The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 87 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Wrongful Convictions
Open accessAbstract
In response to wrongful convictions, there has been a revolution in criminal procedure and research in law and science. This review seeks to summarize the cross-disciplinary explosion in work studying known wrongful convictions, examining their causes, and assessing policy reforms designed to help detect and prevent errors in criminal justice. Scholars have increasingly studied the characteristics of known wrongful-conviction cases, including by analyzing archival records and by creating public registries of exonerations. Scholars have conducted research in law, psychology, statistics, criminology, and other disciplines, as well as interdisciplinary research, designed to better understand the phenomenon of wrongful convictions and how to prevent errors. Scientific bodies, such as the National Academy of Sciences, have made important recommendations based on this research. Furthermore, the conversation is global, with litigation, research, and policy work across jurisdictions. A wide range of jurisdictions have adopted noteworthy changes designed to safeguard crucial types of evidence, such as confession, forensic, and eyewitness evidence, during police investigations and at trial. As a result, law and science have increasingly come together to produce tangible improvements to criminal justice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
49 Sources not found · 35 No basis given · 16 Own interpretation · 8 No full text of the sources · 8 Not checked yet · 7 Own result · 2 Supported so far · 2 Partly supported · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“there has been a sharp trend toward declining grants of clemency applications (see Drinan 2012, Heise 2003).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Criminal Procedure, Finality, and Accuracy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Drinan 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Heise 2003 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports a substantial decline in clemency grants in death-penalty cases: the Post-1984 section says grants generally trended downward, and p. 161 reports a decrease from 105 grants in 1973–1984 to 73 in 1985–1999. The cited evidence concerns death-row clemency, not clemency applications generally, so the unqualified claim is broader than the source supports. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Studies of jury decisionmaking have examined how well fact-finders understand and how they evaluate the conclusions that forensic examiners reach, which in the past were often highly confident and exaggerated (Garrett & Mitchell 2013, Koehler 2017, Koehler et al. 2016, Lieberman et al. 2008).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Forensic Evidence
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Garrett & Mitchell 2013 source
The General Discussion reports that the studies tested how adults evaluated fingerprint examiners’ conclusions and found that a match increased belief in guilt, while the wording of the conclusion had little effect. It also describes exaggerated claims of certainty and specificity; the discussion on p. 485 contrasts modest match testimony with claims of near-certainty. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites Koehler 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Koehler et al. 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A similar pattern can be observed among death penalty cases generally and not just those that eventually resulted in exonerations from death row, in which as many as one-fifth resulted in reversals due to concealed exculpatory evidence that came to light years after the conviction and death sentence (see Liebman et al. 2000).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > The Role of Prosecutors
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Liebman et al. 2000 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The central findings say that suppressed evidence is among the most common errors prompting reversals at the state post-conviction stage, and that review can take years. Our copy does not say that concealed evidence caused reversals in as many as one-fifth of death penalty cases generally; its figures concern reversals for serious error from multiple causes. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For the first time in some disciplines, careful studies have attempted to estimate error rates (Ulery et al. 2011).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Forensic Evidence
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ulery et al. 2011 source
The Abstract describes this as the first large-scale study of latent fingerprint examiners’ accuracy and reliability. The Conclusions report measured false-positive and false-negative rates, making it an example of a careful forensic study estimating error rates. The paper does not claim to be the first fingerprint study of any size. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
In the paper
“Gisli Gudjonsson and colleagues have performed large scale surveys in Europe regarding self-reported juvenile false confessions (Gudjonsson et al. 2010).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Estimating Prevalence of Wrongful Convictions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gudjonsson et al. 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the 1990s, only two states, Illinois and New York, had statutes providing a right to access postconviction DNA testing (Garrett 2017c).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Criminal Procedure, Finality, and Accuracy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Garrett 2017c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all jurisdictions in the United States experienced a complete change in those rules in the space of about a decade.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Criminal Procedure, Finality, and Accuracy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“In ruling in Herrera v. Collins (1993), the US Supreme Court Justices declined to recognize a freestanding constitutional claim of actual innocence.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Criminal Procedure, Finality, and Accuracy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Herrera v. Collins (1993)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Allison Redlich, Alicia Summers, and Steven Hoover have conducted self-report studies of false confessions and guilty pleas among mentally ill offenders (Redlich et al. 2010).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Estimating Prevalence of Wrongful Convictions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Redlich et al. 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Charles Loeffler, Jordan Hyatt, and Greg Ridgeway have conducted self-report surveys of prisoners to assess how many have claims of innocence, estimating a six percent wrongful-conviction rate (Loeffler et al. 2018).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Estimating Prevalence of Wrongful Convictions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Loeffler et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 43
- It may state two separate claims as one. 40
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In recent years, studies of exonerations have also been conducted in Japan ( Johnson 2015) and Germany (Leuschner et al. 2019).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Studies of Exonerations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Johnson 2015 source
The citation to Johnson (2015) supports the Japan portion of the sentence, not the separately cited Germany portion. The paper presents a case study of Hakamada Iwao’s conviction and release (p. 3) and discusses the frequency of exonerations in Japan (p. 3). (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Leuschner et al. 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approximately 20% of the Registry cases include false confessions, and 28% involved false or misleading forensic evidence.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Studies of Exonerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Almost half, like McCollum and Brown, endured multiple criminal trials before DNA evidence exonerated them.Six had two trials and two had three criminal trials before their eventual exoneration.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Death Row Exonerations
plainn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
In the paper
“Crucial recommendations included that all eyewitness identification procedures use clear, standardized instructions, that eyewitness identifications are conducted blind so that the administrator does not know which is the suspect, that the confidence of the eyewitness is documented, and that the entire procedure is video recorded (Natl.Res.Counc.2014).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Eyewitness Misidentifications
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natl.Res.Counc.2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the DNA exonerees were convicted of rape, with some convicted of murder.Twenty were sentenced to death.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Studies of Exonerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
In the paper
“Professors Lena Zhong and Mengliang Dai, for example, have studied a set of 206 defendants wrongly convicted in China (Zhong & Dai 2018).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Studies of Exonerations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhong & Dai 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Kirk Bloodsworth, from Maryland's death row, was the first to be exonerated: Five eyewitnesses had misidentified him.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Death Row Exonerations
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The Supreme Court has not revisited the factors set out in Manson v. Brathwaite for examining eyewitness identifications tainted by police suggestion, despite decades of research showing how unreliable eyewitnesses can be (Manson v. Brathwaite 1977;see also Perry v. New Hampshire 2012).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Criminal Procedure, Finality, and Accuracy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Manson v. Brathwaite 1977
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Perry v. New Hampshire 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the National Academy of Sciences produced a detailed report in 2014, informed by neuroscience, social science, and statistics, that set out best practices for policing agencies, recommendations for courts, and a research agenda for further eyewitness memory research (see Natl.Res.Counc.2014).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Eyewitness Misidentifications
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natl.Res.Counc.2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“in 1993, the Supreme Court reported in Herrera v. Collins that 17 states had limitations periods of less than 60 days, and 18 had limitations periods between one and three years”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Criminal Procedure, Finality, and Accuracy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Herrera v. Collins 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Twenty individuals have been exonerated from death row in the United States on the basis of DNA evidence, and many more have been exonerated from death row on the basis of other new evidence of their innocence (Garrett 2017c).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Death Row Exonerations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Garrett 2017c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eight cases involved eyewitness identifications, and sometimes multiple eyewitnesses who were all mistaken about what they had seen.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Death Row Exonerations
plainn = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Postconviction DNA testing has proven over 360 men and women innocent; 20 had been sentenced to death but exonerated before any execution.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > INTRODUCTION
plainn = 360- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
In the paper
“the National Registry of Exonerations, which documents 1,934 individuals who have been exonerated in the United States in just the past 20 years.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natl.Regist.Exonerations 2019a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 1,934- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ten cases had microscopic hair-comparison evidence, a type so unreliable that the FBI and crime labs in several states are conducting full audits into decades of testing and testimony.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Death Row Exonerations
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourteen cases involved forensic evidence, including a series of cases with unreliable and flawed forensics.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Death Row Exonerations
plainn = 14- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“in 2015, in the United States, six individuals were exonerated from death row, and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion calling for briefing of the issue whether the current practice of the death penalty is categorically unconstitutional, including because of evidence from such exonerations (Death Penalty Inf.Cent.2015, Glossip v. Gross 2015).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Criminal Procedure, Finality, and Accuracy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Death Penalty Inf.Cent.2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Glossip v. Gross 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“beginning in the 1970s, psychologists embarked on memory research that would transform our understanding of human memory.They uncovered how a police lineup, designed to take some care to test the memory of an eyewitness, can actually reshape and alter an eyewitness's memory.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Eyewitness Misidentifications
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As of 2016, 21 of 116 death row exonerations on the National Registry involved false confessions, 32 involved false or misleading forensics, 81 involved perjury or false accusations, and 90 involved official misconduct.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Studies of Exonerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two more had quite similar fiber comparisons.Two had still more notoriously unreliable bite-mark comparisons, a type of forensics that the scientific community has stated should not be used to identify individuals until meaningful research is done to validate it.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Death Row Exonerations
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
In the paper
“the 2016 report by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a report highlighting that little had changed and more strongly stating that several forensic techniques should no longer be used in court until sufficient scientific research is done to validate their accuracy and reliability (Pres.Counc.Advis.Sci.Technol.2016).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Forensic Evidence
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pres.Counc.Advis.Sci.Technol.2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Although prior surveys suggested that adoption of these practices was highly uneven, recent evidence points toward increased adoption by agencies (Garrett 2019).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Eyewitness Misidentifications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Garrett 2019 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“That report also highlighted the need for information about error rates in forensic disciplines and proficiency of particular examiners and laboratories (Pres.Counc.Advis.Sci.Technol.2016).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Forensic Evidence
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pres.Counc.Advis.Sci.Technol.2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Some of that research has already led to recommendations regarding how forensic conclusions should be expressed, and changed the practices of testifying experts (US Dep.Justice 2019, Thompson et al. 2017).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Forensic Evidence
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites US Dep.Justice 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Thompson et al. 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“As DNA exonerations showed how powerful new evidence of innocence could come to light years and even decades after a conviction, the laws across the United States began to change (Garrett 2008a; see also Medwed 2005).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Criminal Procedure, Finality, and Accuracy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Garrett 2008a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Medwed 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the past, wrongful convictions were thought to be rare if not impossible occurrences.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Criminal Procedure, Finality, and Accuracy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This approach is recommended by leading organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Presidential Task Force on Twenty-First Century Policing (Int.Assoc.Chiefs Police 2013).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Accuracy and Policing
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Int.Assoc.Chiefs Police 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In the first 21 years of postconviction DNA testing, 250 innocent people were exonerated, 40 of whom had falsely confessed (see Garrett 2010Garrett , 2011)).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > False Confessions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Garrett 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Garrett 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 250- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, in response to these cases, all states and the federal government have enacted new postconviction DNA testing claims and revised standards for asserting newly discovered evidence of innocence (Garrett 2017d).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Appeals and Postconviction Litigation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Garrett 2017d
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, false-confession cases have been concentrated in cases involving a murder-20 had been sentenced to death.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > False Confessions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A wide range of jurisdictions around the world, including large and small countries and civil-law and common-law countries with very different systems, have similarly done so, often in response to high-profile exonerations (see Garrett 2017d).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Appeals and Postconviction Litigation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Garrett 2017d
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Policing agencies have increasingly shifted toward requiring recordings of interrogations (Int.Assoc.Chiefs Police 2013, Kassin et al. 2007).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > False Confessions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Int.Assoc.Chiefs Police 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kassin et al. 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The American Law Institute Principles of Policing project has endorsed the recording of interrogations and use of less coercive police questioning practices (Am.Law Inst.2019).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > False Confessions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Am.Law Inst.2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In the entire group of 66 exonerees who falsely confessed, 42 involved a rape and a murder, 9 a murder, and 15 a rape (Garrett 2015; see also Garrett 2011).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > False Confessions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Garrett 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Garrett 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lawmakers convened a Timothy Cole Advisory Panel on Wrongful Convictions.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, new unreliable forensic techniques continue to be introduced, and new errors from low-copy DNA, poor interpretation of DNA mixtures, use of field drug tests of uncertain reliability, use of new algorithms for facial recognition without scientific testing, and other uses of proprietary and unvalidated technology raise a host of new challenges.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, federal agencies have improved their funding and support for basic research to support forensics.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Texas adopted a law requiring all police to use best practices for eyewitness-identification procedures, a law broadening access to DNA testing, and a statute to permit postconviction challenges based on changed science.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“He was exonerated 11 years too late; he died in prison in 1999.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is increasingly an international dialogue among researchers, innocence projects, and policy makers regarding the causes and cures for wrongful convictions.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those concerns also extend to the use of police informant and other incentivized witnesses who claimed to have overheard inculpatory statements in DNA exoneration cases.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The Michael Morton Act (Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann.Art.39.14), named after another Texas DNA exoneree, adopted in 2013, requires broad and shared discovery in criminal cases (see also Morton 2014).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Morton 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, psychologists Saul Kassin, Itiel Dror, and Jeff Kukucka describe not only how an actor may be biased by outside information and other factors but also how the conclusions reached by, say, a forensic analyst may bias others in the criminal justice system (Kassin et al. 2013).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > The Role of Prosecutors
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kassin et al. 2013 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The report evaluated decades of research on eyewitness memory, and it details scientific procedures that can help prevent error.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natl.Res.Counc.2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Scientific standards are still needed for a wide range of forensic disciplines.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, most cases are plea-bargained and discovery may be more informal and limited.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > The Role of Prosecutors
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In 2017, the US Department of Justice adopted a set of guidelines on the best practices for federal law enforcement agencies.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Still, some labs have adopted independent scientific oversight and created new quality controls, such as blind proficiency testing and blind verification.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Texas adopted a law requiring all police to use best practices for eyewitness-identification procedures, a law broadening access to DNA testing, and a statute to permit postconviction challenges based on changed science.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other jurisdictions, it was law enforcement agencies that led the way by changing their policies.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In its 2009 report, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that a comprehensive regulatory approach be adopted for our entire system of forensics, including oversight by a National Institute of Forensic Science that would promulgate scientific standards, audit labs, and conduct basic research to shore up forensic disciplines (see Natl.Res.Counc.2009).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natl.Res.Counc.2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The PEACE interrogation methods first used in the United Kingdom, and now used in Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and other countries, adopt an investigative interviewing approach geared toward obtaining rapport and maximizing the amount of information gathered (Trainum 2016).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Trainum 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More state courts have recognized the importance of the issue and ruled that jurors should hear from experts who can explain eyewitness memory issues to them or alternatively offered model jury instructions detailing the sometimes-counterintuitive research on eyewitness memory.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Researchers have conducted more black-box studies, or at least a few more, that begin to document error rates in forensic disciplines.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In fall 2014, the National Academy of Sciences published an important report titled Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification (see Natl.Res.Counc.2014).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natl.Res.Counc.2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quality controls at labs are still lacking, and largescale scandals involving lab errors persist.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DNA exonerations placed the United States at the forefront of using science to improve the accuracy of criminal justice.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The Timothy Cole Exoneration Review Commission in 2016 recommended still additional changes, including that interrogations be recorded (Smithee et al. 2016).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Smithee et al. 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some places, it was the courts that adopted rules to address accuracy concerns.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, most cases are plea-bargained and discovery may be more informal and limited.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > The Role of Prosecutors
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Take the case of Timothy Cole, convicted in 1986 and exonerated by DNA testing in 2010.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although legislation has been introduced in Congress, no such agency has been created.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, procedures can be instituted through policy to improve the flow of information to officers and selectively blind them to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror 2016).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > The Role of Prosecutors
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dror 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each of those studies-showing how serious discovery violations occur in high-profile wrongful convictions and in the most serious capital cases, and how innocent people feel pressure from prosecutors to plead guilty-lends support to further work aimed at improving criminal discovery and the adjudication process.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > The Role of Prosecutors
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, outside the United States, a range of civil-and common-law countries have similarly experienced exonerations in recent years and have also responded by adopting reforms, from new postconviction rules to new interrogation methods (for an overview, see Garrett 2017d).”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > CONCLUSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Garrett 2017d
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many states, lawmakers have enacted legislation after study commissions initially examined the causes of wrongful convictions, familiarized themselves with the research discussed here, and then adopted responses.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The National Commission on Forensic Science has supported efforts to consider scientific standards for forensics.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Those recommended procedures include conducting identifications blind or blinded so that the person running the procedure cannot inadvertently signal the answer.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natl.Res.Counc.2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, evidence that is not disclosed to the defense (and perhaps not even to prosecutors) may never come to light.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > The Role of Prosecutors
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More agencies are improving their eyewitness-identification procedures.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A Texas Forensic Science Commission made recommendations and conducted audits of old cases involving potentially erroneous forensic evidence.”
§ Annual Review of Criminology Wrongful Convictions > Preventing Wrongful Convictions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Exonerations recorded in registries and DNA exonerations are sufficiently valid indicators of actual wrongful convictions to support conclusions about the causes and prevalence of wrongful convictions.
“Such research has focused on exonerations defined legally and procedurally, focusing on whether the court or executive vacated the conviction on the basis at least in part of newly discovered evidence of innocence (Natl.Regist.Exonerations 2019b).”
“questions of innocence and guilt cannot always be conclusively resolved on the basis of available evidence.”
The paper relies on this without support.
DNA exoneration cases provide a valid basis for drawing conclusions about false confessions and wrongful convictions more generally.
“In the first 21 years of postconviction DNA testing, 250 innocent people were exonerated, 40 of whom had falsely confessed (see Garrett 2010Garrett , 2011)).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The cited studies correctly classified the cases they report as exonerations, false confessions, or wrongful convictions.
“In the entire group of 66 exonerees who falsely confessed, 42 involved a rape and a murder, 9 a murder, and 15 a rape (Garrett 2015; see also Garrett 2011).”
Citations
Cites
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
Council, N. R. (2009) · CrimRxiv · doi:10.21428/cb6ab371.b2d683d2 · Cited by 1,461
Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations.
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2009) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6 · Cited by 728
The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions.
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 · Cited by 634
Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications
Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Péron, A. E. (2006) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017 · Cited by 482
Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs.
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A.-M., & La Fon, D. (2007) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5 · Cited by 370
Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions
Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. A. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1018707108 · Cited by 350
Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation
Dror, I. E., & Hampikian, G. (2011) · Science & Justice · doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004 · Cited by 348
Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The influence of age and suggestibility.
Redlich, A. D., & Goodman, G. S. (2003) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1022543012851 · Cited by 268
Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death
Gross, S. R., O’Brien, B., Hu, C., & Kennedy, E. H. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1306417111 · Cited by 186
Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right
Dwyer, J., Neufeld, P. J., & Scheck, B. (2000) · bepress Legal Repository · Cited by 179
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- Alschuler AW., 2016, Albany Law Rev, 79, 919
- Am. Law Inst, 2016, Restatement of the law: children and the law, projected overall table of contents
- Am. Law Inst, 2019, Principles of policing
- Boyle J., 2014, Citizen Times
- Cole SA., 2006, Gold. Gate Univ. Law Rev., 37, 39
- Drinan CH, 2012, Ga. State Law Rev, 28, 1121
- Drizin SA, 2004, N.C. Law Rev., 82, 891
- Findley KA, 2006, Wis. Law Rev., 2, 291
- Fisher SZ., 1993, N. Engl. Law Rev., 28, 1
- Forensic Sci. Regul, 2015, Guidance: cognitive bias effects relevant to forensic science examinations
- Frank J, 1957, Not Guilty
- Garrett BL., 2008, Minn. Law Rev., 92, 1629
- Garrett BL., 2008, Columbia Law Rev, 108, 55
- Garrett BL., 2010, Stanf. Law Rev., 62, 1051
- Garrett BL., 2015, Va. Law Rev., 101, 395
- Garrett BL., 2017, Academy for Justice, 193
- Garrett BL., 2017, Calif. Law Rev., 105, 1173
- Garrett BL., 2019, Va. Law Rev. Online., 105, 96
- Garrett BL, 2009, Va. Law Rev., 95, 1
- Huff CR, 2008, Wrongful Convictions: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice
- Innocence Proj, 2018, Innocence Project
- Int. Assoc. Chiefs Police, 2013, National summit on wrongful convictions: building a systemic approach to prevent wrongful convictions
- Johnson DT., 2015, Asia-Pac. J., 13, 1
- Koehler JJ., 2017, Jurimetrics J, 57, 153
- Leuschner F, 2019, Crime Delinquency
- McCollum v. North Carolina, 512 U.S. 1254, 1255 (1994) (Blackmun, J. dissenting)
- Medwed DS., 2005, Ariz. Law Rev., 47, 655
- Morton M., 2014, Getting Life
- Natl. Comm. Forensic Sci, 2013, Testimony using the term “reasonable scientific certainty
- Natl. Regist. Exonerations, 2019, National Registry of Exonerations
- Natl. Regist. Exonerations, 2019, National Registry of Exonerations
- Neff J., 2014, News Observer
- Norris RJ, 2017, Crim. Justice Policy Rev., 30, 596
- Pres. Counc. Advis. Sci. Technol, 2016, Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods
- Raab S., 1967, Justice in the Backroom
- Smithee JT, 2016, Timothy Cole exoneration review commission
- Thompson W, 2017, Forensic science assessments: a quality and gap analysis, latent fingerprint examination
- US Dep. Justice, 2019, Approved uniform language for testimony and reports for the forensic latent fingerprint discipline
- West EM., 2010, Court findings on prosecutorial misconduct claims in post-conviction appeals and civil suits among the first 255 DNA exoneration cases
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence
Morgan, J. (2023) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.15233 · Cited by 63
The emergence of “truth machines”?: Artificial intelligence approaches to lie detection
Oravec, J. A. (2022) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-022-09621-6 · Cited by 47
“Some evaluation contexts for lie detection compare results with conviction rates, possibly encountering societal bias concerns (Garrett, 2020) since conviction rates can vary significantly on racial and gender dimensions.”
BackgroundA different perspective on the forensic science crisis
Weyermann, C., & Roux, C. P. (2021) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110779 · Cited by 40
Wrongful convictions in asian countries: A systematic literature review
Le, L. C., Hoang, Y. H., Bui, H. T., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice · doi:10.1080/01924036.2023.2188235 · Cited by 14
“Additionally, after their wrongful convictions, their attitudes towards the justice system, finances, and life were upended (Garrett, 2020; He, 2016a; Leo, 2017; Jiang, 2016, 2018a; Zhong & Dai, 2019).”
The debate concerning deviance and divergence: A new theoretic proposal
García, G. S., Solano, A. V., & Salazar, B. P. (2024) · Oñati Socio-legal Series · doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.1813 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Garrett, B. L.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Garrett, Brandon L.
- ORCID
- Garrett, Brandon L.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Criminology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2020-01-13
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 245-259
- ISSN
- 2572-4568 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4255927984
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 0.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annual Review of Criminology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Evidence
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Keywords
- wrongful convictions, exoneration, causes of wrongful convictions, criminal procedure reform, reliability of evidence, forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, confession, police investigation, criminal justice reform
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-29, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-29 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
