Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

6 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

reflects  a  greater  likelihood  of  an  initial  wrongful  convic­
tion.  How  could  that  be  so?    In  the  view  of  researchers 
who  have  conducted  these  studies,  it  could  be  so  because 
the  crimes  at  issue  in  capital  cases  are  typically  horren­
dous murders, and thus accompanied by intense community 
pressure  on  police,  prosecutors,  and  jurors  to  secure  a
conviction.    This  pressure  creates  a  greater  likelihood  of 
convicting  the  wrong  person.  See  Gross,  Jacoby,  Mathe-
son,  Montgomery,  &  Patil,  Exonerations  in  the  United
States 1989 Through 2003, 95 J. Crim. L. & C. 523, 531–
533 (2005); Gross & O’Brien, Frequency and Predictors of 
False Conviction: Why We Know So Little, and New Data
on  Capital  Cases,  5  J.  Empirical  L.  Studies  927,  956–957
(2008) (noting that, in  comparing  those who were exoner­
ated from death row to other capital defendants who were
not  so  exonerated,  the  initial  police  investigations  tended 
to  be  shorter  for  those  exonerated);  see  also  B.  Garrett, 
Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go 
Wrong  (2011)  (discussing  other  common  causes  of  wrong­
ful  convictions  generally  including  false  confessions,  mis­
taken  eyewitness  testimony,  untruthful  jailhouse  inform­
ants, and ineffective defense counsel).

In  the  case  of  Cameron  Todd  Willingham,  for  example,
who  (as  noted  earlier)  was  executed  despite  likely  inno­
cence, the State Bar of Texas recently filed formal miscon­
duct charges against the lead prosecutor for his actions—
actions that may have contributed to Willingham’s convic­
tion.  Possley, Prosecutor Accused of Misconduct in Death
Penalty Case, Washington Post, Mar. 19, 2015, p. A3.  And 
in Glenn Ford’s case, the prosecutor admitted that he was
partly responsible for Ford’s wrongful conviction, issuing a 
public apology to Ford and explaining that, at the time of 
Ford’s  conviction,  he  was  “not  as  interested  in  justice  as
[he] was in winning.”  Stroud, supra. 

Other factors may also play a role.  One is the practice
of  death-qualification;  no  one  can  serve  on  a  capital  jury