As more innocents are exonerated and researchers learn more about the causes of wrongful convictions, criminal justice practices have been altered to reduce the number of erroneous convictions, although reforms have varied widely in scope and substance throughout the nation. In this article, we provide an analysis of state-level investigative reforms important to the production of wrongful convictions as of mid-2016. Specifically, we collect and describe reform efforts in three investigatory areas: eyewitness identification, forensics, and interrogations. We then discuss wrongful conviction reforms and the innocence movement more generally, focusing on the importance of continued research into wrongful convictions as a critical policy issue in criminal justice.
American Bar Association. (2004). Report to the House of Delegates: Statement of best practices for promoting the accuracy of eyewitness identification procedures. Author.
ClarkS. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238-259.
6.
ColeS. A. (2005). More than zero: Accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 985-1078.
7.
ConnorsE.LundreganT.MillerN.McEwenT. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
8.
DekleD. J.BealC. R.ElliottR.HuneycuttD. (1996). Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1-12.
9.
Department of Justice. (2015). National Commission on Forensic Science: Charter. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/ncfs
FeldB. C. (2012). Kids, cops, and confessions: Inside the interrogation room. New York: New York University Press.
13.
FisherS. Z. (2008). Eyewitness identification reform in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Law Review, 91, 52-66.
14.
GarrettB. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
GarrettB. L.NeufeldP. J. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95, 1-97.
16.
GellerW. A. (1998). Videotaping interrogations and confessions. In LeoR. A.ThomasG. C.III (Eds.), The Miranda debate: Law, justice and policing (pp. 303-313). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
17.
GiannelliP. C. (1997). The abuse of scientific evidence in criminal cases: The need for independent crime laboratories. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 4, 439-478.
18.
GiannelliP. C. (2007). Wrongful convictions and forensic science: The need to regulate crime labs. North Carolina Law Review, 86, 163-235.
GrossS. R. (2008). Convicting the innocent. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 173-192.
21.
GrossS. R.O’BrienB.HuC.KennedyE. H. (2014). Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 7230-7235.
22.
GudjonssonG. H.PearseJ. (2011). Suspect interviews and false confessions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 33-37.
23.
GudjonssonG. H.SigurdssonJ. F.AsgeirsdottirB. B.SigfusdottirI. D. (2006). Custodial interrogation, false confession and individual differences: A national study among Icelandic youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 49-59.
24.
GudjonssonG. H.SigurdssonJ. F.SigfusdottirI. D.YoungS. (2012). False confessions to police and their relationship with conduct disorder, ADHD, and life adversity. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 696-701.
HeeseM. (2016, February8). “Serial” takes the stand: How a podcast became a character in its own narrative. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/
HuffC. R.RattnerA.SagarinE.MacNamaraD. E. (1986). Guilty until proved innocent: Wrongful conviction and public policy. Crime & Delinquency, 32, 518-544.
KassinS. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 249-253.
33.
KassinS. M.DrizinS. A.GrissoT.GudjonssonG. H.LeoR. A.RedlichA. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3-38.
34.
KassinS. M.LeoR. A.MeissnerC. A.RichmanK. D.ColwellL. H.LeachA.-M.FonD. L. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 381-400. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5
35.
KentS. L.CarmichaelJ. T. (2015). Legislative responses to wrongful conviction: Do partisan principals and advocacy efforts influence state-level criminal justice policy?Social Science Research, 52, 147-160.
36.
LaqueurH.RushinS.SimonJ. (2014). Wrongful convictions, policing, and the “wars on crime and drugs.” In RedlichA. D.AckerJ. R.NorrisR. J.BonventreC. L. (Eds.), Examining wrongful convictions: Stepping back, moving forward. (pp. 93-107). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
37.
LassiterG. D.GeersA. L.HandleyI. M.WeilandP. E.MunhallP. J. (2002). Videotaped interrogations and confessions: A simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 867-874.
38.
LassiterG. D.SlawR. D.BriggsM. A.ScanlanC. R. (2006). The potential for bias in videotaped confessions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1838-1851.
39.
LeoR. A. (2005). Rethinking the study of miscarriages of justice: Developing a criminology of wrongful conviction. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 201-223.
40.
LeoR. A. (2009). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37, 332-343.
41.
LeoR. A.GouldJ. B. (2009). Studying wrongful convictions: Learning from social science. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 7-30.
42.
LofquistW. S. (2014). Finding the causes in the contexts: Structural sources of wrongful convictions. In RedlichA. D.AckerJ. R.NorrisR. J.BonventreC. L. (Eds.), Examining wrongful convictions: Stepping back, moving forward. (pp. 19-33). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
43.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
44.
MunsterbergH. (1908). On the witness stand. New York, NY: McClure.
45.
NajdowskiC. J. (2011). Stereotype threat in criminal interrogations: Why innocent black suspects are at risk for confessing falsely. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 562-591.
46.
NajdowskiC. J. (2014). Interactions between African Americans and police officers: How cultural stereotypes create a wrongful conviction pipeline for African Americans. In RedlichA. D.AckerJ. R.NorrisR. J.BonventreC. L. (Eds.), Examining wrongful convictions: Stepping back, moving forward. (pp. 55-70). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
NorrisR. J. (2012). Assessing compensation statutes for the wrongly convicted. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23, 352-374.
56.
NorrisR. J.BonventreC. L.RedlichA. D.AckerJ. R. (2011). “Than that one innocent suffer”: Evaluating state safeguards against wrongful convictions. Albany Law Review, 74, 1301-1364.
OwensM. L.GriffithsE. (2012). Uneven reparations for wrongful convictions: Examining the state politics of statutory compensation legislation. Albany Law Review, 75, 1283-1327.
59.
PetersonJ. L.LeggettA. S. (2007). The evolution of forensic science: Progress amid the pitfalls. Stetson Law Review, 36, 621-660.
RedlichA. D. (2010). The susceptibility of juveniles to false confessions and false guilty pleas. Rutgers Law Review, 62, 943-957.
63.
RedlichA. D.PetrilaJ. (2009). Special issue: The age of innocence: Miscarriages of justice in the 21st century. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 297-489.
64.
RisingerD. M. (2007). Innocents convicted: An empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97, 761-806.
65.
ScheckB.NeufeldP.DwyerJ. (2003). Actual innocence: When justice goes wrong and how to make it right. New York, NY: New American Library.
66.
SmalarzL.WellsG. L. (2015). Contamination of eyewitness self-reports and the mistaken identification problem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 120-124.
67.
State v. Barnett, 789 A.2d 629 (2001).
68.
State v. Lawson, 291 P.3d 673 (Or. 2012).
69.
State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994).
70.
SteblayN. K.DysartJ.WellsG. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99-139.
71.
SteblayN. K.WellsG. L.DouglassA. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: Theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 1-18.
72.
SteblayN. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
73.
Stephan v. State, 711P.2d 1156 (1985).
74.
SullivanT. P.VailA. W. (2009). The consequences of law enforcement officials’ failure to record custodial interviews as required by law. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 215-234.
VallasG. (2011). A survey of federal and state standards for the admission of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses. American Journal of Criminal Law, 39, 97-146.
78.
VidmarN.ColemanJ. E. (2014). The American adversary system: Sources of error in the criminal adjudication process. In RedlichA. D.AckerJ. R.NorrisR. J.BonventreC. L. (Eds.), Examining wrongful convictions: Stepping back, moving forward (pp. 141-156). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
WejnertB. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297-326.
81.
WellsG. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
82.
WellsG. L. (2014). Eyewitness identification: Probative value, criterion shifts, and policy regarding the sequential lineup. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 11-16.
83.
WellsG. L.BradfieldA. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360-376.
84.
WellsG. L.SmallM.PenrodS.MalpassR. S.FuleroS. M.BrimacombeC. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.
85.
WellsG. L.SteblayN. K.DysartJ. E. (2012). Eyewitness identification reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 264-271.
86.
WellsG. L.SteblayN. K.DysartJ. E. (2015). Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: An experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 1-14.
YarmeyA. D.YarmeyM. J.YarmeyA. L. (1996). Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in showups and lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 459-477.
89.
ZalmanM. (2006). Criminal justice system reform and wrongful conviction: A research agenda. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 468-492.
90.
ZalmanM. (2008). The adversary system and wrongful conviction. In HuffC. R.KilliasM. (Eds.), Wrongful conviction: International perspectives on miscarriages of justice (pp.71-91). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
91.
ZalmanM. (2011). An integrated justice model of wrongful convictions. Albany Law Review, 74, 1465-1524.
92.
ZalmanM.LarsonM. (Forthcoming). Elephants in the station house: Serial crimes, wrongful convictions, and expanding wrongful conviction analysis to include police investigation. Albany Law Review, 79.
93.
ZalmanM.MarionN. E. (2014). The public policy process and innocence reform. In ZalmanM.CarranoJ. (Eds.), Wrongful conviction and criminal justice reform: Making justice (pp. 24-38). New York, NY: Routledge.
