aims to contribute to the global understanding of the factors leading to wrongful convictions while underscoring the importance of contextual differences. Our analysis reveals traditional factors such as mistaken eyewitness identification and official misconduct, alongside Chile-specific issues. Notably, identity theft, exacerbated by weak procedural safeguards, emerges as a predominant factor. We argue that Chile’s restrictive post-conviction review process needs reform, as it currently only identifies cases involving gross errors, thereby overlooking many wrongful convictions that might be recognized in other jurisdictions

Presumption of innocence and ensuring proof of guilt in criminal proceedings

The presumption of innocence is an important bastion against miscarriages of justice and abuse of power. It guarantees that individuals will not be punished without solid and legally established evidence of their guilt. It also guarantees the impartiality of the judicial system, avoiding biased determination of the outcome of a trial. In practice, the presumption of innocence means that the prosecution has the burden of proof, the accused is not obliged to prove his or her innocence, and any doubts should be in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of our judicial system. It balances the need to punish offences with the need to protect individual rights. Case law has established a number of requirements to ensure that the presumption of innocence is not distorted. These include the need to have sufficient and substantiated incriminating evidence, as well as to respect the fundamental rights of the accused during criminal proceedings. The author analyses the national case law which defines the stages of criminal proceedings and the main provisions of the presumption of innocence and ensuring proof of guilt. The court of its own internal conviction, based on a comprehensive, full and impartial examination of all the circumstances of criminal proceedings, guided by law, evaluates each evidence in terms of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and the totality of the evidence collected in terms of sufficiency and interconnection, based on the provisions of the presumption of innocence and ensuring proof of guilt, in particular, by virtue of Art. 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 17 of the CPC of Ukraine, the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, according to which everyone charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.

AAFS (Victorian branch) Symposium: Science and Medicine in the Courts—Learning from the wrongful conviction of Kathleen Folbigg

ABSTRACT Kathleen Folbigg spent 20 years in jail, wrongly convicted for smothering her four infant children. An unprecedented second judicial Inquiry found they died naturally. New genetic and psychiatric evidence unlocked the wrongful conviction, but it was always questionable. A Symposium held by the AAFS (Victorian Branch) detailed the timeline of the numerous events, then identified and discussed the issues. What were the failings and why were they missed? What part did expert witnesses, judges and lawyers play in this wrongful conviction? Did the prosecution appeal to misogyny? How did the first Inquiry get it so wrong? How did it fail to correctly understand the genetics? Was Ms Folbigg treated disrespectfully, and if so, what did that mean about fact finding? How did the failures of disclosure affect the original conviction and its various appeals? What explains the NSW Court of Appeal’s decision to reject an appeal based on jury misbehaviour during Ms Folbigg’s trial? Should we be more careful about the language we use in criminal trials? There was general agreement that the frailties of Kathleen Folbigg’s convictions were readily visible from the beginning. Will the criminal justice system learn the lessons that emerge from this case?

The partial abolition of the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn in Seychelles and the admissibility of criminal convictions in civil trials: Analysing s. 29 of the Evidence Act

Section 29(1) of the Seychelles Evidence Act provides that a criminal conviction is admissible in civil proceedings as evidence that the person who was convicted committed the offence in question. Thus s. 29(1) partially reverses the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn. Section 29(2) of the same Act provides that ‘[i]n a trial, other than in a civil trial for defamation, in which by virtue of this section a person…is proved to have been convicted of an offence by or before a court in the Republic, he shall be taken to have committed that offence unless the contrary is proved.’ The Supreme Court held that s. 29 ‘imported’ s. 11 of the United Kingdom Civil Evidence Act (1968) ‘into our laws’. In this article, the author demonstrates how courts have interpreted s. 29. He also suggests ways in which s. 29 could be interpreted to deal with foreign convictions. He argues that notwithstanding s. 29, the Hollington Rule is still applicable to earlier civil findings. Thus the findings of a court in earlier civil proceedings are inadmissible in subsequent civil proceedings. In Esparon v Philo, the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Seychelles, interpreted s. 29(2) in a manner that creates room for the argument that a person who challenges the admissibility of his conviction in civil matters has to prove his/her innocence. It is argued, inter alia, that the Court's decision should not be interpreted as imposing this very high threshold. It is enough if he proves that the person's trial was a miscarriage of justice.

The contribution of facial recognition technology to wrongful arrests and trauma.

When a crime is captured on video, law enforcement agencies increasingly have used facial recognition technology (FRT) to generate suspects to investigate. However, there are increasing examples of people who have been wrongfully arrested based because of the inaccurate results returned from these artificial intelligence-assisted searches of facial databases, despite very low error rates in the accuracy of these systems. We discuss the reliability of the evidence provided by a match returned by FRT, propose a framework for identifying potential problems with the use of FRT in criminal investigations, and review the research on the general trauma that comes from justice system involvement, trauma that is compounded by wrongful arrest and conviction. We also provide an analysis of how database size affects the evidentiary value of the matches returned by FRT. Variables like facial database size, race of the culprit, and quality of the probe photo can increase the likelihood that FRT systems will return false positive matches. The use of FRT for developing suspects in criminal investigations is likely to exacerbate the already profound racial disparities in the outcomes produced by the criminal legal system and increase trauma experienced by those who are wrongfully arrested or convicted. We recommend extreme caution surrounding its use. In addition, we call for more research on the trauma associated with wrongful arrest, which is likely to occur with the current use of FRT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Warnings from the West: Identification and Expert Evidence as Causes of Wrongful Convictions and the Implications for South Africa (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this study, the existing literature on eyewitness misidentification evidence as a cause of wrongful convictions, as well as adversarial safeguards upon which criminal justice systems rely to identify errors in fact-finding, are reviewed. In Part 2, a similar investigation is conducted of improperly applied and faulty forensic expert evidence in criminal trials in the comparator countries, and how such evidence contributes to legal and root causes of injustice. Parallels are drawn to the adversarial system as it functions in South Africa and predictions are offered regarding the possibility that in South Africa too, the reliance on questionable expert evidence and the sometimes over-reliance on valid expert evidence may lead to wrongful convictions. Worldwide, much effort has been invested in developing admissibility criteria for expert forensic evidence. In the United States of America, for example, more than 100 years of admissibility jurisprudence has been dedicated to developing admissibility standards that would filter out unreliable evidence. Yet our investigation reveals admissibility criteria have had less success than expected. We also investigate the abilities and inabilities of cross-examination and acquired defence expertise to reveal errors in forensic evidence. The article concludes with critical commentary on the way forward for the South African criminal justice system.

Mistakes in Personal Identification Attempts

The following study is meant to present the most frequent mistakes (dangers) of identity parades (line-up, recognition) and their possible consequences, such as for instance the worst outcome: justizmord, (miscarriage of justice). The author analyses sources of criminal tactical and criminal technical major errors through real international and Hungarian homicide cases and suggests legislative changes “de lege ferenda” as well as preventive methods and tactics for law enforcers and criminalists as well.

Examining Wrongful Convictions Based on Fingerprint Evidence

Fingerprint evidence has long been seen as a cornerstone of forensic science, valued for its unique traits and reliability. However, some wrongful conviction cases reveal significant flaws in how fingerprint evidence is collected, interpreted, and relied upon, highlighting its limitations. This article reviews key cases like those of Brandon Mayfield, Stephen Cowans, and Shirley McKie, where mistaken interpretations led to serious injustices. Contributing factors to these erroneous convictions include unclear or incomplete prints, personal biases, laboratory errors, and systemic issues within fingerprint databases. Moreover, cognitive biases can influence analysts' judgments, especially in high-stress scenarios. To improve accuracy and ensure justice, the forensic field must refine evidence collection techniques, enhance examiner training, establish reliable databases, include independent witnesses in searches and seizures, record processes with video documentation from scene of crime to the forensic laboratory, and support fingerprint evidence with additional methods along with improved protocols, blind testing, and independent verification to mitigate risks and preserve the reliability of fingerprint evidence in the justice system. While fingerprints remain vital in forensic investigations, it’s crucial to reevaluate their use to prevent future wrongful convictions.

An ecological understanding of wrongful convictions in the U.S. criminal justice system

An ecological understanding of wrongful convictions in the U.S. criminal justice system

An end to finality? Options for overturning wrongful convictions

An end to finality? Options for overturning wrongful convictions

Lived experiences of bias in compensation and reintegration associated with false admissions of guilt.

Some exonerees receive compensation and aid after being exonerated of their wrongful convictions, and some do not. Looking beyond differences in state statutes, we examined possible reasons for biases in receiving compensation (via statutes or civil claims) and other reintegration services. More specifically, we examined how two unique types of false admission of guilt (i.e., false confessions and false guilty pleas) could be associated with biased outcomes in compensation procurement and reintegration outcomes. Although we did not have formal hypotheses for this qualitative study, based on the cumulative disadvantage framework (Scherr, Redlich, & Kassin, 2020), we anticipated that both types of false admission of guilt would negatively bias exonerees' experience post-exoneration. More specifically, we expected that exonerees whose cases involved at least one type of false admission of guilt would have a more difficult time obtaining compensation and would experience more negative post-exoneration outcomes, compared with exonerees in general. We conducted in-depth interviews with three samples: (a) exonerees (n = 19), (b) attorneys who had assisted exonerees with post-exoneration compensation claims (n = 15), and (c) innocence advocates who had worked with exonerees (n = 9). Across all samples, interviewees indicated that both forms of false admission of guilt are associated with biases that may influence exonerees' compensation and reintegration efforts. Specifically, interviews revealed that (a) false admissions are associated with disadvantages to exonerees' compensation and reintegration efforts, as predicted by the cumulative disadvantage framework; (b) under specific circumstances, false admissions are associated with advantages benefiting compensation attempts; and (c) false admissions can be nonapplicable (i.e., irrelevant) to reintegration efforts. Together, our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of the role false confessions and false guilty pleas may play post-exoneration. This understanding, derived from those individuals directly involved in the compensation and reintegration processes, is an important step in beginning to right the injustices experienced by those wrongfully convicted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Challenges to the Contemporary Death Penalty in the United States

This review focuses on empirical research about contemporary challenges to the death penalty in the United States. Challenges are factors that obstruct capital punishment, including legal or political restrictions; elimination at the federal or state level; or the hindrance of the process at its operational stages of charging, adjudicating, appeals, clemency, or executions. By the best-known measures, the death penalty has been in decline in the United States since the turn of the century. Lethal injection errors—“botches”—are arguably the most important current challenge to the institution. Wrongful capital conviction has made capital punishment less tolerable to the general public. Mitigation remains an important challenge to the death penalty. This review emphasizes botches, innocence, and mitigation but also touches on disparate impact, failure-to-deliver a social benefit, and cost. Along the way, this review proposes a framework for considering challenges as they occur on two continua of impact, a micro/meso/macro axis and a narrow/wide axis.

The problem of post-conviction review in Australia

Kathleen Folbigg’s recent acquittals for multiple homicides have rekindled the debate over the adequacy of post-conviction review in Australia. This article explores the constraints of the finality principle and the appellate system in Australia in addressing potential wrongful convictions, including the impact of managerialist policies. The authors discuss the limitations of an independent criminal case review commission model. They argue that the debate should be centred on the inadequacy of legal aid as a significant risk factor for wrongful convictions, the need for less restrictive appeal criteria, and developing consistent and transparent processes for the retention and retrieval of evidence.

Eyewitness Testimony – How Reliable is It?

This paper examines the intricacies associated with eyewitness testimony in legal settings, emphasizing its crucial role as evidence while also addressing its fundamental limitations. An eyewitness is described as an individual who witnesses an event firsthand, and their description can greatly influence the court's decisions. Nevertheless, factors such as stress, racial bias, focus on firearms, and memory lapses can compromise the accuracy of these accounts. The article analyses the legal framework established by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which pertains to the competency of witnesses and the reliability of their testimonies. An analysis of the prominent wrongful conviction case of Ronald Cotton, highlights the fallibility of human memory. Furthermore, a review of pertinent psychological studies indicates that eyewitness memory is reconstructive and susceptible to inaccuracies. The necessity for corroborative evidence, expert opinions, and enhanced identification processes is highlighted as a means to improve the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and reduce wrongful convictions, thereby upholding the integrity of the trial process. In summary, this study advocates for a thorough reassessment of eyewitness testimony within a wider legal context to ensure justice.

The Regulatory Offence Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Choice Architecture of Regulatory Offences

Courts, scholars, and lawyers tend to overlook one of the most salient features that differentiate crimes and regulatory offences: choice architecture. The concept of “choice architecture” refers to how the presentation of options shapes decision-making. This article argues that crimes and regulatory offences employ different forms of choice architecture in the criminal justice process. It advances three core arguments. First, in the charging and plea phase, regulatory prosecutions nudge defendants to plead guilty by default, while criminal prosecutions automatically enrol defendants into non-guilty pleas. Second, when assessing culpability (or moral fault), regulatory prosecutions incorporate inculpatory default rules that presume guilt and foster efficiency. In contrast, criminal prosecutions incorporate exculpatory default rules that presume innocence and aim to prevent wrongful convictions. Third, in the context of sentencing, impecunious defendants who are charged with a regulatory offence must often opt in to receive a proportionate sanction. Outside of mandatory minimum sentencing contexts, defendants who are charged with a crime enrol into a sentencing scheme that considers proportionality constraints by default. Ultimately, this article deepens our understanding of the different choice architecture that governs crimes and regulatory offences, and lays the foundation for future scholarship that explores the criminal justice system’s choice architecture more generally.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Human rights in criminal processing are crucial for ensuring justice and protecting individual freedoms within legal systems. This paper examines the integration of human rights standards throughout various stages of criminal processing, from arrest and investigation to trial and sentencing. It highlights key rights, such as the right to be free from torture and inhumane treatment, the right to legal representation, the right to be informed of charges, and the presumption of innocence. The influence of international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), on shaping national policies and practices is explored. Additionally, the paper addresses contemporary issues such as discrimination, wrongful convictions, and the impact of technological advancements on privacy rights. The study underscores the need for continuous reforms and robust oversight mechanisms to ensure that criminal processing aligns with human rights principles, ultimately fostering a fair and equitable justice system.