CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Law and EvidenceLegal processes and jurisprudence

DNA laws and the pursuit of racial justice: Access to forensic DNA technology and the exoneration of the wrongfully convicted

Open access
d’Este, Rocco, Yuchtman, Noam·2026
DOI 10.1920/wp.ifs.2026.2026
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We provide evidence that the passage of "DNA laws" streamlining access to forensic DNA technology was a watershed in the exoneration of Black Americans.Exploiting staggered adoption across states, we find that DNA laws increased exonerations of wrongfully convicted Black individuals serving life sentences for sexual offenses by nearly 200%, freeing over 50 individuals -plausibly over 10% of the wrongfully convicted -and saving nearly 900 years of prison time.Our findings suggest that DNA laws redressed longstanding inequalities in access to other exoneration pathways.More generally, changes on multiple margins (technological and legal) may be necessary to reduce racial disparities.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

DNA laws streamlining post-conviction access to forensic DNA testing substantially increased exonerations of wrongfully convicted Black Americans, especially those serving life sentences for sexual offenses. The paper argues that technological access alone was insufficient: legal changes were necessary to realize DNA technology’s exoneration benefits and reduce racial disparities.

Key findings

  • DNA laws increased total exonerations of wrongfully convicted Black individuals by about 0.08 per state×year, roughly a 200% increase over the pre-law mean, while non-Black individuals saw increases in DNA-based exonerations but not total exonerations.
  • Over 15 years post-law, DNA laws were responsible for 50–60 additional exonerations of wrongfully convicted Black individuals; the paper estimates this freed over 10% of the stock of Black individuals wrongfully convicted of sexual offenses and sentenced to life at the time of passage.
  • DNA laws accelerated exoneration for Black individuals: pre-law they had a 60% lower likelihood of exoneration than non-Blacks, but post-law their rate increased nearly 200%, with essentially complete convergence in time to exoneration across races.
  • Effects were larger in states with greater historical racial animus and more expansive DNA laws; a one-standard-deviation increase in either index nearly doubled the differential effect on Black exonerations.

Methods

  • Uses National Registry of Exonerations data from 1989–2018, combined with staggered state adoption of post-conviction DNA laws, incarceration data, and state-level measures of racial animus and DNA-law expansiveness.
  • Baseline sample: 190 exonerations for sexual offenses with life sentences and convictions prior to DNA-law passage; 104 Black and 86 non-Black exonerees.
  • Empirical strategy: event studies, difference-in-differences, triple-difference models by race, Cox proportional hazard models for time to exoneration, and counterfactual simulations of exoneration without DNA laws.

Limitations

  • The paper states it cannot isolate discrimination per se, and that its analysis of exonerated individuals is necessarily an incomplete sample of all wrongfully convicted people.
  • The paper notes possible discrimination may also distort application of DNA laws across races, which would mute estimated effects for Black individuals; it also notes post-law selection into exoneration could create a spurious appearance of slower exoneration rates.
  • The text makes evident that findings are limited to sexual offenses and life sentences, so the authors do not claim to identify the full social benefit of DNA testing or DNA laws; the non-Black category is about 95% White and 5% Hispanic.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1920/wp.ifs.2026.2026

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

5 of 14 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Staggered timing of DNA laws' passage may distort treatment effect estimates.

    “Such heterogeneity may distort treatment effect estimates (see Goodman-Bacon, 2021, De Chaisemartin and d'Haultfoeuille, 2020, Borusyak et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Goodman-Bacon, 2021 source
    • cites De Chaisemartin and d'Haultfoeuille, 2020 source
    • cites Borusyak et al., 2024 source
  • Findingown data

    DNA laws freed over 50 wrongfully convicted Black individuals serving life sentences for sexual offenses.

    “freeing over 50 individuals -plausibly over 10% of the wrongfully convicted -and saving nearly 900 years of prison time.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · hedged
      “Our estimates imply that over 15 years post-law, DNA laws were responsible for 50-60 additional exonerations of wrongfully convicted Black individuals”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    DNA laws saved nearly 900 years of prison time for wrongfully convicted Black individuals.

    “saving nearly 900 years of prison time.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
      “this amounts to nearly 900 years of additional prison time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    DNA laws increased exonerations of wrongfully convicted Black individuals serving life sentences for sexual offenses by nearly 200%.

    “Exploiting staggered adoption across states, we find that DNA laws increased exonerations of wrongfully convicted Black individuals serving life sentences for sexual offenses by nearly 200%, freeing over 50 individuals -plausibly over 10% of the wrongfully convicted -and saving nearly 900 years of prison time.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · hedged
      “The estimated effect of DNA laws on total Black exonerations is around 0.08 per state×year; this is around a 200% increase over the pre-law mean, during which DNA testing technology was available, but less accessible.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Dropping Illinois and New York leaves results largely unchanged.

    “We thus estimate our baseline model, but dropping Illinois and New York; our results are largely unchanged (Table 2, column 10).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 48
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    We find statistically significant effects of DNA laws on both DNA-based and total exonerations across specifications using three estimators allowing for heterogeneous and dynamic treatment effects.

    “One can see in Online Appendix FigureB.3,Panels A and D, that we find statistically significant effects of DNA laws on both DNA-based and total exonerations across specifications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Sunand Abraham, 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Callaway and Sant'Anna, 2021 source

      The Introduction (page not provided) describes three types of difference-in-differences estimators, and the paper explains how its approach accommodates heterogeneous and dynamic treatment effects. It does not report results on DNA laws or exonerations; its empirical application concerns minimum wages and teen employment. The claimed statistically significant exoneration effects are therefore not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Borusyak et al., 2024 source

      The citing sentence describes the citing authors’ own finding, not a finding attributed to Borusyak et al. Our copy discusses robust event-study estimators (Section 4) and applies them to spending after tax rebates (Section 5); searches for DNA laws and exonerations found no passage addressing those outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DNA laws significantly increased both DNA-based and total exonerations in a Poisson model.

    “One can see in Table 2, column 3, that DNA laws significantly increased both DNA-based and total exonerations in this specification as well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DNA laws increased both DNA-based and total exonerations when examining exoneration shares as well as counts; estimates are statistically significant for DNA-based exonerations and on the margin of significance for total exonerations.

    “One can see in Table 2, that DNA laws increased both DNA-based and total exonerations when examining shares as well as counts -estimates are statistically significant for DNA-based exonerations and are on the margin of significance for total exonerations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Black wrongfully convicted individuals experienced a sharp increase in both DNA-based and total exonerations following DNA laws.

    “Black wrongfully convicted individuals experience a sharp increase in both DNA-based and total exonerations following the passage of DNA laws (again, with no evidence of differential exoneration trends prior to the laws' passage).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The baseline sample includes 190 exonerations, 104 Black and 86 non-Black.

    “We present summary statistics describing the 190 exonerations in our baseline sample in Table 1, as well as summary statistics splitting the sample by the race of the exonerated individual ( 104 Black and 86 non-Black”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DNA laws had differential effects by historical racial animus and expansiveness of DNA laws.

    “We find differential effects by both historical racial animus and expansiveness of DNA laws -even considering both sources of heterogeneity in the same model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DNA laws increase DNA-based exonerations by 0.14 per state×year, a large effect relative to the pre-law mean of 0.039, amounting to over 100 additional DNA-based exonerations in the years after the passage of DNA laws.

    “One can see in Panel A that DNA laws increase DNA-based exonerations by 0.14 per state×year, a large effect relative to the pre-law mean of 0.039, amounting to over 100 additional DNA-based exonerations in the years after the passage of DNA laws.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Across specifications, there were significant increases in DNA-based exonerations regardless of race, and increases in total exonerations of wrongfully convicted Black individuals, but not of non-Black individuals.

    “Across specifications, we find significant increases in DNA-based exonerations regardless of race, and find increases in total exonerations of wrongfully convicted Black individuals, but not of non-Black individuals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The higher number of total exonerations largely persists for the entire decade following a DNA law's passage, though point estimates begin to decline and statistical significance fades slightly.

    “The higher number of exonerations again largely persists for the entire decade following a DNA law's passage, though point estimates begin to decline and statistical significance fades slightly.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    DNA laws significantly increased total exonerations (pooling races), though smaller than DNA-based.

    “as well as a significant (albeit slightly smaller) increase in total exonerations”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The impact of DNA laws on total exonerations is around 0.10 exonerations per state×year, implying an additional 75 individuals were exonerated as a result of DNA laws' passage.

    “around 0.10 exonerations per state×year.This implies an additional 75 individuals were exonerated as a result of DNA laws' passage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Non-Black individuals experienced an increase in DNA-based exonerations but not total exonerations.

    “Non-Black individuals experience an increase in DNA-based exonerations but not total exonerations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    DNA laws significantly increased DNA-based exonerations (pooling races).

    “find a significant post-law increase in DNA-based exonerations”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DNA-based exonerations are estimated to increase by 0.6 standard deviations post-law, while total exonerations increase by 0.23 standard deviations.

    “One can see that DNA-based exonerations are estimated to increase by 0.6 standard deviations post-law, while total exonerations increase by 0.23 standard deviations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Adding conviction year fixed effects leaves results very similar, though less precise due to loss of power.

    “In Table 5, column 4, one can see that our results are very similar, although they are a bit less precise due to loss of power.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The magnitude of the effect on Black exonerations represents nearly a 100% increase relative to the pre-law mean of 0.089 across races, and is even more striking relative to the 0.03 per state×year for Blacks.

    “The magnitude of the effect on Black exonerations is substantial: it represents nearly a 100% increase in exonerations relative to the pre-law mean of 0.089 across races, and is even more striking relative to the 0.03 per state×year for Blacks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In standardized and Poisson specifications, DNA laws increase DNA-based exonerations for Blacks and non-Blacks, while increasing total exonerations significantly for Blacks, but not for non-Blacks, with the difference between groups statistically significant.

    “One can see that our conclusions are unchanged: consistent with our Hypothesis 2, DNA laws increase DNA-based exonerations for Blacks and non-Blacks, while increasing total exonerations significantly for Blacks, but not for non-Blacks (with the difference between groups also being statistically significant).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    More expansive DNA laws further enhance the impact of DNA laws on Blacks' exonerations; the coefficient on Post*Black*index is positive and statistically significant.

    “Consistent with the prediction of our conceptual framework, one can see that more expansive DNA laws further enhance the impact of DNA laws on Blacks' exonerationsthe coefficient on Post st * 1 r=Black * index s is positive and statistically significant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Relaxing crime and sentence restrictions leaves DNA-based exoneration effects nearly unchanged, while total exoneration effects are somewhat larger but imprecisely estimated.

    “We find that the estimated effect of DNA laws on DNA-based exonerations are nearly unchanged, while the effects on total exonerations are somewhat larger, albeit imprecisely estimated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Following DNA laws, total exonerations modestly (statistically insignificantly) increase for non-Blacks (p = 0.37), while total exonerations significantly increase for Blacks, by 0.08 per state×year (p < 0.01).

    “Following DNA laws, one can see that total exonerations modestly (statistically insignificantly) increase for non-Blacks (p = 0.37), while total exonerations significantly increase for Blacks, by 0.08 per state×year (p < 0.01)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Following DNA laws' passage, DNA-based exonerations significantly increase for both Blacks (p < 0.01) and non-Blacks (p < 0.01).

    “following DNA laws' passage, DNA-based exonerations significantly increase for both Blacks (p < 0.01) and non-Blacks (p < 0.01).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DNA laws have a significantly greater effect on Blacks in states with greater racial animus, with DNA laws' differential effects on Blacks nearly doubling in states with one standard deviation greater racial animus.

    “Again, consistent with the prediction of our conceptual framework, DNA laws have a significantly greater effect on Blacks in states with greater racial animus, with DNA laws' differential effects on Blacks nearly doubling in states with one standard deviation greater racial animus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Over 95% of minority individuals in the sample are Black and over 90% of the non-Black individuals in the sample are White.

    “These findings are, perhaps, unsurprising given that over 95% of minority individuals in our sample are Black and over 90% of the non-Black individuals in our sample are White.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Including exonerations in the year of a DNA law's passage and following years, or dropping the year of passage, leaves results very similar to baseline.

    “In both cases, our results remain very similar to the baseline model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DNA laws are estimated to have a larger effect on Blacks' exonerations, but this differential effect is marginally statistically insignificant (p = 0.13).

    “DNA laws are estimated to have a larger effect on Blacks' exonerations, but this differential effect is marginally statistically insignificant (p = 0.13).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For the vast majority of the 78 individuals, simulated time in prison in the absence of DNA laws is substantially larger than actual time; for ten individuals, simulated time is less than actual.

    “For ten individuals, simulated time in prison is less than actual time in prison; however, for the vast majority of individuals, simulated time in prison in the absence of DNA laws is substantially larger than actual time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Kaplan-Meier survival curves show the probability of remaining incarcerated for a wrongful conviction over time.

    “Kaplan-Meier survival curves show the probability of remaining incarcerated for a wrongful conviction over time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The estimated coefficient on Post (effect on non-Blacks) is 0.151, suggesting a slight increase in the rate of exoneration, but this effect is not statistically significantly different from 0.

    “The estimated coefficient on Post ist -indicating the effect of DNA laws on non-Blacksis 0.151, suggesting a slight increase in the rate of exoneration, but this effect is not statistically significantly different from 0.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Relaxing sample restrictions to consider wrongful convictions regardless of sentence imposed has no impact on estimated effects of DNA laws, suggesting effects are primarily observed among individuals receiving life sentence cases.

    “This has no impact on the estimated effects of DNA laws, suggesting that the effects of the laws are primarily observed among individuals receiving life sentence cases (which is sensible, as discussed above).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Relaxing sample restrictions in race-specific analysis shows results are very robust; DNA laws generally increase DNA-based exonerations for Blacks and non-Blacks, while total exonerations only significantly increase for Blacks.

    “One can see in Online Appendix Table C.6, columns 2-6, that in comparison with the baseline (column 1), our results are very robust to these changes in sample.In particular, we generally see DNA laws increasing DNA-based exonerations for Blacks and non-Blacks, while total exonerations only significantly increase for Blacks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The effect of DNA laws on exonerations was larger in states with greater historical racial animus and in states with more expansive DNA laws.

    “particularly in states with greater historical racial animus and in states with more expansive DNA laws, consistent with DNA laws addressing prior unequal access to alternative exoneration technologies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    While Black defendants faced significantly lower exoneration rates pre-law, the gap narrows substantially in the post-law period.

    “Panel (b) illustrates that while Black defendants (black = 1) faced significantly lower exoneration rates pre-law, the gap narrows substantially in the post-law period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both greater DNA law expansiveness and greater historical racial animus significantly increase DNA laws' effects, holding the other dimension of heterogeneity fixed.

    “Moreover, both greater DNA law expansiveness and greater historical racial animus are estimated to significantly increase DNA laws' effects, holding the other dimension of heterogeneity fixed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Non-Black defendants show a significantly higher baseline probability of exoneration prior to law adoption, and they experience a comparatively smaller increase in the speed of exoneration following the policy change.

    “Non-Black defendants show a significantly higher baseline probability of exoneration prior to law adoption, and they experience a comparatively smaller increase in the speed of exoneration following the policy change.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DNA laws increase both DNA-based and total exonerations among wrongfully convicted Blacks.

    “Examining the patterns in Figure 3, Panels A and B, one can see that these predictions receive strong support.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A substantial share of exonerations (around 60%) relied on DNA technology, with a larger share for wrongfully convicted Blacks (nearly 75%).

    “A substantial share of exonerations (around 60%) relied on DNA technology, with a larger share of DNA-based exonerations for wrongfully convicted Blacks (nearly 75%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Early- and late-adopters' treatment effects are very similar to each other and to the baseline model.

    “One can see in Online Appendix Figure B.2, Panels A and D, that early-and late-adopters' treatment effects are very similar to each other, and to our baseline model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The Poisson specification implies around a 235% increase in the count of DNA-based exonerations and around an 80% increase in the count of total exonerations, similar to baseline.

    “The magnitude of the estimated effect in the Poisson specification implies around a 235% increase in the count of DNA-based exonerations and around an 80% increase in the count of total exonerations -both magnitudes are similar to the estimates in the baseline specification.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Consideration of any one of the index components alone yields nearly identical results.

    “Consideration of any one of the index components alone yields nearly identical results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Wrongfully convicted Black individuals are exonerated nearly 20 years after wrongful conviction, while non-Black individuals are exonerated around 14 years after wrongful conviction.

    “Wrongfully convicted Black individuals are exonerated nearly 20 years after wrongful conviction, while non-Black individuals are exonerated around 14 years after wrongful conviction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    Exponentiating the coefficient 0.626 gives 1.870, indicating an 87% increase in the hazard ratio.

    “This can be seen by exponentiating the coefficient: exp(0.626)= 1.870, indicating an 87% increase in the hazard ratio.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The sum of coefficients capturing the post-law difference in exoneration rates for Black and non-Black individuals is -0.019 and statistically indistinguishable from 0, indicating substantial convergence.

    “One can see that this sum of coefficients is very close to 0 (to be precise, it is -0.019) and is statistically indistinguishable from 0, indicating a substantial degree of convergence”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Changes on multiple margins (technological and legal) may be necessary to reduce racial disparities.

    “More generally, changes on multiple margins (technological and legal) may be necessary to reduce racial disparities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Results are qualitatively identical if any of the sample restrictions are relaxed.

    “It is important to note that our results are qualitatively identical if we relax any of these sample restrictions (discussed below).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The paper documents first-order racial inequalities in exoneration rates and a significant reduction in such inequality arising from DNA testing and DNA laws.

    “we document both first-order racial inequalities in exoneration rates, and a significant reduction in such inequality arising from the combination of a new technology (DNA testing) and a particular set of laws (providing streamlined access to DNA testing).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Wrongfully convicted Black Americans faced differentially high costs of non-DNA exoneration, with discrimination at the state level plausibly contributing to these costs.

    “These findings support the proposition that wrongfully convicted Black Americans faced differentially high costs of non-DNA exoneration, with discrimination at the state level plausibly contributing to these costs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The 1999 US Department of Justice report shaped subsequent state legislation and significantly streamlined access to post-conviction DNA testing.

    “This report shaped subsequent state legislation and significantly streamlined access to post-conviction DNA testing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites US Department of Justice, 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    State DNA laws vary in scope of coverage, provision of legal services, and financial burden.

    “Important dimensions along which these laws vary includefoot_7 : • Scope of coverage: some laws restrict the right to DNA testing to individuals convicted of particular crimes, while others are less restrictive.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    DNA laws were adopted in a staggered manner beginning in the late 1990s, with nearly all adoptions following the Department of Justice (1999) report.

    “We combine this dataset with information on states' adoption of DNA laws, which were adopted in a staggered manner beginning in the late 1990s, with nearly all adoptions following the Department of Justice (1999) report.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Department of Justice (1999)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    DNA laws increased access to exoneration technology for wrongfully convicted Blacks, while allowing for substitution to an alternative exoneration technology for non-Blacks.

    “Consistent with our conceptual framework, our empirical evidence suggests that DNA laws increased access to exoneration technology for wrongfully convicted Blacks, while allowing for substitution to an alternative exoneration technology for non-Blacks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    State DNA laws streamlining access to forensic DNA technology were an important, unrecognized complement to technological change, significantly increasing the number of wrongfully convicted Black Americans who were exonerated.

    “In this paper, we argue that state DNA laws streamlining access to forensic DNA technology 1 were an important, unrecognized complement to technological change, significantly increasing the number of wrongfully convicted Black Americans who were exonerated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The baseline analysis exploits the timing of adoption of any post-conviction DNA law as the main source of identifying variation.

    “Importantly, our baseline analysis exploits the timing of the adoption of any post-conviction DNA law as the main source of identifying variation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All regressions include state and year fixed effects.

    “All regressions include state and year fixed effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The effects of DNA laws may have been particularly large for Black Americans due to higher costs of exoneration using non-DNA technologies for wrongfully convicted Blacks.

    “The effects of DNA laws may have been particularly large for Black Americans due to the higher costs of exoneration using non-DNA technologies for wrongfully convicted Blacks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Prior to the passage of DNA laws, non-DNA exoneration technology was less costly than DNA technology (p_non-DNA < p_DNA,pre).
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The cost of accessing non-DNA exoneration technology was higher for Black individuals than for non-Black individuals (p_non-DNA,Black > p_non-DNA,non-Black).
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The costs of accessing DNA technology before and after DNA laws do not vary by race.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Standard errors are clustered at the state level.

    “Standard errors clustered at the state level are reported in parentheses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Wrongfully convicted Blacks likely had less access to non-DNA exoneration, which was particularly important prior to DNA laws when DNA technology was costly to access.

    “Wrongfully convicted Blacks thus likely had less access to non-DNA exoneration, which was particularly important prior to the DNA laws, when DNA technology was costly to access.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The cost of accessing non-DNA exoneration technology was higher for Black individuals than for non-Black individuals (p_non-DNA,Black > p_non-DNA,non-Black).

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    DNA laws varied in provision of counsel, willingness to reconsider plea convictions, and costs borne by convicted individuals.

    “In practice, DNA laws varied in: (i) provision of counsel to convicted individuals in the initial stages of pursuing DNA testing; (ii) willingness to reconsider convictions arising from plea agreements; and, (iii) costs borne by convicted individuals in pursuing access to DNA testing”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brooks and Simpson, 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Under the model assumptions, the conceptual framework predicts a greater impact of DNA laws on net exonerations for Black individuals than for non-Blacks.

    “Under these assumptions, our conceptual framework predicts a greater impact of DNA laws on net exonerations for Black individuals than for non-Blacks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The cost of accessing non-DNA exoneration technology was higher for Black individuals than for non-Black individuals (p_non-DNA,Black > p_non-DNA,non-Black).
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The costs of accessing DNA technology before and after DNA laws do not vary by race.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Increased access to DNA exoneration technology can affect the extensive margin (number of individuals exonerated) and the intensive margin (rate or speed of exoneration).

    “Importantly, increased access to DNA exoneration technology can affect the extensive margin of exoneration -that is, the number of individuals exonerated -as well as the intensive margin: the rate (or speed) of exoneration for a wrongfully convicted individual.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If some Blacks continue to remain wrongfully convicted longer than non-Blacks, this would reduce the degree of convergence by race.

    “If some Blacks continue to remain wrongfully convicted longer than non-Blacks, this would reduce the degree of convergence by race.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
60 of 60

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The price of non-DNA exoneration technology differs by race, with Blacks facing a higher price.

    “We assume that the price of non-DNA technology differs by race, reflecting plausibly differential access to non-DNA exoneration technology (e.g., due to differences in quality of legal representation or to discrimination within the legal system).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The post-DNA law price of DNA technology does not differ by race.

    “We also assume that the post-DNA law price of DNA technology does not differ by race, reflecting the laws' intent to generally streamline access to a race-neutral technology of exoneration (relaxing this assumption does not meaningfully affect our analysis).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    DNA laws reduce the cost of accessing DNA-based exoneration technology.

    “We motivate our analysis using a simple conceptual framework in which DNA laws reduce the cost of a highly effective exoneration technology that was previously financially and procedurally costly to access (see, e.g., US Department of Justice, 1999).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The stock of individuals wrongfully convicted prior to DNA laws' passage is fixed.

    “the stock of individuals wrongfully convicted prior to the laws' passage (to which we restrict our analysis) is fixed”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Absent DNA laws, exonerations in states that adopted them would have followed the same trends as before (parallel trends).

    “We next estimate DNA laws' effects over the entire post-law period, compared to the pre-law period, in order to increase the power of our test of DNA laws' impact”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Prior to the passage of DNA laws, non-DNA exoneration technology was less costly than DNA technology (p_non-DNA < p_DNA,pre).

    “We assume that prior to the passage of DNA laws, non-DNA exoneration technology was less costly than DNA technology; that is, prior to DNA laws' passage, p non-DN A < p DN A,pre .”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The cost of accessing non-DNA exoneration technology was higher for Black individuals than for non-Black individuals (p_non-DNA,Black > p_non-DNA,non-Black).

    “More formally, we assume that p non-DN A,Black > p non-DN A,non-Black , reflecting Black individuals' higher cost of accessing non-DNA technology.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The costs of accessing DNA technology before and after DNA laws do not vary by race.

    “In particular, we assume that p DN A,pre and p DN A,post do not vary by race.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    DNA laws reduce the price of DNA technology to the same level regardless of racial discrimination.

    “We assume (for simplicity) that DNA laws reduce the price of DNA technology to the same level regardless of racial discrimination.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Increased exoneration due to the passage of DNA laws does not generate negative spillovers across individuals (e.g., due to congestion).

    “One important caveat is that this assumes that the increased exoneration due to the passage of DNA laws does not generate negative spillovers across individuals (e.g., due to congestion).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    DNA laws significantly reduce the cost of DNA testing as a technology of exoneration (p_DNA,post < p_DNA,pre).

    “DNA laws can be thought of as significantly reducing the cost of DNA testing as a technology of exoneration: p DN A,post < p DN A,pre .”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    After DNA laws, DNA testing often became the least cost exoneration technology for many wrongfully convicted individuals (p_DNA,post < p_non-DNA).

    “Indeed, the streamlined, state-supported nature of DNA testing after the passage of DNA laws would often have made it the least cost exoneration technology for many wrongfully convicted individuals, that is, p DN A,post < p non-DN A .”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    DNA testing is a highly effective technology of exoneration and was available to the wrongfully convicted prior to the passage of DNA laws.

    “DNA testing is a highly effective technology of exoneration, and it was available to the wrongfully convicted prior to the passage of DNA laws.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Prior to DNA laws, the use of DNA technology was extremely costly due to legal constraints, logistical challenges, and financial costs.

    “The use of DNA technology was extremely costly, with a reduced form price, p DN A,pre including legal constraints on the ability of the wrongfully convicted to appeal their convictions, logistical challenges in having evidence tested, and the financial costs of legal representation needed to overcome the legal and logistical challenges.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some individuals, both Black and non-Black, remain wrongfully convicted.

    “It is certain that some individuals, both Black and non-Black, remain wrongfully convicted”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The more rapid exoneration of some Blacks would not increase the time to exoneration for others.

    “we see no reason why the more rapid exoneration of some Blacks would increase the time to exoneration for others”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Discrimination reduces access to non-DNA exoneration technology for Black individuals.

    “due to the effects of discrimination reducing access for Black individuals”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The price of DNA technology fell, allowing both Black individuals and non-Blacks to access this new technology.

    “the fall in the price of DNA technology allows both Black individuals and non-Blacks to access this new technology”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Individuals with an ability to pay less than p non-DNA are unable to access any exoneration technology.

    “individuals in the distribution f () with an ability to pay less than p non-DN A are unable to access any exoneration technology”
19 of 19

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Broader-sample survival estimates are not essentially unchanged

    Minor

    The text says the survival results are essentially unchanged with broader offenses and sentences. Table C.9 instead shows the estimated total effect on Blacks falling from 1.045 in the baseline to 0.212 for all sexual offenses and 0.237 for all crimes and sentences; the first broader-sample estimate is no longer statistically significant.

  • Figure 3 panel descriptions conflict with its labels

    Minor

    The text describes Panel C as DNA-based exonerations of non-Blacks, but the figure labels Panel C as total exonerations of Blacks.

2 of 2

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. and , "Testing for racial prejudice in the parole board release process: theory and evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, 2015, 44 (1), 1-37.
  2. Brooks, Justin and Alexander Simpson, "Blood sugar sex magik: a review of postconviction DNA testing statutes and legislative recommendations," Drake Law Review, 2010, 59.
  3. Gould, Jon B and Richard A Leo, "One hundred years later: wrongful convictions after a century of research," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2010, pp. 825-868.
  4. Kristen Jacoby, Daniel J Matheson, and Nicholas Montgomery, "Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 2004, 95, 523.

Authors
d’Este, R., & Yuchtman, N.
Affiliations
University of Sussex (GB)
ORCID
Yuchtman, Noam
Publisher
The IFS
Published
2026-03-13
DOI
10.1920/wp.ifs.2026.2026
OpenAlex
W7135169458
Semantic Scholar
6597f7011e4fcd41f16d5f8a5707666b43405df1
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
report
Open access
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Evidence
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
Keywords
wrongful convictions, exoneration, racial disparities, African Americans, life imprisonment, sexual offences, access to justice

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by 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