INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

National Summit On 

Wrongful Convictions:

Building a Systemic Approach to Prevent 

Wrongful Convictions
National Summit On 

Wrongful Convictions:

Building a Systemic Approach to Prevent 

Wrongful Convictions

Report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police/U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs Wrongful Convictions Summit

August 2013
This project was supported by Grant Number 2012-MU-MU-K070 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The 

Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims 

of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view 

or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products or services should not be considered 

an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 

the discussion of the issues.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites 

are in constant flux, neither the author(s) nor BJA can vouch for their current validity.
Contents

Letter from IACP/OJP v

Preface vii

Acknowledgements xi

Executive Summary xiii

Summit Introduction 1

Understanding the Challenges 5

Understanding How Wrongful Convictions Happen 5

Understanding the Specific Challenges for Law Enforcement 5

Overcoming the Challenges 9

The Evolution of the Justice Culture: Preventing Wrongful Arrests, Prosecutions, and Convictions 9

Communication 9

Assessment 9

The Wrongful Arrest Risk-Assessment Guide 10

Investigative Protocols 10

Training 11

Supervision 11

Post-Arrest, Post-Conviction Review 11

Focusing on the Law Enforcement Role: Rethinking the Investigative Process 13

Conducting the Investigation 13

Re-Examining Closed Cases 15

Final Recommendations of the Summit 17

Making Rightful Arrests: Avoiding Errors 17

Correcting Wrongful Arrests: Detecting and Correcting Errors 19

Leveraging Technology and Forensic Science: Maximizing Its Value 19

Re-Examining Closed Cases: Openness to New Information 20

Summit Recommendation Implementation Process 20

Systemic Impact of Summit Recommendations 21

Law Enforcement Action Agenda 23

Conclusion 25

Resources 29

Appendix A: Summit Advisory Group A-1

Appendix B: Summit Participants B-1

Appendix C: Project Staff C-1

Letter from IACP/OJP

Dear Colleague: 

Over the past several years, both the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the 

Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) have been addressing the issue of wrongful 

conviction from a number of critical perspectives. The issues IACP and OJP have addressed include 

investigative procedures, model policies and best practices, and the impact of a wrongful conviction on 

both the victim of the original crime and the individual wrongfully accused and convicted of that crime. 

Combining our resources in 2012, IACP and OJP hosted a national policy summit chaired by then IACP 

President Walter McNeil to create a comprehensive strategy to reduce wrongful arrest, prosecution, and 

conviction. 

As a result of that summit, it is with great pleasure that we provide you with a copy of the IACP/OJP National

Summit on Wrongful Convictions: Building a Systemic Approach to Prevent Wrongful Convictions. As criminal 

justice professionals, our greatest responsibility is the prevention and remedy of any miscarriage of justice. 

The steps we take each day to prevent the wrongful arrest, conviction, and incarceration of innocent 

individuals enable us to ensure the rights of the accused, justice for crime victims, accountability for the 

true offender, the honor of our professions, and public faith in the American legal system. 

In this spirit, the IACP and OJP collaborated to hold the National Summit on Wrongful Convictions in August 

2012. This event gathered 75 subject matter experts from all key disciplines to address and examine the 

causes of and solutions to wrongful convictions across the entire spectrum of the justice system. Summit 

participants worked diligently during this one-day intensive event to craft 30 focused policy 

recommendations that guide the way to our collective mission to continually improve the criminal justice 

system. 

The summit focused on four critical areas: (1) making rightful arrests, (2) correcting wrongful arrests, 

(3) leveraging technology and forensic science, and (4) re-examining closed cases. The 30 

resulting recommendations directly address these areas and lay a critical foundation for required 

changes in investigative protocols, policies, training, supervision, and assessment. 

We urge you to read this report carefully. We hope you will use the information and recommendations 

contained within to improve criminal justice policy and practice in your jurisdiction. We will continue to 

provide information, research, and support as you move forward with these recommendations. Preventing

and responding to wrongful convictions is a system-wide problem and it will take all of us working together 

across the entire justice continuum to solve it. 

Sincerely, 

Craig T. Steckler Karol V. Mason 

President Assistant Attorney General 

International Association of Chiefs of Police Office of Justice Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 
vi IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Preface

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice 

everywhere.”

- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from 

Birmingham Jail, 1963

Preface

The International Association of Chiefs 

of Police (IACP) gathered 75 subject 

matter experts to create a national 

strategy to prevent and reduce wrongful 

convictions. Before presenting the findings, 

it is important to put the work of the summit 

in the proper context. Wrongful conviction is 

not a new issue. It has been at the forefront 

of justice system policy concerns for over 

a decade. Individuals and organizations 

ranging from national justice and law 

enforcement leadership organizations to 

private sector groups like the Innocence 

Project have helped bring the issue to the 

forefront as a serious concern to the nation. 

The true number of wrongful convictions 

remains unknown. What we do know is that 

the number of documented exonerations 

reveals a significant justice issue. The 

National Registry of Exonerations reports 

1,135 exonerations of any kind from 1989 

to 2012. Looking at DNA exonerations 

alone (part of the Registry’s larger number), 

the Innocence Project reports 307 postconviction DNA exonerations since its data 

collection began in 1992.1 What we also 

know is that law enforcement officers, 

prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and 

1 Update: 2013, The National Registry of 

Exonerations, University of Michigan Law School 

and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at 

Northwestern University School of Law (April 3, 

2013). 

juries work tirelessly every day to ensure 

that the right person, the person who 

committed the crime, is the one who pays 

for that crime. Lastly, we know that with the 

vast majority of justice system professionals 

putting forth their best efforts, wrongful 

arrests, prosecutions, and convictions still 

occur. 

The premise of the IACP summit, a unique 

event where the law enforcement community 

took the lead on a national symposium on 

the topic of wrongful convictions, was that 

any wrongful conviction is one too many. 

The damage done to the defendant, the 

crime victim, investigators, prosecutors, 

defense attorneys, the entire justice system, 

and the community is massive. From a 

uniquely law enforcement perspective, the 

damage done to the trust bond between the 

police and their communities is significant. 

And the damage goes even further as the 

true criminal remains free to commit new 

crimes and create new victims. Looking 

beyond extremely violent felonies—often a 

focus of research in this area—how many 

lives are ruined when a young person is 

sentenced for robberies or burglaries they 

did not commit? 

The IACP began its work to examine and 

address wrongful convictions many years 

before the summit. That examination 

was led by several key IACP committees 

vii
with significant concern and investment 

in the issue: Professional Standards, 

Ethics and Image; Police Investigative 

Operations; Forensics Science; and 

Research Advisory Committee. Working 

together, these committees recognized 

that a wrongful conviction is simply the 

end result of a failed investigative process 

and the subsequent wrongful arrest and 

prosecution. Collaborative efforts among 

these committees began in 2009 when 

they collectively urged the IACP and its 

Department of Justice (DOJ) partners 

to provide significant support to law 

enforcement investigators to arm them 

with all of the tools they need to conduct 

rigorous criminal investigations and avoid 

wrongful arrest. 

Comprehensive, well-crafted policies 

and protocols are a key component of 

investigative best practices. To raise 

attention to this issue, in 2012, the IACP 

National Law Enforcement Policy Center 

released a compendium of model policies 

that could help mitigate wrongful arrest. The 

compendium highlights policies available 

to all law enforcement agencies through 

the Center that address core investigative 

issues including unbiased policing, 

eyewitness identification, forensic science, 

false confessions, and the disclosure of 

exculpatory evidence. 

Beyond the work of the IACP, the summit 

also benefitted from a significant body of 

research and policy work accomplished 

by DOJ, in particular the Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP), the academic research 

community, and investigative work of 

advocacy groups like the Innocence Project. 

The value of this prior research was the 

consensus of themes that emerged. Each 

effort reinforced the complexity of the 

issue; acknowledged the almost-always 

good intention of witnesses, victims, 

investigators, and the justice system; and, 

most importantly, identified a set of issues 

that if addressed through enlightened policy 

could significantly reduce future wrongful 

convictions. 

Given all that had preceded it, the summit 

was not an event to “discover” relevant 

issues around wrongful convictions. It 

was, in fact, a gathering of subject matter 

experts who had already dedicated years to 

understanding and addressing the issue. The 

summit was a seminal event in that it was 

the first national level wrongful conviction 

symposium led by law enforcement. Law 

enforcement officers put their lives on the 

line every day to keep their communities 

safe from any threat. On a daily basis, these 

officers make thousands of arrests based on 

quality investigations that lead to successful 

prosecutions and convictions of criminals. 

Law enforcement professionals have no 

tolerance for the arrest of the wrong person.

The Wrongful Conviction Summit was 

then IACP President Walter A. McNeil’s 

vision—to address an issue that affects the 

entire criminal justice system and each of 

the communities served by that system. 

Positioned at the front-end of the justice 

continuum, law enforcement identifies, 

interviews, arrests, and charges the 

defendants in almost all crimes. In many 

ways, the summit could have been titled 

“Wrongful Arrest and Prosecution,” but 

advisors felt that the highly recognizable 

term “wrongful conviction” made the most 

sense. However we refer to the problem, 

law enforcement can take a lead role in 

preventing and reducing wrongful conviction 

by eliminating the arrest of the wrong 

person. 

viii IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Preface

A Very Personal View of Wrongful Conviction: How One Victim’s Experience Helped Summit 

Participants Focus Their Work

Jennifer Thompson was a keynote speaker at the opening plenary session of the summit.

When Jennifer Thompson was a college student in Burlington, North Carolina, in 1984, everything in her life was 

going just the way she had hoped. She had a 4.0 GPA, she was dating a great guy, and she worked two jobs so 

that she could afford to live in her own apartment. 

“Life was perfect,” she told attendees during her keynote speech at the 2012 IACP Wrongful Convictions 

Summit. 

 But then she suffered one of the most horrific crimes imaginable: an intruder raped her at knifepoint. During 

the assault, the perpetrator threatened to kill her. At that moment, Thompson made two decisions: she was 

going to live and she was going to remember every detail about the assailant so that he would go to jail for what 

he did to her. 

And she thought she had.

Thompson worked with the local police department, a composite sketch was circulated, and she identified the 

man she thought attacked her—first in a photo array and then in a lineup. Police called her a “perfect witness.” 

A subsequent trial led to a conviction and life sentence for Ronald Cotton. 

Eleven years later, in 1995, the police contacted Thompson. She was asked to provide a DNA sample for further 

analysis in the case. Three months later, police returned to her house and told her the unthinkable: it was not 

Ronald Cotton who had raped her. Cotton was innocent, and another man, Bobby Poole, who was serving 

consecutive life sentences for a series of rapes, was the perpetrator. 

Cotton, then 33 years old, had spent the last 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. 

“One-third of his life was gone,” Thompson said. “He had become the victim, and I had become the offender.” 

 After Cotton was exonerated and released, the two met and shared their recollections of the events with one 

another. Remarkably, over the years, they have not only become close friends, but advocates working to prevent 

and overturn wrongful convictions. Together, along with Erin Torneo, they wrote a book about their experiences 

called Picking Cotton, published in 2009. 

Once called the perfect witness, Thompson is now focused on the need to reform eyewitness identification 

procedures.

The IACP is indebted to Ms. Thompson. While significant progress on preventing and correcting wrongful 

conviction has occurred in the almost three decades since her case began, her opening comments motivated 

all summit participants to take a very careful and thoughtful look at all aspects of wrongful arrest, prosecution, 

and conviction. The results of the summit presented in this report in many ways reflect the desire of all those 

present to turn Ms. Thompson’s experience into innovative policies to further reduce the occurrence of 

wrongful convictions across the United States in the future. 

ix
x IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

The IACP is immensely grateful to a 

number of individuals who contributed 

their time and talent to summit 

planning and execution. Their efforts were 

instrumental in creating a successful summit 

and this report, containing discussion points 

of critical issues and 30 recommendations 

to prevent and correct wrongful arrests, 

prosecutions, and convictions. In particular, 

we thank: 

Then IACP President Walter A. McNeil for his 

vision, leadership, and for making it a priority 

to address wrongful arrests, prosecutions, 

and convictions on a national level, in his 

presidential agenda, and during his tenure 

as President.

To ensure that this major initiative had 

IACP Board of Officer oversight at all times, 

then President McNeil appointed David 

Walchak, the 2012 IACP Parliamentarian, to 

serve as the Chair of the Summit Advisory 

Committee. His constant and insightful 

counsel to IACP staff as the summit process 

unfolded was essential to its success. 

Several IACP committees led the way starting 

over a decade ago with a call to address 

wrongful convictions aggressively from a law 

enforcement leadership perspective, and 

more recently, helping guide the design and 

content of the summit itself. We thank the 

chairs and all members of the following IACP 

committees: 

h Police Professional Standards, Image 

and Ethics Committee, chaired by Ron 

McBride, Chief of Police (retired);

h Police Investigative Operations 

Committee, chaired by Pete Modafferi, 

Chief of Detectives, Rockland County 

(NY) District Attorney’s Office; 

h Forensic Science Committee, co-chaired 

by Stephanie Stoiloff, Senior Bureau 

Commander, Miami-Dade (FL) Police 

Department and Ron Miller, Chief 

of Police, City of Topeka (KS) Police 

Department; and

h Research Advisory Committee, cochaired by Professor Laurie Robinson, 

George Mason University, and 

Commissioner Ed Davis, Boston (MA) 

Police Department, and continuously 

supported by former Co-Chair Dr. 

Charles Wellford, University of 

Maryland.

We are grateful to OJP for their strong 

support of the summit. Acting Assistant 

Attorney General Mary Lou Leary welcomed 

participants with opening comments and 

relayed the commitment of OJP in making 

these issues a priority.

xi
We thank Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA) Director Denise E. O’Donnell for her 

leadership and commitment to addressing 

wrongful arrests, prosecutions, and 

convictions, along with several key BJA 

staff including Associate Deputy Director 

Pam Cammarata, Deputy Director for Policy 

Kristen Mahoney, Senior Policy Advisor Kim 

Ball, Division Chief Naydine Fulton-Jones, 

and State Policy Advisor Kerri Vitalo-Logan. 

We especially thank BJA Policy Advisor Kate 

McNamee who worked closely with IACP 

staff at every step of the way providing 

excellent advice. BJA also provided essential 

funding support for the summit event. 

We also thank our other DOJ partners 

who lent both financial and policy support 

throughout the summit, in particular the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ). We are 

grateful to former NIJ Director John Laub, 

NIJ Deputy Director Kris Rose, and Division 

Director Angela Moore. We particularly 

thank Social Science Analyst Eric Martin for 

his advice and guidance throughout the 

summit process. 

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) also 

lent their expert advice on all aspects 

of victimization as it relates to wrongful 

conviction. We thank Acting OVC Director 

Joye Frost and her staff for that important 

advice and guidance. 

The summit succeeded in great part due 

to the expert advice of our Advisory Group 

(listed in Appendix A). These advisors lent 

their time and talent to thinking through 

summit concept, goals and objectives, 

design, and desired outcomes. Their hard 

work is reflected in the success of the event 

itself and the content of this final report. 

Most importantly, we thank each of the 

more than 75 summit participants (listed 

in Appendix B) for coming to the summit 

ready to serve and for bringing with them 

an open mind, vast field expertise, and 

a determination to work collectively to 

develop the recommendations found in this 

report.

Our gratitude extends to the experienced 

panelists who presented at the summit, 

each of whom has been fully invested in this 

topic for many years.

xii IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Everyone wants to see the right person 

brought to justice, and no one wants to be 

a part of a failed effort that sends the wrong 

person to prison. Still, even with the best of 

intentions, wrongful arrests, prosecutions, 

and convictions can and do occur. They 

have a profoundly damaging impact on 

everyone, from the innocent person 

convicted, to the victims, communities 

at large, law enforcement, prosecutors, 

defense attorneys, judges, and juries. The 

only person immune to this damage is the 

actual offender who remains unaccountable 

and at large, free to commit new crimes and 

create new victims. 

Research tells us that a myriad of missteps 

and inaccuracies lead to wrongful arrest, 

prosecution, and conviction, not just one 

person or one action. The IACP Wrongful 

Convictions Summit brought together 

practitioners and experts from around the 

country and challenged them to create a 

blueprint to reduce wrongful convictions in 

the United States. 

The IACP convened the Wrongful Convictions 

Summit in Alexandria, Virginia, in August 

2012 with the support of OJP, and with 

funding support from both BJA and NIJ. The 

goal of the summit was to examine the issues 

surrounding wrongful arrests, prosecutions, 

and convictions and, most importantly, 

develop a set of recommendations that 

law enforcement leaders and their justice 

system colleagues can both implement and 

evaluate.

Over 75 subject matter experts from law 

enforcement, the justice system, and the 

community participated in the summit. After 

brief opening remarks and a plenary panel 

on the issue, participants were divided into 

four working groups: making rightful arrests; 

correcting wrongful arrests; technology and 

forensic issues; and re-examining closed 

cases. Each working group was charged with 

developing a set of policy recommendations 

to address these four core issue areas. As a 

result, 30 recommendations are set forth in 

this report as well as an expanded discussion 

surrounding several overarching issues. 

One critical theme at the summit was the 

need for all justice system agencies to be 

open to new information—at any point in 

the investigation, arrest, prosecution, trial, 

and subsequent appeal of a suspect. Any 

time new information comes forward that 

could indicate the need for redirection, 

justice system officials across the continuum 

must welcome and carefully examine that 

information. A culture of openness to new 

information from reliable sources was seen 

as a key to addressing and reducing wrongful 

convictions. 

xiii
While agreeing that wrongful conviction is a 

complex issue requiring a broad set of crosssystem recommendations, participants 

quickly focused on the front-end leadership 

role of law enforcement. They called for a 

fresh look at law enforcement investigative 

processes, policies, and culture. Pointing out 

the critical role of the police in preventing 

a wrongful arrest, they saw a need to 

change the investigative climate to one 

that welcomes greater assessment and 

oversight; is receptive to new information 

regardless of its “fit” with current case 

information; ensures that proper protocols 

and best practices are in place and utilized; 

fosters more frequent and improved 

training for investigators; and promotes 

a collective ownership approach to cases 

versus the current narrow model where 

one or two investigators may have complete 

responsibility for review, analysis, and case 

direction. 

Leveraging existing and emerging technology 

was another principal summit theme. 

Participants urged that investigative teams 

should have access to the best technology 

available, from advanced forensic science 

applications to handheld electronics 

that capture voice and video data. These 

technologies are clearly the future of 

investigative excellence. While they strongly 

supported advanced technologies as tools 

in the investigator’s toolkit, participants 

cautioned that, as with all evidence, 

technological evidence must be assessed 

in the context of the investigation that is 

developed through in-person investigative 

field work.

In the end, the 30 recommendations put 

forward by summit participants take a 

systemic view of the problem and focus 

on policy areas across the justice system 

where improvement is most likely to 

yield measureable benefit. As noted, they 

consistently cast law enforcement in a 

critical leadership role, setting best practice 

investigative approaches that can influence 

improvement across the justice system. 

xiv IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Summit Introduction

Summit Introduction

J

ennifer Thompson’s story, summarized 

in the Preface of this report, illustrates 

why the IACP Wrongful Convictions 

Summit was necessary: wrongful arrests, 

prosecutions, and convictions hurt 

everyone—from the victim, to the falsely 

accused, to law enforcement, prosecutors, 

and defense attorneys working on a case. 

Moreover, it harms the community, where 

the real perpetrator might be committing 

more crimes, as well as creating new victims.

The summit addressed the topic of wrongful 

arrests, prosecutions, and convictions by 

identifying central issues and bringing 

together a group of diverse and respected 

experts and stakeholders to discuss how 

wrongful convictions can be prevented 

and corrected. The overarching goal was 

to develop policy recommendations that 

could be applicable in jurisdictions across 

the country. More than 75 attendees from 

around the country attended the summit 

in Alexandria, Virginia, on August 22, 2012. 

Participants included police investigators, 

law enforcement leaders from small 

rural and large urban departments, local 

and federal law enforcement and justice 

agencies, crime lab technicians, prosecutors, 

judges, victim advocates, researchers, 

wrongful convictions experts, and faithbased leaders. 

The morning plenary session set the stage 

for the summit, first with a mandate by 

then IACP President, Chief Walter A. McNeil, 

who declared that “wrongful convictions go 

against the fundamental freedoms we value 

as Americans.” He challenged participants to 

work together to come up with a national 

strategy that would reduce the number 

of wrongful arrests, prosecutions, and 

convictions nationwide. He also challenged 

them to craft a significant leadership role 

for law enforcement, given its critical role in 

front-end investigative and arrest decisions.

OJP Acting Attorney General Mary Lou Leary 

asked attendees to put themselves in the 

shoes of someone wrongfully convicted—

emphasizing how deeply disturbing that 

experience is and how challenging the 

path is for someone to overturn a wrongful 

conviction against them—as well as the 

damage to victims of crimes, for whom it is 

critical that investigations and prosecutions 

pursue the person that committed the 

crime.

BJA Director Denise O’Donnell then 

moderated a panel of experts who began 

the summit dialogue by discussing their 

experience with wrongful convictions. 

Panelists included:

h Ilse Knecht, Deputy Director of Public 

Policy for the National Center for 

Victims of Crime;

1
h Mike Corley, Chief of Police for the 

Brownwood (TX) Police Department;

h Kristine Hamann, Executive Assistant 

District Attorney in New York City;

h Russell Canan, Judge in the Criminal 

Division of the Washington, DC, 

Superior Court; and

h Barry Scheck, Professor of Law, 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, 

Yeshiva University, and co-founder and 

co-director of the Innocence Project.

Panelists raised a significant number of 

issues in almost all areas of the justice 

system worthy of further discussion and 

work at the summit: 

How police interact with victims: 

h The impact of wrongful convictions on 

survivors of crime;

h Methods for professionals interacting 

with victims that can lessen the trauma 

they may experience during the postconviction and exoneration process;

h The “old” method of photo lineups 

versus contemporary methods; and

h The responsibility of police leaders 

in choosing eyewitness identification 

methods.

How police investigate major crimes: 

h Law enforcement’s responsibility in 

developing improved investigative 

techniques; 

h Leveraging available technology, for 

example, forensic science, crime scene 

video, and audio/video interview 

recording; 

h Balancing the mission of protecting 

public safety with the rights of the 

accused;

h Evaluating law enforcement 

investigative practices based on 

emerging research and promising 

practices versus relying on policies 

created decades ago; and

h Focusing on the factors that are the 

primary causes of wrongful convictions: 

misidentification, false confessions, 

or other admissions of guilt; jailhouse 

informants; and, invalidated or 

improper science.

How to present new ideas and changes to 

the law enforcement and justice community: 

h How enhanced, front-end police 

practices can greatly reduce the 

prevalence of wrongful conviction; and

h The need for education and training 

for law enforcement staff so that they 

grasp the value of changes in policies 

and practices versus simply being told 

to change.

How scientific research helps prevent 

wrongful conviction: 

h Preventing wrongful conviction means 

addressing human factors such as 

cognitive bias and, decision, skill, and 

perception-based mistakes; and

h The need to support a research agenda 

that allows police, prosecutors, judges, 

post-conviction lawyers, and others to 

examine near misses (cases where a 

person is arrested and charged, or even 

prosecuted, but not convicted)2

How the courts can play a critical role in 

preventing wrongful conviction: 

2  Gould, J. (no date). Preventing Wrongful 

Convictions Project. National Institute of Justice 

and American University, http://www.american.

edu/spa/djls/prevent/index.cfm Retrieved March 

26, 2013.

2 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Summit Introduction

h Identify how we can use existing 

resources to readily identify the real 

perpetrator, even post-conviction;

h Role of the court in leading innocence 

type commissions; 

h Role of the judge in the courtroom 

is to make sure reliable evidence is 

introduced; and

h Enforcement of the Innocence 

Protection Act.3

At the conclusion of the panel, the real 

work of the summit—policy development—

began. Each of the summit attendees were 

assigned to one of four working groups 

focused on a key policy area. Participants 

shared ideas and debated the efficacy 

of different approaches to solve existing 

problems in the four policy areas. The 

diversity of summit participants spoke to 

the goal of leveraging all involved parties—

from the advocates to patrol officers—to 

rethink the issue from the front-end law 

enforcement perspective. 

Topics addressed:

h Making Rightful Arrests: Avoiding Errors

h Correcting Wrongful Arrests: Detecting 

and Correcting Errors

h Leveraging Technology and Forensic 

Science: Maximizing Its Value

h Re-Examining Closed Cases: Openness 

to New Information

3 Justice For All Act of 2004. The Innocence 

Project. (no date) www.innocenceproject.org 

Retrieved March 26, 2013.

This final summit report highlights the summit 

discussions and final 30 recommendations 

by reconfiguring all summit discussion into a 

set of more global topics: (1) understanding 

the challenges that law enforcement and 

the justice system face; (2) recognizing the 

solutions necessary to decrease wrongful 

arrests, prosecutions, and convictions; 

(3) the specific nature of how all of this 

impacts law enforcement; (4) working group 

recommendations; and (5) an action agenda 

for additional implementation. 

3
4 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Understanding the Challenges

Understanding the Challenges

Understanding How Wrongful 

Convictions Happen

How do wrongful convictions happen? The 

answer is a complex one—law enforcement, 

prosecutors, and witnesses can make 

missteps, and identifying these challenges 

and opportunities for error is critical to 

arriving at remedies.

Most wrongful arrests, prosecutions, and 

convictions are the result of multiple factors 

working together to create dysfunction. 

According to the Innocence Project,4 in cases 

where DNA exonerated the convicted party, 

wrongful convictions could be attributed to 

one or more of the following: 

h Eyewitness misidentification

h Problems with forensic science such as 

inaccuracies and unreliable measures

h False confessions

h Inaccurate informant testimony

It is worth repeating that eyewitnesses 

misidentified the suspects in a high 

percentage of the exonerations studied. 

4  How wrongful convictions happen—and how 

we can prevent them. The Innocence Project. 

(no date) www.innocenceproject.org Retrieved 

February 12, 2013.

Wrongful identification clearly can serve as 

the first step along a continuum of actions 

leading to wrongful arrest, prosecution, 

and conviction. A wrongful identification 

often leads to the pursuance of a perceived 

offender, less consideration given to other 

possible offenders, and opens the door 

for a myriad of missteps to be made. This 

over-reliance on eyewitness identification, 

particularly as the single reason for charging 

and arrest, is problematic. Even after an 

identification is made, the investigation 

should continue to make sure that the actual 

offender has been identified. 

Understanding the Specific 

Challenges for Law Enforcement

Investigative Environment

Due to the inherent pressure on the 

justice system to quickly identify, arrest, 

prosecute, and convict violent offenders, 

the investigative environment in which 

both law enforcement and prosecutors 

work is not always conducive to healthy 

skepticism of evidence or the direction of an 

investigation. This pressurized environment 

can make cases more vulnerable to wrongful 

conviction.

Particularly in high-profile cases, the criminal 

investigation process is under continuous 

5
scrutiny from victims, the media, and 

governing body officials. In this environment 

law enforcement investigators still need to 

be thorough and self-critical in each step 

of the investigative process. Hurrying that 

process, may reduce careful evaluation 

of each element of the case, allowing 

for premature acceptance of inaccurate 

information as fact. To prevent or correct 

wrongful convictions, law enforcement and 

prosecutors must be cautious and assess 

without emotion, the evidence that points 

to – or away from – a particular individual. 

Summit participants urged that, in particular, 

law enforcement investigators make every 

effort to catch errors before or while 

going down a particular investigative path. 

Participants then moved on to a discussion 

of the challenges that law enforcement 

professionals face as they attempt to achieve 

these best practices.

Training

Training law enforcement personnel on best 

practices in preventing wrongful arrest, 

prosecution, and conviction will ensure 

that the field makes significant strides in 

reducing wrongful arrests and increasing 

rightful ones. However, this approach is 

more burdensome for some departments 

than others, specifically agencies that do not 

have the resources (opportunities, funding, 

etc.) to provide training to their staff. Other 

agencies may not have the staffing to allow 

employees to attend training sessions critical 

for their jobs. This limitation stymies the 

potential of law enforcement agencies and 

the effectiveness of the investigations they 

conduct. Regions and states must do more 

to share resources, include others in training 

offerings, and “lend a hand” to neighboring 

agencies. 

Funding and Resources

Thorough investigations, critical for 

eliminating wrongful arrests and convictions, 

are expensive. Many jurisdictions do not 

have the appropriate budget for the number 

of officers or detectives needed for each 

case, or the most advanced equipment 

and technology needed for investigations. 

For example, some jurisdictions may not 

have funds for video cameras—either for 

first responders to use at crime scenes 

or to record interviews and witness 

statements. While uniform standards in 

addressing wrongful convictions would be 

a welcomed step, consideration must be 

given to the agencies that may not have the 

necessary resources to implement these 

recommendations. Sharing resources with 

neighboring jurisdictions or establishing 

a statewide fund to create funding equity 

among jurisdictions can be implemented to 

provide a foundational platform for reform 

in this area.

Organizational Culture

Law enforcement personnel and prosecutors 

start out with the best of intentions: to 

arrest, and later prosecute, the actual 

perpetrator of a crime. However, aggressive 

stances, governing body or media pressure, 

and egos are often in play. No one wants to 

be wrong, and everyone wants to be right—

which leads to two great challenges:

1. In some instances, when law enforcement 

investigators have identified a particular 

suspect, they can lose their objectivity 

even when faced with contradictory 

evidence. This is referred to as “tunnel 

vision.” This phenomenon means that 

investigators may not listen as carefully 

to new witnesses, seek out information 

on other possible suspects, or be 

skeptical of apparent shortcomings in 

the evidence that they have developed. 

Investigators and their supervisors must 

continue to keep an open mind and 

pursue all relevant leads, even if they 

believe they have the correct suspect. 

2. Most law enforcement officers have 

a reasonable sense of ownership 

about a case they are investigating. 

6 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Understanding the Challenges

Unfortunately, in some cases too 

strong a sense of ownership may 

prevent them from seeking input 

from colleagues and supervisors and 

stops them from being open to new 

information. Excessive control of an 

investigation by an individual officer 

or group of officers may make it too 

difficult for others to question them – 

or worse – enforce the unspoken rule 

that colleagues, supervisors, and chiefs 

should not interfere. Supervisors and 

executives must strive to make sure that 

all investigations are properly discussed 

and reviewed. 

These two cultural challenges create a 

climate that is ripe for errors to occur and 

for a wrongful conviction to take place—

not to mention foster a “less than best” 

policing and investigative environment. 

Summit participants urged that changes in 

the investigative process and culture must 

be made to prevent and correct future 

wrongful convictions. 

7
8 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Overcoming the Challenges

Overcoming the Challenges

The Evolution of the Justice 

Culture: Preventing Wrongful 

Arrests, Prosecutions, and 

Convictions

Focusing on rightful arrests rather than 

quickly resolving a case under pressurized 

conditions is preferred by all. In order to 

ensure a rightful arrest, summit participants 

identified and discussed in detail the 

key features of a climate that fosters 

better investigations and fewer wrongful 

convictions: greater communication, 

increased and improved assessment, 

stronger investigative protocols, frequent 

and improved training for law enforcement 

and prosecutors, greater supervision, and 

improved case review prior to final arrest/

prosecution decisions. 

Communication

One key to resolving wrongful arrest, 

prosecution, and conviction is increasing 

and improving communication among all 

justice parties, including victims and victims’ 

advocates, the community at large, law 

enforcement officers and investigators, 

prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. 

Building better working relationships, 

centered on mutual respect and trust, within 

the system and with the community will 

promote more successful cooperation and 

collaboration in the future. It is imperative 

to ensure that communication models foster 

honest critique, dialogue, and productive 

discussion to prevent missteps. 

Assessment

Law enforcement officers and prosecutors 

need to support a best-practices process 

whereby questioning the original direction of 

a case is not only accepted but is welcomed 

as a proper investigative protocol. A culture 

shift needs to occur so that investigators 

are open to case assessment and review 

by supervisors and the use of what summit 

participants envisioned as “wrongful arrest 

Practices that focus on the front-end of the 

justice system—including investigation, 

arrest, and prosecution—offer the most 

promising opportunities and strategies to 

prevent and correct wrongful convictions.

Collective ownership of investigations and 

their outcomes should be encouraged from 

top to bottom for both law enforcement and 

prosecution teams.

9
risk-assessment tools” to prevent flawed 

arrest decisions. Critique and dialogue 

between peers and supervisors should 

become a staple in solid investigations. 

Intelligent dialogue, including admitting to 

uncertainty and/or mistakes, needs to be an 

expected part of any good investigation. 

The Wrongful Arrest RiskAssessment Guide

An innovative approach discussed at the 

summit to reducing wrongful arrest was the 

development of a “Wrongful Arrest RiskAssessment Guide.” The guide would serve 

as just that—a guide to help an investigative 

team identify any “red flags” that might lead 

them to believe they have the wrong suspect 

in custody. Features of this risk-assessment 

tool would include leveraging knowledge 

from prior research: Does the case revolve 

around a single eyewitness identification? Is 

critical information coming from a jailhouse 

informant? How confident does the team 

feel about the confession statement? Was 

the forensic evidence properly collected and 

is the forensic analysis reliable? Is there 

corroboration from other evidence? These 

questions should ideally be resolved before 

an arrest is made, but with the help of the 

risk assessment guide they can be revisited 

at any time prior to moving the case to the 

prosecutor.

Use of the wrongful arrest risk-assessment 

guide alerts these professionals to red flags 

that may indicate the suspect (before or 

after the arrest is made) may not be the 

offender, and the actual perpetrator may still 

be on the streets. With this information, the 

investigative team focuses on apprehending 

the correct suspect in the first instance, thus 

preventing a wrongful arrest or conviction 

that may only be discovered years later. 

Summit participants emphasized that law 

enforcement investigators taking corrective 

action based on a risk-assessment model 

should become an accepted practice across 

the country. It positions the investigative 

team strongly in a leadership role; avoids 

further damage to the department, the 

victim, and the wrongly accused; focuses 

departmental resources on finding the true 

offender; and most importantly, identifies 

the problem (wrongful arrest or potential 

wrongful arrest) before it moves beyond 

arrest to prosecution and conviction. 

Summit participants spent a good deal 

of time discussing the accuracy and 

thoroughness of investigations and how 

these values can be incentivized rather 

than a “fast turnaround” outcome (i.e., 

arrest), which may be based on erroneous 

information or flawed investigative practices. 

Participants identified several policy areas 

where improved, promising practices can 

make a significant difference: 

Investigative Protocols

Strong investigative protocols (including 

checklists) lead to better policing and 

Risk-assessment and reduction tools 

(checklists, for example) are utilized in many 

other professions. Many law enforcement 

agencies already employ the use of checklists 

in their investigative protocols. Evaluating, 

refining, and updating these investigative 

tools are an investment in the integrity of the 

investigating agency and its staff.

The goal of any credible criminal investigation 

is not to arrest someone, but to ensure that 

the right person has been charged, prosecuted, 

and convicted and is held accountable for their 

crime(s). 

10 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
O

vercomingthe Challenges

investigations. Protocols can help ensure 

investigative bias is prevented or overcome 

while conducting an investigation. They 

assist and prevent officers and investigators 

from overload and “auto-pilot” behaviors. 

These tools foster greater accountability, 

support for investigators, and assurance 

that consistent standards have been applied 

to each case. Ideally, protocols would be 

developed within a jurisdiction or would 

encompass multiple jurisdictions, to ensure 

that the same standards are being upheld, 

further reinforcing best practices. This may 

alleviate some of the resource burden of 

individual agencies as well. 

Training

Better training ensures that promising 

practices and protocols are actually 

implemented. The following training 

concepts can more effectively support our 

collective efforts to prevent and correct 

wrongful arrests, prosecutions, and 

convictions: h Training for investigators on how to best 

interview suspects and eyewitnesses;

h Training on how and when to record 

interviews;

h Training that would encourage (and 

culture that rewards) law enforcement 

investigators, supervisors, and leaders 

to question an investigation to ensure it 

is not going in the wrong direction;

h Training for investigators and 

prosecutors in victim notification and 

information management of a case 

being re-evaluated;

h Training for prosecutors so that they 

can identify possible wrongful arrests 

and prosecutions before they proceed 

further into the justice system;

h Training for forensic analysts; and h Training for defense attorneys on ways 

they can identify red flags in a case and 

bring them to the attention of police 

and prosecutors again before the case 

proceeds further toward a wrongful 

conviction.

Furthermore, when an agency creates a new 

protocol or modifies an existing one, training 

is always necessary to ensure everyone 

understands the additions or changes and 

can adhere to them appropriately. Therefore, 

each recommendation that calls for protocol 

review, creation, and/or revision, should 

recognize the need for additional training. 

Supervision

Supervision of investigations needs to be 

present and consistent at every step in 

the process. Supervisors must probe the 

investigator about possible inconsistent 

evidence and encourage additional 

investigation. Supervisors must have the 

resources and time needed to conduct 

risk-assessment evaluations of cases. 

Without assessment tools or checklists and 

experienced supervisors’ input, it can be 

almost impossible to recognize red flags 

when they arise in a case. In the same vein, 

necessary resources to flag and re-evaluate 

a possible wrongful arrest must be available 

to these supervisors. These resources will 

help supervisors lead substantive, insightful 

discussions among the investigative 

team, and allow for significant progress in 

reducing wrongful arrests and subsequent 

prosecutions and convictions.

Post-Arrest, Post-Conviction 

Review

Reopening and reviewing old cases 

where convictions were obtained but 

new challenges to those convictions are 

brought forward is a daunting task for any 

agency—small, midsize, or large. Even for 

11
larger organizations, where the need to 

concentrate human capital on a high number 

of new cases, it can be extremely difficult to 

find the resources to devote to closed cases. 

However, these challenges cannot become 

excuses for allowing potentially wrongful 

convicted persons to remain unjustly 

incarcerated. 

In evaluating wrongful arrests and 

convictions, some officers may have 

concerns about questioning a victim to 

determine if they may have made an 

inaccurate identification, and how they 

should deal with the feelings of anger, guilt, 

or uncertainty that the victim may have 

about the process. A victim-focused support 

system must be in place to ensure that 

when case re-evaluations happen, victims 

understand why a case might be reopened—

and they understand the motivations and 

reasoning for correcting a wrongful arrest, 

prosecution, and conviction. Partnerships 

among law enforcement, victims’ advocacy 

groups, and other support organizations are 

encouraged to ensure the victim’s needs are 

met. The reality of preparing a witness for a 

new trial and victims recognizing that their 

testimony could now be determined to be 

inaccurate is without doubt traumatizing. 

Again, these circumstances cannot stand in 

the way of a re-examination of a case where 

legitimate concerns of wrongful conviction 

are present. 

Similarly, the wrongfully convicted need and 

deserve significant support when learning 

that their case is being re-evaluated and 

may be overturned because they may be reentering society completely exonerated of 

the crime.

In summary, law enforcement agencies can 

serve as models when they transition to 

a culture that emphasizes and welcomes 

intelligent dialogue, critique, and selfassessment while investing in their mission 

through training, carefully considered 

protocols, and review processes. Doing so 

will foster the absolute best practices in 

policing and highlight law enforcement’s 

commitment to protecting the welfare of all 

whom they serve. 

The rights of those arrested must be 

safeguarded at all times, and that attitude 

and action must be passed through all ranks 

from the top to the bottom.

12 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Focusing on the Law Enforcement Role: Rethinking the Investigative Process

Focusing on the Law 

Enforcement Role: Rethinking 

the Investigative Process

Conducting the Investigation

Improving investigations will go a long way 

to preventing wrongful convictions and will 

serve to bring the real offender to justice in a 

timely manner. Fair, neutral, and enhanced 

procedures will make investigations more 

reliable and just. In addition, seriously 

flawed investigations may expose law 

enforcement to civil lawsuits—actions 

that are preventable if investigations are 

improved. 

Summit participants had various suggestions 

about how to improve the investigative 

process. 

Eyewitness Identifications

Eyewitness misidentification is an element 

identified in a high percentage of the 

exonerations that the Innocence Project 

reviewed. Historically and at the present 

time, reliability of eyewitness identification 

continues to be of concern. It should be 

cautioned that cases based exclusively on 

a one-eyewitness identification, without 

any corroborating evidence, is inherently 

weak. In light of this, more and more law 

enforcement agencies are appreciating 

the importance of adopting identification 

protocols that reliably elicit the witness’ 

identification of the offender. Standard 

protocols and supervision are required to 

consider that evidence carefully and ensure 

agency practices did not influence the 

identification. Eyewitness identifications 

should be corroborated and scrutinized to 

strengthen investigations.

Over the past several years, research on 

eyewitness identification has begun to focus 

on the merits of the double-blind sequential 

protocol. In this approach, neither the 

officer nor the witness has any knowledge 

of the identity of the primary suspect. And 

when the victim views photo arrays or live 

lineups, the pictures or individuals in the 

lineup are shown sequentially rather than in 

a group. Most summit participants lent their 

support to the use of this protocol by law 

enforcement.5 They urged law enforcement 

5 As in all IACP national policy summits, there was 

a healthy debate on all issues, particularly around 

eyewitness identification practices. Readers will 

note that while recommendation #1 on page 18 puts 

13
leaders to investigate and adopt this 

approach once they have reviewed all 

pertinent research. And on the issue of 

research, they also called for additional field 

specific studies in this policy area. Finally, 

it should be noted that the double-blind/

sequential protocol is also consistent with 

IACP’s National Policy Center’s Eyewitness 

Identification Model Policy. 

Summit participants in their concluding 

dialogue on eyewitness ID protocols 

conceded that most prior research has 

been laboratory-based versus accomplished 

within police agencies. To that end, 

they recommended that departments 

nonetheless consider adopting the doubleblind sequential approach while they also 

called upon the IACP and DOJ to immediately 

institute further field testing of this model 

in selected law enforcement agencies 

nationwide. 

Informant Testimony

Informant (sometimes referred to as 

“jailhouse informant”) testimony requires 

significant review and corroboration. Often, 

the incentives to provide false information 

in order to reduce one’s own sentence 

are high. Fifteen percent of the wrongful 

conviction cases reviewed by the Innocence 

Project involved jailhouse informant 

evidence. Participants did not shy away from 

the potential value of informant information, 

as long as that information could be 

corroborated through other investigative 

means. 

Recording Interviews

Summit participants debated whether or not 

to record interviews with suspects. Interview 

standards and policies differ radically across 

forward the double-blind/sequential approach as a 

best practice (consistent with IACP Model Policies), 

concerns of some summit participants resulted in 

the call for further research on ID practices put 

forward in recommendation #2.

the United States. Advocates and opponents 

are equally strong in their feelings on the 

matter. Summit recommendations, and 

standing IACP model policies, support 

audio and/or video recording of all major 

crime interviews with suspects. Recording 

protects everyone in the room. While it 

can be argued that recorded evidence 

opens a door to critique, it also raises the 

level of transparency of the department to 

aid in the cultural shift across the justice 

system focusing on rightful arrests and 

rightful convictions. This recommendation 

may pose a challenge to some jurisdictions 

with limited resources, given the costs 

of the technology to achieve audio and/

or video recording. Those limitations may 

be overcome by leveraging the support of 

state-level or neighboring law enforcement 

agencies with such capacity. Available 

technology resources in each jurisdiction will 

dictate implementation of these recording 

protocols. 

Forensic Science

A percentage of cases resulting in 

exoneration reviewed by the Innocence 

Project had problems with forensic science 

evidence, for example, exaggerated 

testimony, inaccuracies, and invalid results.6

DNA is an excellent tool to make sure that 

a suspect has been rightfully arrested. 

Exonerations from decades ago would 

have been avoided if DNA testing had been 

available and utilized. Needless to say, DNA 

is usually not the only evidence in a case, 

so even when there are DNA results in a 

case, the investigator must review all of the 

evidence to verify that the correct offender 

has been charged. Timeliness, however, is 

an element of great concern in evaluating 

evidence such as DNA. The speed, or 

lack thereof, with which DNA analysis is 

completed can be critical in evaluating 

whether a rightful arrest has been made 

and can be significant in ensuring wrongful 

6 http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/

DNA_Exonerations_Nationwide.php

14 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Focusing on the Law Enforcement Role: Rethinking the Investigative Process

convictions are prevented. Summit 

participants urged national-level support 

for timely DNA analysis without exception, 

particularly urging sufficient funding for 

state and local crime laboratories to allow 

for quicker DNA analysis turnaround. 

Collecting and Analyzing Evidence

Uniform standards for evidence collection, 

retention, and preservation could bolster 

investigation practices and significantly 

reduce the chances of wrongful arrest, 

prosecution, and conviction. The summit 

participants’ recommendations encourage 

immediate review of protocols and creation 

of a concrete plan to improve upon those 

protocols in the near term. Working 

collectively with other law enforcement 

agencies in a jurisdiction would further 

enhance this recommendation and perhaps 

reduce the resource burden.

Crime labs provide a critical service in 

analysis of evidence. As a critical analytical 

resource, they must receive sustained 

support. As funding for labs decreases, 

so does the capacity of law enforcement 

to carry out a successful and accurate 

investigation. Serious shortfalls in crime lab 

capacity and resources can have devastating 

effects on the strength and consistency of 

investigations. 

Looking to the future of evidence collection 

and analysis, although it is a challenge to 

any discipline to keep up with technological 

advancements, law enforcement has a clear 

responsibility to do so, particularly when 

emerging technology to aid investigations 

becomes available. Continuing to learn 

about, train on, and implement the best 

current technology is critical to improving 

investigations and preventing wrongful 

arrest, prosecution, and conviction. Summit 

participants pointed out that the IACP and 

DOJ can, and should, do all that they can 

to help keep law enforcement aware of 

technology advancements and to promote 

both federal- and state-level funding 

resources to make these new technologies 

accessible to law enforcement. 

Re-Examining Closed Cases

When individuals or groups with new, 

credible evidence seek a re-examination 

of a closed case, the leadership capacity 

of law enforcement is challenged. Summit 

participants were clear in their thinking that 

law enforcement’s ideal position regarding 

reopening closed cases must be one of 

openness and willingness to consider that 

action versus any defensive or negative 

posture. Law enforcement should fully 

support steps to reopen and re-evaluate a 

case if new, credible evidence emerges that 

decision making at the identification, arrest, 

prosecution, or conviction stages could have 

been in error. Participants suggested that 

examples from previously re-examined cases 

could be used as a training tool to show 

the value of openness to re-examination, 

particularly looking at the statistics from 

the Innocence Project that make it clear 

that wrongful convictions, while limited in 

number, can occur anywhere at any time 

given the right set of circumstances. 

15
16 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Final Recommendations of the Summit

Final Recommendations of the 

Summit

At summit closure, each working 

group created a set of suggested 

policy improvements in the policy 

areas they were assigned to explore. 

The following recommendations include 

suggested practices to address all issues 

raised at the summit and put forward in this 

report. Those issues were broken out into 

four thematic topics to focus the work of the 

policy development groups: 

h Making Rightful Arrests: Avoiding Errors

h Correcting Wrongful Arrests: Detecting 

and Correcting Errors

h Leveraging Technology and Forensic 

Science: Maximizing Its Value

h Re-Examining Closed Cases: Openness 

to New Information

The primary goal of the working groups was 

to debate and discuss the issues and, most 

importantly, to develop an agreed-upon 

set of recommendations for policy review 

or revision. Each working group was led 

by a facilitator who continually drove the 

discussion toward policy recommendation. 

Each working group had at least 15 

participants from diverse backgrounds 

and areas of expertise (see Appendix B 

for the list). What follows are the 30 final 

recommendations put forward by summit 

participants. 

These recommendations, when viewed as 

a body of work, serve as a comprehensive 

platform of recommendations to help 

the justice system avoid, reduce, and 

subsequently correct wrongful arrests, 

prosecutions, and convictions and to 

simultaneously increase rightful ones. They 

were developed and agreed upon by a 

group of summit participants who took into 

consideration the natural leadership role of 

law enforcement at the front of the justice 

continuum, and all other components of 

the system as well. Implementation of these 

recommendations are necessary to translate 

summit outcomes into sustainable action. 

Making Rightful Arrests: 

Avoiding Errors

The over-arching theme of this working 

group was on critical thinking, promising 

investigative practices, and tools to ensure 

that errors are avoided when making arrest 

decisions: 

17
Eyewitness Identifications

1. Law enforcement agencies should 

conduct a full and thorough examination 

of their current eyewitness identification 

protocols and related training to ensure 

they are maintaining best practices, 

including warning the witness that 

the offender may or may not be in 

the photo array/lineup, double-blind 

administration, sequential lineups, 

avoiding confirmatory feedback, 

gathering a certainty statement, and 

documenting the process.

2. DOJ and the IACP should support 

implementation and conduct field 

research with law enforcement agencies 

to implement and understand the 

benefits of double-blind sequential 

versus simultaneous photo array/

lineups, specifically piloting this model 

in selected local law enforcement 

agencies. 

3. Law enforcement agencies should 

assess current investigative protocols 

and related training, with an eye to 

improving both by leveraging current 

research and developing policy at the 

national level.

Note: Debate around best practices in 

eyewitness ID protocols has been present 

across the United States over the past 

decade. That debate continued at the 

summit. Thus while there was general 

consensus on the above recommendations, 

there was a simultaneous call for further 

research to confirm emerging findings on, 

the effectiveness and impact of doubleblind/sequential identification protocols. 

False Confessions, Testimony, and 

Informants

4. At a minimum, law enforcement 

agencies should record audio of all 

interviews involving major crimes. Video 

recordings of interviews are preferred.

5. Investigators should gather 

corroborating evidence in cases of 

jailhouse testimony of informants. (See 

IACP Model Policy link in Resources.)

Preventing Investigative Bias

6. Law enforcement agencies should 

conduct a supervisory review to assess 

whether investigative bias is, or was, 

adversely affecting a case.

7. Law enforcement agencies should 

develop protocols to acknowledge, 

address, and limit investigative bias 

through appropriate policies and 

training.

8. Law enforcement agencies should 

focus training on risk-based decision 

making and examining lessons learned 

from cases involving investigative 

bias. (See page 11 for detailed training 

suggestions.)

Improving DNA Testing Procedures

9. All invested parties, including DOJ, 

the IACP, individual law enforcement 

agencies, and state and local 

governments, should engage and work 

together to improve the timeline of 

DNA testing and delivery of results and 

the reduction or elimination of testing 

backlogs. 

10. Law enforcement agencies need to 

ensure that all parties (including defense 

attorneys, prosecutors, and victims) are 

notified of DNA hits in a timely fashion 

at any stage of the investigation.

Combined DNA Index System 

(CODIS) and Other Resources

11. Prosecutors and defense teams should 

have access to CODIS hit reports as 

appropriate.

18 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Final Recommendations of the Summit

12. All invested parties, including DOJ, 

the IACP, individual law enforcement 

agencies, states, and local governments, 

should identify ways to enhance 

resources for smaller agencies to 

conduct major crime investigations. 

Correcting Wrongful Arrests: 

Detecting and Correcting Errors

The focus of this working group was on 

actions that should be taken once a wrongful 

arrest has occurred and new information 

indicates that errors may have been made. 

Recommendations include: 

13. DOJ, the IACP, law enforcement 

agencies, and other invested parties 

should collaborate to create a wrongful 

arrest risk-assessment tool incorporating 

an investigative checklist or point system 

to guide both pre-arrest decisions and 

post-arrest re-evaluation.

14. Law enforcement agencies should 

ensure supervisors conduct vigorous 

oversight and provide ongoing guidance 

to all active cases.

15. Law enforcement agencies should work 

with prosecutors to identify the top five 

errors that typically lead to wrongful 

convictions and identify ways to reduce 

their occurrence.

16. Law enforcement agencies need to 

establish accountability at every level 

so that major case investigations are 

the purview of the entire organization, 

with key players involved at appropriate 

times in a collaborative format.

17. Law enforcement agencies need to 

consider and carefully craft language 

used when addressing the public and/or 

the media to communicate that a case is 

being reviewed or reconsidered.

18. Law enforcement agency leadership 

should examine and redefine, where 

necessary, the macro-level approach 

to criminal investigations, creating a 

culture of critical thinking and openness 

to new information. 

19. DOJ, the IACP, and other invested parties 

should collaborate and consider how 

law enforcement agencies can create 

critical case review opportunities to 

increase transparency and decrease 

agency vulnerability to lawsuits.

20. Law enforcement agencies and leaders 

should create or refine culture and 

climate to incentivize promising practice 

investigative procedures versus an 

exclusive focus on speedy actions and 

outcomes.

21. Law enforcement agencies, when 

reviewing and revising their investigative 

policies and training should focus on the 

three Cs: cooperation, collaboration, 

and consolidation of capacities and 

resources to increase investigative 

effectiveness. 

Leveraging Technology and 

Forensic Science: Maximizing Its 

Value

This working group focused exclusively on 

the capacity of technology and forensic 

science to enhance the quality of law 

enforcement criminal investigations 

and arrest decisions. Recommendations 

included: 

22. All invested parties, including law 

enforcement agencies, lab staff, district 

attorneys (DAs), and prosecutors should 

participate in interagency training 

on forensic issues, both locally and 

nationally.

19
23. Law enforcement agencies should 

conduct a thorough evaluation of 

current protocols as they pertain to 

evidence collection, preservation and 

retention, and develop a concrete plan 

to improve such in the near term.

24. All invested parties including law 

enforcement agencies, DAs and 

prosecutors, should adopt current 

best practice protocols for suspect 

identification procedures and for 

recording interviews.

25. All invested parties should seek sustained 

support, including accreditation and 

certification, based on best practice 

protocols for crime labs.

26. Law enforcement agencies should 

develop an ongoing plan to identify, 

assess, and invest in emerging 

technology that can enhance 

investigative quality and accuracy. 

Re-Examining Closed Cases: 

Openness to New Information

This working group focused on how 

to enhance local law enforcement’s 

openness to, and understanding of the 

value of, re-examining closed cases where 

newly acquired, credible evidence calls 

into question prior decision making. 

Recommendations include: 

27. OJP and the IACP should provide 

guidance, with input from national law 

enforcement and advocacy groups, to 

establish and pursue common goals and 

guiding principles toward identifying 

and resolving wrongful convictions.

28. OJP and the IACP should take a 

leadership role in providing examples, 

protocols, and/or an assessment tool of 

how to investigate claims of innocence. 

29. NIJ, BJA, and OVC should partner to 

enhance research efforts and support 

victim notification and advocacy efforts 

where cases are reopened.

30. Law enforcement should take a 

leadership role in developing greater 

openness to re-examination—both on a 

national level with the IACP and a local 

level with each executive leading that 

charge in every investigation. 

Summit Recommendation 

Implementation Process

Over the course of the one-day summit, 

participants successfully arrived at 

consensus on 30 policy recommendations 

for future implementation. IACP and its 

partners will take action to further expand 

on these broad recommendations so that 

they eventually result in comprehensive 

policy guidelines that cover all aspects of 

the given issue and address the required 

implementation steps. These future policy 

documents will provide a road map to 

systemic improvements to prevent and 

reduce the number of people wrongfully 

arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in our 

nation.

To refine and further articulate the 30 

recommendations to prepare them for 

implementation by law enforcement 

agencies, the IACP will: 

h Recruit the support of its four 

committees that promoted and 

supported the summit from the outset 

– Police Investigative Operations; 

Forensic Science; Police Professional 

Standards, Ethics and Image; and 

Research Advisory—to adopt the 

summit report (possibly through a 

formal resolution process) and select 

unique sets of recommendations that 

each committee can then champion. 

20 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Final Recommendations of the Summit

Committees that worked on selected 

recommendations will take the broad 

summit statement and turn them into 

draft model policies. 

h Seek financial and programmatic 

support from DOJ, where feasible, 

to enable dissemination of the 

recommendations and implementation 

guidance to the field through a series of 

pilot projects at select major, midsize, 

and smaller law enforcement agencies 

throughout the United States. 

h Leverage private sector support from 

corporate or foundation resources 

to use the information from the pilot 

field initiatives and expand these 

initiatives on a national scale. With 

strategic private sector support, it 

will be possible to introduce summit 

recommendations to the entire field 

and, in turn, provide technical support 

to inquiring agencies once they 

determine they want to adopt summit 

strategies. 

Systemic Impact of Summit 

Recommendations

With a cultural shift, law enforcement and 

the entire justice system can leverage cuttingedge research, promising practices, and 

forensic science to re-envision its approach 

to preventing wrongful arrests, prosecutions, 

and convictions. Part of this cultural shift 

must also allow law enforcement to stand 

ready to change course in the midst of an 

investigation, if new information deems that 

necessary. The prosecutorial culture is likely 

to shift as well, through close collaboration 

with law enforcement. Ultimately, the courts 

and their stakeholders, including judges 

and juries, will become more attuned to 

evidentiary strengths and weaknesses in 

individual cases, allowing potential wrongful 

convictions to be identified before they 

occur. 

By reducing the number of wrongful arrests, 

prosecutions, and convictions, justice will 

be served, public safety will improve, and 

the perceived value and integrity of law 

enforcement agencies will grow in stature. 

Citizens’ attitudes toward the justice system 

will likewise improve as they see increased 

attention to reducing wrongful arrests, 

prosecutions, and convictions. Greater 

trust, respect, cooperation, and overall 

relationships across all stakeholders will 

naturally follow. Summit participants, the 

IACP, and its DOJ partners all hope that 

readers of this report will understand that 

addressing wrongful arrest, prosecution, 

and conviction should not be the exclusive 

role of any one group or organization. 

Rather, it should, and must, be a primary 

objective of our entire justice system and 

the communities, with law enforcement 

taking a leadership role at the beginning of 

the investigative process. 

21
22 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Law Enforcement Action Agenda

Law Enforcement Action Agenda

Positioned at the front-end of the justice 

process, law enforcement has the 

greatest potential for making rightful 

arrests and avoiding wrongful ones. For 

that reason and to promote and ensure the 

implementation of the 30 recommendations 

developed, summit participants highlighted 

further law enforcement–focused efforts 

that will promote the pursuit of best 

practices, strengthen policy, and greater 

involvement and partnerships. They urged 

law enforcement leaders across the country 

to: 

h Implement all recommendations 

within this report applicable to law 

enforcement;

h Review and implement IACP Model 

Policies (see Resources for link);

h Identify ways to promote a culture 

of openness in law enforcement and 

prosecution offices so that wrongful 

arrest assessments to prevent wrongful 

prosecution and conviction are a 

valued, expected, and integral part of 

the investigative process;

h Establish risk-assessment tools and 

(where feasible) risk-assessment teams 

to evaluate cases as they progress to 

identify any red flags pointing to a 

possible wrongful arrest, prosecution 

and conviction;

h Identify statewide protocols for:

 Improving eyewitness identification 

processes, including photo arrays 

and lineups; 

 Recording victim, witness, and 

suspect interviews; 

 Supporting neighboring 

jurisdictions in meeting goals of 

statewide protocols; and

 Articulating what type(s) of forensic 

evidence will be collected, how 

analysis will be accomplished, and 

how findings will be routed;

h Serve on boards, focus groups, or other 

advisory bodies charged with avoiding 

and/or reducing wrongful arrest, 

prosecution, and conviction;

h Conduct post wrongful arrest/

prosecution/conviction audits 

to promote a “lessons learned” 

environment; and

h Support and help establish research 

partnerships to further understanding 

of areas critical to wrongful arrest, 

prosecution, and conviction.

23
24 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Conclusion

Conclusion

Wrongful arrests, prosecutions, and 

convictions damage everyone. In 

good faith, the justice system, 

beginning with law enforcement, sets out 

to conduct investigations, prosecute and 

convict suspects, and ensure that the right 

offender is held accountable for the crime. 

Most of the time, this desired outcome is 

achieved. However, getting it wrong, even 

once, is once too often, given the serious 

consequences. 

One misstep can often lead to a series of 

cascading missteps, leading to wrongful 

arrest, prosecution, and conviction. 

Summit participants resoundingly believe 

that missteps can be prevented through 

better communication, training, protocols, 

supervision, assessment and review, and 

a culture of openness to new information. 

Law enforcement must lead that effort and 

is in the best position to do so at the frontend of the justice process. 

Law enforcement and prosecutors should 

focus on rightful arrests and support 

enhancing and continually evaluating 

the investigative process. They should 

simultaneously avoid external pressure 

to make quick arrests and referrals for 

prosecution decisions. Policy changes to 

promote and reinforce the focus on rightful 

arrest should be solidified and implemented 

as soon as possible. All steps in this direction 

can have a significant and positive impact 

on all stakeholders when rightful arrests and 

convictions occur.

To that goal, the participants of the IACP 

National Summit on Wrongful Convictions 

created the 30 recommendations presented 

here. Summit participants recognize 

the challenge that some agencies may 

face as they work to implement the 

recommendations, but clearly hope that 

the desire to avoid the profound damage 

that a wrongful conviction causes to entire 

communities outweighs those challenges. 

Additionally, building better working 

relationships, centered on mutual respect 

and trust, within the system and with the 

community will promote more successful 

cooperation and collaboration in the future.

25
A Real Example of Police Pursuing Justice, Twice...

It seemed like a simple case of good police work. They had their man, and the case was closed. Until...more than 

a decade later, Investigators Darrell Moore and John Munn, of the Aurora, Illinois, Police Department, heard from 

an informant that the man convicted, Jonathan Moore, didn’t do it. By this time, he had served 12 years of his 

82-year sentence for killing a man in 2000. Investigators Moore and Munn reopened the case, treated it as if it 

was new, and interviewed everyone again, including 10 new people now willing to come forward. They became 

convinced that Jonathan Moore didn’t do it. The pursuit of justice was still challenging, even in light of the new 

evidence and the diligence of two good investigators; Jonathan Moore had exhausted all appeals and had been 

found guilty by a jury and appellate court. Investigators Moore and Munn didn’t give up. They redoubled their 

efforts and built a case the State’s Attorney found convincing enough to file a motion to dismiss all charges 

against Jonathan Moore.

As a closing thought of the summit report, it is valuable to note the kind of public and media reaction to the 

leadership evidenced by the Aurora Police Department in reopening a closed case and, in the end, correcting a 

wrongful conviction. This is the way every law enforcement agency in the United States should ideally be viewed 

regarding its approach to wrongful arrest, prosecution, and conviction: 

 “The review process by Kane County authorities can serve as a model for how to handle new evidence, said 

some legal experts on wrongful convictions...”7

“So it‘s downright refreshing to see dedicated law officers doing what we‘d hope always would happen: using 

new information to reinvestigate a case and free a wrongfully convicted man—without waiting to be prompted.”8

“The way this case was handled by the Aurora Police Department and McMahon‘s [Kane County State’s Attorney] 

office is really worth praise and recognition,” John Hanlon, DNA Testing Legal Director, Downstate Illinois 

Innocence Project.9

“This court is impressed with your professionalism and your sense of justice.” Judge Sheldon, told the 

prosecutors and detectives.10

“The police officers deserve tremendous credit. This is unheard of,” Larry Golden, director of the Downstate 

Illinois Innocence Project, told Beacon-News reporter Matt Hanley. “This is the kind of county you want to live 

in.”11

“There have been plenty of headlines over the years about inmates being freed following DNA data gathered by 

advocacy groups seeking justice for the falsely convicted. But even the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project had 

7 Ward, Clifford. (March 21, 2012). “‘Open mind’ review led to vacated conviction, freedom: Wrongful-conviction experts praise 

Kane County’s process when new evidence cast doubt on murder case.” The Chicago Tribune.

8 March 7, 2012. Editorial: “Cops do the right thing to free innocent man.” The Chicago-Sun Times.

9 Wells, G., Steblay, N., and Dysart, J. (2011). A test of the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup methods. American Judicature Society 

(Funded in part by the National Institute of Justice).

10 Ibid.

11 Crosby, Denise. (March 7, 2012). “Crosby Column: Truth is, police made Aurora proud.” The Aurora Beacon News.

26 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Conclusion

never seen a case such as this: where the police department was the driving force to free the man it helped put 

behind bars.”12

“It’s how we deal with mistakes, especially in the criminal justice system, where people’s lives are on the line, 

that really separate law enforcement officers who are about closing cases and preserving convictions from those 

who realize the job is about justice and the truth.” Steven Drizin, Legal Director, Northwestern University’s Center 

on Wrongful Convictions.13

12 Ward. “‘Open mind’ review led to vacated conviction, freedom: Wrongful-conviction experts praise Kane County’s process 

when new evidence cast doubt on murder case.”The Chicago Tribune.

13 Wells, et al. “A test of the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup methods.” American Judicature Society (Funded in part by the 

National Institute of Justice).

27
28 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Resources

Resources

Update 2012: The National Registry of Exonerations, April 3, 2013, University of Michigan Law 

School and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law:

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/NRE2012UPDATE4_1_13_FINAL.

pdf 

Preventing Wrongful Convictions Project (National Institute of Justice), American University, 

Jon Gould): http://www.american.edu/spa/djls/prevent/index.cfm 

To Err is Human: Using Science to Reduce Mistaken Eyewitness Identifications in Police 

Lineups (McGough, NIJ Journal 2012): https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/238486.pdf 

Conviction Integrity Units (a sample, not an exhaustive list): 

Dallas County, Texas (first in the nation): http://dallasda.co/webdev/?page_id=73 

Wayne County, Michigan: http://www.co.wayne.mi.us/prosecutor/conviction_integrity.htm 

New York County, New York: http://manhattanda.org/preventing-wrongful-convictions

National Resource Center for Child Death Review; Child Death Review Process (Michigan 

Public Health Institute): http://www.childdeathreview.org/cdrprocess.htm 

Model Policies: National Law Enforcement Policy Center (IACP): 

http://www.theiacp.org/policycenter

Lineups and Eyewitness Memory Publications and News: Gary Wells, Researcher: 

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/homepage.htm 

A Test of the Simultaneous vs. Sequential Lineup Methods: 

http://www.popcenter.org/library/reading/PDFs/lineupmethods.pdf 

Wrongful Conviction Review Program FY2013 Competitive Grant Announcement

https://www.bja.gov/Funding/13WrongfulConvictionSol.pdf

29
30 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Summit Advisory Group

Appendix A: 

Summit Advisory Group

Kim Ball

Senior Policy Advisor

Bureau of Justice Assistance

William Brooks

Chief

Norwood (MA) Police Department

Pam Cammarata

Associate Deputy Director

Bureau of Justice Assistance

James Doyle

Visiting Fellow

National Institute of Justice

Joye Frost

Acting Director

Office for Victims of Crime

Naydine Fulton-Jones

Division Chief

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Samuel R. Gross

Professor of Law

University of Michigan Law School

Barbara Hervey

Judge

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Kate Hogan

District Attorney

Warren County (NY) District Attorney’s 

Office

Eric Martin

Social Science Analyst

National Institute of Justice

Ronald McBride

Chief (Retired)

Ashland (KY) Police Department

Kate McNamee

Policy Advisor

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Walter A. McNeil

Chief

Quincy (FL) Police Department

Peter Modafferi

Chief of Detectives

Rockland County (NY) District Attorney’s 

Office

Meg Morrow

Attorney Advisor

Office for Victims of Crime

Charles Reynolds

Chief (Retired)

City of Dover (NH) Police Department

Patricia Riley

Assistant United States Attorney

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Susan Riseling

Chief

University of Wisconsin Police Department

Summit Advisory Group A-1
Kristina Rose

Deputy Director

National Institute of Justice 

Margaret Ryan

Chief

Dryden (NY) Police Department

Barry Scheck

Professor of Law 

Benjamin N. Cardoza School of Law, Yeshiva 

University (NY)

Co-Founder & Co-Director

The Innocence Project

Bryan Simms

Lieutenant

Prince William County (VA) Police 

Department

Paul Sireci

Chief 

Tampa International Airport (FL) Police 

Department

Stephanie Stoiloff

Senior Police Bureau Commander

Miami-Dade (FL) Police Department

Ken Tucker

Secretary

Florida Department of Corrections

Kerri Vitalo-Logan

State Policy Advisor

Bureau of Justice Assistance

David Walchak

Chief (Retired)

Concord (NH) Police Department

Rob Warden

Executive Director

Center for Wrongful Convictions

Charles Wellford

Professor

University of Maryland – College Park

A-2 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Summit Participants

Appendix B:

Summit Participants

Kim Ball

Senior Policy Advisor

Bureau of Justice Assistance

William Berger

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Marshals Service

Rebecca Brown

Director of State Policy Reform

The Innocence Project

Maurita Bryant

Assistant Chief of Police

Pittsburgh (PA) Bureau of Police

Pam Cammarata

Associate Deputy Director

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Russell Canan

Judge

DC Superior Court

Peter Carnes

Chief

Stonehill College (MA) Campus Police 

Steven Clark

Professor

University of California

Mike Corley

Chief

Brownwood (TX) Police Department

James Doyle

Visiting Fellow

National Institute of Justice

Pete Dunbar

Chief 

Pleasant Hill (CA) Police Department

Ernest Finley

Deputy Chief

Atlanta (GA) Police Department

Steve Flaherty

Colonel

Virginia State Police

Joye Frost

Acting Director

Office for Victims of Crime

Naydine Fulton-Jones

Division Chief

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Darryl Godlock

Pastor

Calvert County (MD) Baptist Church

Samuel R. Gross

Professor of Law

University of Michigan Law School

Kristine Hamann

Executive Assistant District Attorney

Office of Special Narcotics Prosecutor for 

the City of New York

Summit Participants B-1
Francis Healy

Captain

Philadelphia (PA) Police Department

Barbara Hervey

Judge

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Ted Hunt

Chief Trial Assistant

Prosecuting Attorney’s Office

Steve Jansen

Vice President

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

Ilse Knecht

Deputy Director, Public Policy

National Center for Victims of Crime

David LeBahn

President/CEO

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

Joseph LaPorte

Senior Tribal Law Enforcement Liaison

PM-ISE

John Laub

Director

National Institute of Justice

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs

Katherine Lemire

Counsel to the Police Commissioner

New York Police Department

Daniel Levy

Executive Director

The National Organization of Parents of 

Murdered Children, Inc.

Jeffrey Magers

Associate Professor

California University of Pennsylvania

Kristen Mahoney

Deputy Director 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Linda Mansour

Intergovernmental Affairs

Office of Justice Programs

Pete Marone

Director

Virginia Department of Forensic Science

Eric Martin

Social Science Analyst

National Institute of Justice

Ronald McBride

Chief (Retired)

Ashland (KY) Police Department

Kate McNamee

Policy Advisor

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Walter A. McNeil

Chief

Quincy (FL) Police Department

Angela Moore

Division Director

National Institute of Justice

Christine Mumma

Executive Director

North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence

Rick Neimiller

Director, Administration and 

Communications

American Jail Association

B-2 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Summit Participants

Denise O’Donnell

Director

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Julie Parker

Manager of Public Affairs

Prince George’s County (MD) Police 

Department

Murphy Paul

Lieutenant Colonel

Louisiana State Police

Stephanie Pell

Attorney

SKP Strategies, LLC

Norman Reimer

Executive Director

National Association of Criminal Defense 

Lawyers

Charles Reynolds

Chief (Retired)

City of Dover (NH) Police Department

Patricia Riley

Assistant United States Attorney

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Susan Riseling

Chief

University of Wisconsin Police Department

Kristina Rose

Deputy Director

National Institute of Justice 

Margaret Ryan

Chief

Dryden (NY) Police Department

Barry Scheck

Professor of Law 

Benjamin N. Cardoza School of Law, Yeshiva 

University (NY)

Co-Founder & Co-Director

The Innocence Project

Scott Seaman

Chief

Los Gatos/Monte Sereno (CA) Police 

Department

Christy Sheppard

Victim Advocate

Paul Sireci

Chief 

Tampa International (FL) Airport Police 

Department

Cornelia Sorensen-Sigworth

Special Assistant 

Office of Justice Programs

Leslie Stevens

Vice President

Lexipol

Stephanie Stoiloff

Senior Police Bureau Commander

Miami-Dade (FL) Police Department

Scott Thurman

News Reporter

WJLA-TV

Drew Tracy

Interim Chief of Police

Takoma Park (MD) Police Department

Ken Tucker

Secretary

Florida Department of Corrections

Kathryn Turman

Program Director, Office for Victim 

Assistance

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Kerri Vitalo-Logan

State Policy Advisor

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Summit Participants B-3
David Walchak

Chief (Retired)

Concord (NH) Police Department

Rob Warden

Executive Director

Center for Wrongful Convictions

Charles Wellford

Professor

University of Maryland – College Park

Erin Williamson

Project Manager

ICF International

Greg Wise

Lieutenant/Deputy Director, Major Crimes 

Division

Montgomery County (MD) Department of 

Police

Paula Wulff

Assistant General Counsel, Science & 

Technology Unit

Federal Bureau of Investigation

B-4 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Proj

ect Staff

Appendix C: 

Project Staff

IACP Executive Staff

Bart R. Johnson

Executive Director

Jim McMahon

Chief of Staff, Deputy Executive Director

John Firman

Co-Director, Wrongful Conviction

Director, Research Center

Mike Wagers

Co-Director, Wrongful Conviction

Director, Division of State & Provincial Police

IACP Staff

Dianne Beer-Maxwell

Program Manager

Lydia Blakey

Visiting Fellow

Shannon Bui

Administrative Assistant

Ryan Daugirda

Project Coordinator

Ben Ekelund

Project Manager

Mike Fergus

Program Manager

Jenny Gargano

Principal Co-Editor

Research Center Coordinator

Ian Hamilton 

Project Manager

Cari Jankowski

Project Coordinator

Aviva Kurash

Senior Program Manager

Courtney Mariette

Project Manager

Rock Thomas

Visiting Fellow

Chrystal Tibbs

Visiting Fellow

OJP Project Staff

Eric Martin

Social Science Analyst

National Institute of Justice

Kate McNamee

Policy Advisor

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Consultant

Lisa L. Spahr, M.Sc.

Principal Report Author

Spahr Consulting 

Project Staff C-1
C-2 IACP | NATIONAL SUMMIT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200 • Alexandria, VA 22314

703-836-6767 800-THE-IACP FAX: 703-836-5386

www.TheIACP.org

Vision

To Serve the Leaders of Today, Develop the Leaders of Tomorrow

Mission 

The International Association of Chiefs of Police is dedicated to advancing 

and promoting the law enforcement profession and protecting the safety 

of law enforcement officers. Drawing on the expertise and experiences 

of its membership and professional staff, the IACP serves the profession 

by addressing cutting edge issues confronting law enforcement through 

advocacy, programs and research, as well as training and other professional 

services.

Values

In our daily work, the IACP is guided by our core institutional values:

• Integrity - to live and work in accordance with high ethical standards

• Respect - to treat people fairly while safeguarding their privacy and rights

• Customer Service - to ensure that everyone we serve receives didcated and

thorough service

• Continuous Improvement and Learning - to constantly improve ourselves

and our organization

• Leadership - to inspire, influence and support others in our organization

and communities.