Work of an Innocence Project: Forensic Science and Wrongful Conviction

• NCJ Number: 211808
• Journal: Forensic Magazine Volume: 21 Issue: 5 Dated: October/November 2005 Pages: 8-12
• Author(s): Michael F. Cromett J.D.; Susan M. Thurston-Myster Ph.D.
• Date Published: October 2005
• Length: 5 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article presents an overview of the history of "innocence projects," which aim to overturn wrongful convictions; identifies factors that contribute to wrongful convictions, with attention to forensic-science factors; and proposes systemic changes to limit the number of wrongful convictions.

Abstract

In the early 1990s, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld founded the first "Innocence Project" in conjunction with Cardozo Law School in New York. The project began reviewing cases and assisting inmates from across the country who claimed they were innocent. As of September 17, 2005, the project had contributed to the exoneration of 162 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death or long prison terms for crimes they did not commit. The project has identified the following factors that have contributed to wrongful convictions: mistaken eyewitness identifications, police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, poor defense attorney performance, false testimony by jailhouse snitches and informants, false confessions, and bad science. In the area of the forensic sciences, factors that have contributed to wrongful convictions are the misinterpretation of test results, statistical exaggeration, and the suppression of evidence and/or exculpatory results. One recommendation for addressing these forensic-science factors is to set standards for undergraduate and graduate forensic science education programs, including curriculum, faculty, graduation requirements, and mechanisms for evaluating existing and new programs. At the systemic level, Scheck et al. (2003:351-362) have offered several recommendations, including required laboratory accreditation, regulatory oversight of forensic laboratories by an independent panel, and the separation of forensic laboratories from police agencies. Other recommendations are the State-by-State formation of Innocence Commissions and Audit Oversight Committees. At the local level, it is recommended that a board of directors composed of representatives of all criminal justice professions examine factors in wrongful convictions and develop ways to counter them. 9 references