Exonerating DNA Evidence in Overturned Convictions: Analysis of Data Obtained From the National Registry of Exonerations

Saber, Mark; Nodeland, Brooke; Wall, R.A.

doi:10.1177/08874034211033327

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a few other considerations to highlight in response to these survey participants. First, given evidence of DNA exonerations in sexual assault cases (Saber et al, 2022), it is possible that a small number of our clients were indeed falsely accused or wrongly convicted. This creates an inherent dilemma for both the mandated client and the treatment provider, but denials should be explored in treatment and not unilaterally dismissed as untrue.…”

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Learning From Consumers of Mandated Sex-Offending Programs: “It’s Not Treatment, I Wish It Was.”

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore clients’ perceptions of sex-offending treatment. The sample included 291 people required to register as sex offenders in the U.S. who answered an open-ended question in an online survey asking them to describe their positive and negative experiences in mandated treatment. Using qualitative analysis, three overarching themes (with several subthemes) were identified: (1) positive and (2) negative treatment experiences and (3) the affiliation between the criminal justice system and clinical services. Experiences in sex offending treatment were viewed as positive when clients had opportunities to learn about themselves, experience group cohesion, build a positive alliance with a caring therapist, learn tools and skills for emotional health, explore the roots of offense behavior, and create healthy life plans to reduce risk for re-offending. Negative themes emerged when treatments were viewed as coercive, confrontational, or demeaning; when therapists seemed inexperienced or unqualified; and when seemingly outdated or unscientific methods were emphasized without explanation or dialogue. The entanglement between court-mandated treatment providers and the criminal justice system led to concerns about confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and role ambiguity. Drawing upon literature related to therapeutic alliance, trauma-informed care, and Risk-Need-Responsivity models, we offer suggestions for integrating client feedback to improve treatment responsivity and prevent re-offending.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Learning From Consumers of Mandated Sex-Offending Programs: “It’s Not Treatment, I Wish It Was.”

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social scientists have conducted useful studies of wrongful convictions, although forensic science issues have seldom been the focus of systematic research. The University of Michigan has done substantial work to examine capital cases as an empirical framework for wrongful conviction research [9] and established a database of exonerations-the NRE-that has been useful in elucidating the incidence of major factors in wrongful convictions [10]. Other studies have also examined the capital case framework as a method to study wrongful convictions, demonstrating a variety of causative factors, such as inadequate defense [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

Morgan

2023

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence.” A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system—but not under the purview of any forensic science organization—may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.

show abstract

“…Overviews include Gross et al (2004), Gross and O'Brien (2008), Gould and Leo (2010). Quantitative work on these topics remains relatively limited; there is a small empirical literature examining the frequency of wrongful conviction (Bjerk and Helland, 2020) and correlates of exoneration (Saber et al, 2021). To this literature we contribute causal evidence on the effects of DNA laws on exoneration, and also provide an analysis of racial differences in exoneration rates (suggested by Smith and Hattery, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correcting Racial Injustice: Forensic DNA Technology and the Exoneration of the Wrongfully Convicted

D'Este

Yuchtman

2023

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exonerating DNA Evidence in Overturned Convictions: Analysis of Data Obtained From the National Registry of Exonerations

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Learning From Consumers of Mandated Sex-Offending Programs: “It’s Not Treatment, I Wish It Was.”

Learning From Consumers of Mandated Sex-Offending Programs: “It’s Not Treatment, I Wish It Was.”

Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

Correcting Racial Injustice: Forensic DNA Technology and the Exoneration of the Wrongfully Convicted

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About