EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Until 1988, when Gary Dotson became the first person to be exonerated through DNA testing, exonerations were a rarity. At that time, very few could imagine that over the course of the next 25 years, well over 300 individuals would be declared innocent and released from these cases have drawn upon emerging technologies—like DNA prison. Like Dotson’s story, analysis, cell phone triangulation, video facial recognition, and the debunking of previously common forensic methods—to establish innocence. Yet, while the science involved in the process of exoneration has advanced, research on erroneous convictions has remained relatively static in its method. Erroneous conviction research, rather than adopting more empirical forms of analysis, has continued to primarily rely upon the case study model. While this model can illustrate what factors are shared by erroneous convictions, it cannot isolate Here, we use causes. the social science method of case comparison to identify factors that distinguish erroneous convictions from other cases in which factually innocent defendants are released or acquitted post-indictment on the basis of their innocence. of Erroneous Convictions Traditional “Causes” In highlighted 65 cases of erroneously Convicting the Innocent 1932, Edward Borchard’s convicted individuals. book was among the first to draw attention to erroneous Borchard’s
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Until 1988, when Gary Dotson became the first person to be exonerated through DNA testing, exonerations were a rarity. At that time, very few could imagine that over the course of the next 25 years, well over 300 individuals would be declared innocent and released from prison. Like Dotson’s story, these cases have drawn upon emerging technologies—like DNA analysis, cell phone triangulation, video facial recognition, and the debunking of previously common forensic methods—to establish innocence. Yet, while the science involved in the process of exoneration has advanced, research on erroneous convictions has remained relatively static in its method. Erroneous conviction research, rather than adopting more empirical forms of analysis, has continued to primarily rely upon the case study model. While this model can illustrate what factors are shared by erroneous convictions, it cannot isolate causes. Here, we use the social science method of case comparison to identify factors that distinguish erroneous convictions from other cases in which factually innocent defendants are released or acquitted post-indictment on the basis of their innocence. Traditional “Causes” of Erroneous Convictions In 1932, Edward Borchard’s Convicting the Innocent highlighted 65 cases of erroneously convicted individuals. Borchard’s book was among the first to draw attention to erroneous