Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1920388
 


 



Two Windows into Innocence


George C. Thomas III


Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - School of Law-Newark

January 1, 2010

Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 7, p. 575, Spring 2010
Rutgers School of Law-Newark Research Paper No. 101

Abstract:     
Stories about innocent defendants who serve many years in prison before they are conclusively exonerated by DNA testing are by now sadly familiar. Although the reaction of policy makers has so far been strangely muted, there are concrete steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions at an acceptable cost. This essay examines two relatively modest but important changes that some states have made and recommends that they be made more broadly. According to the Cardozo Innocence Project, the single most common cause of wrongful convictions is mistaken eyewitness identifications. States like New Jersey and North Carolina have implemented fundamental changes in eyewitness procedures that include keeping records of the procedure and requiring the eyewitness to indicate the degree of certainty. The essay recommends these and other reforms that will help protect innocent defendants. The other “window into innocence” is to permit criminal defendants to discover the State’s case in much the same manner as civil litigants are permitted to discover the other party’s case. Florida has had a liberal criminal discovery policy since 1972 without evidence of undue burdens on victims or costs to administer the process. Ten other states permit criminal discovery either as a matter of right or by leave of the court. Though liberal criminal discovery does potentially burden victims, there are ways of ameliorating that burden. One can argue that all defendants have a right to discover the State’s case but that argument has particular cogency when the defendant is factually innocent of the crime charged when defendants. When defendants make a threshold showing of innocence, the paper argues, the State should pay the defense lawyer’s time to take depositions of the State’s witnesses.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 23

Keywords: DNA, exonerations, innocent defendants, criminal discovery, eyewitness identification, eyewitness mis-identification, Florida discovery, wrongful convictions

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: September 1, 2011  

Suggested Citation

Thomas, George C., Two Windows into Innocence (January 1, 2010). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 7, p. 575, Spring 2010; Rutgers School of Law-Newark Research Paper No. 101. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1920388

Contact Information

George C. Thomas III (Contact Author)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - School of Law-Newark ( email )
123 Washington Street
Newark, NJ 07102
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 309
Downloads: 49

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.407 seconds