FALSE POSITIVES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS - AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF THE INNOCENT

During the past several years the issue of wrongful conviction has received increasing attention from state legislators, the legal system, and researchers. Much of this attention has focused on death penalty convictions which have been set aside. As of February, 2003, postconviction DNA testing in the United States had led to the exoneration of 123 wrongfully-convicted individuals. To date, it is unknown how frequently wrongful conviction occurs in the United States. Also unknown is how frequently systemic errors occur which previous research has identified as being associated with the phenomenon wrongful conviction. The present research sought to address this deficiency of knowledge by asking professionals who work in the criminal justice system their perceptions regarding these issues. A 53-item survey questionnaire was administered to four groups of Ohio criminal justice professionals: law enforcement (sheriffs and chiefs of police), prosecutors (chief and assistant), defense attorneys (private and public defenders), and judges (common pleas, appellate, and Supreme Court). The 798 respondents indicate they believe wrongful conviction occurs in 1 to 3 percent of all felony convictions. With more than 2,000,000 individuals incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and jails, this error rate would signify that between 20,000 and 60,000 individuals are incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. Significant differences were found in group perceptions. Prosecutors and police perceive the least error (1/2-1%), while defense attorneys perceive the most error (4-5%). Judges perceive the national error rate to be between 1 and 3 percent. When asked their perceptions regarding nine types of system error (police error, prosecutorial error, defense attorney error, judicial error, eyewitness error, forensic error, false confessions, false accusations, and community pressure), respondents, in general, indicate they believed these types of error occur “more than infrequently,” but less than “moderately frequent. ” Again, significant group differences were found. Prosecutors perceive the least system error, while defense attorneys perceive the most error. Police and judges’ perceptions generally moderated between the two extremes. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I thank God who has so richly blessed me through his Son Jesus Christ. Second, I would not have had the motivation and strength to finish the doctorial program without the help and support of many people. Foremost is my wife Sandy who, with her strength, was by my side from the beginning to the end. She encouraged and rooted for me throughout the process. She also suffered with me through the difficult times, and now rightfully shares with me the joy of this time of accomplishment and celebration. Thank you Sandy. I also thank my children, Joe, Tom, Heather, and Kathy, who were also a constant source of support; they know how much I love them. I especially love them because they gave me the gift of grandchildren: Tristan, Ashley, Brittany, Mason, and Steven. These grandchildren (and my “surrogate” granddaughter Katie) have inspired me and provided me with many moments of happiness when I needed a break from the daily problems of the world. I would also like to thank my sister-in-law/daughter Vicky for her support and encouragement. Her strength and determination was a constant inspiration to me as she pursued her own doctorate while working and raising her sons – and my nephews – Eric, Adam, and Kris. I would be remiss if I did not thank my daughter-in-law/daughter Marla for her encouragement, her cheerful spirit, and her loving care of my son and grandchildren. Academic accomplishments pale when compared to the accomplishments of a faithful and loving wife and mother. I also would like to thank my son-in-law Eric for caring for my daughter and giving me another grandson. Thanks also to my “church family” at Faith Baptist Church in Oxford, Ohio. The prayers and support of my pastor and the church members helped guide me through the difficult process of completing and defending my dissertation. I would also like to thank my mother and father who nurtured and protected me in the early years of my youth, and who provided me with encouragement and love throughout my life. Finally, I would like to thank the faculty and members of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati for their encouragement and assistance. I would especially like to thank my committee chair, Dr. James Frank, for his tireless mentorship as he worked with me through the seemingly endless revisions of my dissertation. He was always there to help me: day or night, weekday or weekend. Thank you also to Dr. Robert Langworthy who first said to me, “Have you ever considered applying for the doctorial program? ” Thanks also to Dr. Edward Latessa who gave me a chance to succeed in the graduate program (when others were doubting my ability to do so), and encouraged me with his easy-going nature which sometimes masks his significant skills and professionalism. Thank you also to Dr. Lawrence Travis who spent considerable time reading the various drafts of my dissertation and provided me with valuable criticism and direction – as he has done with so many other students at the university.