Origin of Implication: How Do Innocent Individuals Enter the Criminal Justice System?

Abstract

Drawing from the investigative policing literature, we develop a typology for how innocent defendants become suspects in criminal investigations. We use the Preventing Wrongful Convictions Project (PWCP) dataset and multivariate modeling to examine the case and defendant characteristics that predict how an innocent defendant became a suspect. We found that investigators identify suspects in eight primary ways. The most common in the PWCP dataset were victim/eyewitness identification, citizen identification, and intentional misidentification. Defendant’s race, age, criminal history, relationship to the victim, cognitive/mental status, and whether the victim survived were strongly associated with an innocent defendant’s origin of implication. These results illuminate how tunnel vision begins in cases with innocent defendants, and how police practices may prevent innocent individuals from becoming suspects.

Failing to Express Emotion on 911 Calls Triggers Suspicion through Violating Expectations and Moral Typecasting

“…Since its founding in 2012, the National Registry of Exonerations has archived over 3,400 exonerations in the United States alone (National Registry of Exonerations, n.d.). Although the psychological process of confirmation bias in criminal investigations leading to false convictions is well-established, we know very little about how and why an innocent person first becomes a suspect-this original misclassification error is the "first and the most consequential error police will make" and "least studied and thus least well-understood" (Leo & Drizin, 2010, p. 13; but see Lowrey-Kinberg et al, 2019).…”

It’s time to bury three justice-corrupting myths once and for all.

“…In article titled “Pathways to Suspicion,” Lowrey-Kinberg et al (2019) examined the case files of 460 factually innocent defendants supplemented by newspaper articles and online sources to determine why these individuals were misidentified for investigation. Overall, they noted eight “origins of implication.” Among the most frequent were a victim, eyewitness, civilian, or police identification based on a tip; a confession that cited the defendant; hair, clothing, a vehicle, or other physical evidence from the crime scene that linked to the defendant; physical proximity to the crime; a prior relationship to the victim; or past or present criminal activity.…”

Imprisoned But Innocent: Wrongful Convictions and Imprisonments in Germany, 1990-2016

“…The existing literature about the potential sources of wrongful convictions has discussed various aspects of the criminal justice system. Some of these sources clearly lie in the (mis)conduct of the authorities like, for example, tunnel visions (Gould & Leo, 2010; Lowrey-Kinberg, Senn, Dunn, Gould, & Hail-Jares, 2018), questionable interrogation methods or witness coaching under community or media pressure (Aronson & McMurtrie, 2007; Huff et al, 1986; Natapoff, 2006; White, 2003), lacking disclosure of exculpatory evidence or information (Gould & Leo, 2010), negligent work (Gould & Leo, 2010; Huff et al, 1986; Ramsey & Frank, 2007; Smith et al, 2011), or general cognitive biases (Gould & Leo, 2010; Gross et al, 2005). Also, scholars have reported institutional conditions such as vague ethics rules, missing transparency, and incentives for indecorous and improper behavior (Aronson & McMurtrie, 2007; Joy, 2006).…”