Category Archives: Scholarship

Submit Papers for Innocence Network Conference…

The Innocence Scholarship Committee of the Innocence Network is seeking high quality social science and legal scholarship for presentation at the 2015 Innocence Network Conference in Orlando, Florida on May 1-2 (http://www.innocencenetwork.org/conference).

Areas of research are open but should touch upon the multifaceted causes, implications, and/or remedies of wrongful conviction. International papers are welcome but must be submitted in English. Please submit a title and paper proposal to the Innocence Scholarship Committee at this G-Mail account: innocencescholarship@gmail.com by February 13, 2015. Paper proposals must be no more than 200 words. Completed drafts must be submitted to the Committee by April 17th, 2015.

The Innocence Scholarship Committee is actively seeking publication for those papers accepted for Conference presentations in a law review symposium edition. More information about that is forthcoming.

The Innocence Scholarship Committee is comprised of the following Members: Professor Aliza Kaplan, Oregon Innocence Project, Lewis & Clark School of Law, Portland, Oregon; Professor Valena Beety, West Virginia Innocence Project, West Virginia School of Law; and Dr. Robert Schehr, Arizona Innocence Project, Northern Arizona University.

Center for Prosecutor Integrity’s 2015 Innocence Summit – Call for Session Proposals

CPI Logo

2015 Innocence Summit – Invitation for Workshop Proposals

Crowne Plaza Hotel, Arlington, Virginia              June 12-13, 2015

 The Center for Prosecutor Integrity (CPI) is announcing its Invitation for Workshop Proposals for the 2015 Innocence Summit, themed “Forging Best Practices for Innocence Reform.” CPI invites individuals and organizations throughout the criminal legal system to submit a proposal.

Workshops are designed to educate attendees on issues of substantive law and practical interest. Recent research findings, program descriptions, case studies, legal analyses, advocacy strategies, and innovative solutions are all welcome.

Proposals must include the following:

  • Workshop title
  • Three learning objectives
  • Description of the workshop content (maximum 500 words)
  • Presenter biography (maximum 250 words)

Proposals are welcome from a variety of presenters and using a variety of presentation formats. Workshops will be 60 minutes in length.

Proposals should be submitted here: summit@prosecutorintegrity.org. Applications are due no later than Friday, January 16th, 2015.

Applicants will be notified whether their proposal has been selected by February 20th. Presenters are responsible for their own conference registration, travel, and lodging expenses. Further information about the Innocence Summit can be found here: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/summit/2015-3/

Last year’s Innocence Summit was a great success, and we invite you to participate in this exciting opportunity to advance best practices for innocence reform!

If you have any questions, contact Gina Lauterio, CPI Program Director, at summit@prosecutorintegrity.org .

Thank you,

Gina R. Lauterio Esq., Program Director, Center for Prosecutor Integrity (CPI)

P.O. Box 1221, Rockville, MD 20849

Office: 301-801-0608, Cell: 908-783-3542

Email: glauterio@prosecutorintegrity.orgInternet: www.prosecutorintegrity.org

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity, a 501(c)3 organization, works toward preserving the presumption of innocence, assuring equal treatment under the law, and ending wrongful convictions.

New Scholarship Spotlight: Criminologizing Wrongful Convictions

Professor Michael Naughten has posted the above-titled article on The British Journal of Criminology.  Download here.  The abstract states:

This article considers the apparent lack of serious engagement with issues pertaining to wrongful convictions by criminology at present. It seeks to address this by criminologizing wrongful convictions in two senses: firstly, by highlighting a variety of forms of intentional law or rule breaking by police officers and prosecutors in the causation of wrongful convictions that in other circumstances would likely be treated as crime and dealt with as such; and, secondly, to reveal the extent to which such powerful criminal justice system agents can cause profound and wide-ranging forms of harm to victims of wrongful convictions, their families and society as a whole with almost total impunity. In so doing, the relevance of the study of the intentional forms of crime and deviance committed by criminal justice system agents in the manufacture of wrongful convictions to both arms of the criminological divide is emphasized: mainstream and critical criminology. The overall aim is to show that the study of wrongful convictions can further extend and enrich existing criminological epistemology in vital and important ways and can even contribute to the prevention and possible elimination of those that are caused deliberately.

 

New Scholarship Spotlight: Reducing Guilty Pleas Through Exoneree Compensations

Professors Murat Mungan and Jonathan Klick have posted the above-titled article on SSRN.  Download here.  The abstract states:

A great concern with plea-bargains is that they may induce innocent individuals to plead guilty to crimes they have not committed. In this article, we identify schemes that reduce the number of innocent-pleas without affecting guilty individuals’ plea-bargain incentives. Large compensations for exonerees reduce expected costs associated with wrongful determinations of guilt in trial and thereby reduce the number of innocent-pleas. Any distortions in guilty individuals’ incentives to take plea bargains caused by these compensations can be off-set by a small increase in the discounts offered for pleading guilty. Although there are many statutory reform proposals for increasing exoneration compensations, no one has yet noted this desirable separating effect of exoneree compensations. We argue that such reforms are likely to achieve this result without causing deterrence losses.

New Scholarship Spotlight: Innocence Found: The New Revolution in American Justice

Keith Findley, President of the Innocence Network, has posted the above-titled chapter on SSRN.  Download here:  The summary says:

This short extract — the first four pages of Chapter 1 in an edited volume, Controversies in Innocence Cases in America — begins to describe the history and significance of the Innocence Movement in the American Criminal Justice System. The full chapter traces the origins of the innocence organizations that came together to form the Innocence Network and fostered the new Innocence Movement, the manner in which the Innocence Movement has created an impetus and model for criminal justice reform that shifts the focus from the Warren Court’s due process revolution of the 1960s to a more substantive focus on reliability. In this framework, the chapter then considers some of the specific reforms that have emerged from the Innocence Movement’s focus on substantive justice, and the challenges that lie ahead.

New Scholarship Spotlight: In Defense of American Criminal Justice

The Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has published the above-titled article in the Vanderbilt Law Review.  It argues that the system is not nearly as broken as many critics allege, some convictions of innocents is part of a necessary trade-off, and that the reforms pushed by the Innocence Movement often go to far.

Have a read here.

New Scholarship Spotlight: The Consequences of Error in Criminal Justice

Daniel Epps has posted the above-titled article on SSRN.  Download here.   Abstract below.  I haven’t read the piece yet, but the friend who sent it to me read it and said, “These kids with their Harvard degrees and Supreme Court clerkships and no real experience in the criminal law trenches can be really scary.”   Have a read…Enjoy!

“Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer,” William Blackstone’s famous adage, stands for a powerful idea in the criminal law: that it’s essential to minimize wrongly convicting the innocent even at the expense of overall accuracy. This “Blackstone principle” accords with most people’s deeply felt intuitions about criminal justice.

This Article challenges that fundamental precept. It begins by situating the Blackstone principle in the history of Anglo-American criminal law. That history shows how the principle gained prominence — most notably, because in Blackstone’s time and earlier death was the exclusive penalty for many crimes — but provides no compelling justification today.

The leading modern argument for the Blackstone principle is that false convictions are simply more costly than false acquittals. But that argument is incomplete, because it focuses myopically on the costs of errors in individual cases. A complete analysis of the Blackstone principle requires taking stock of its dynamic effects on the criminal justice system as a whole. The Article conducts that analysis, which reveals two significant but previously unrecognized draw-backs of the Blackstone principle: First, its benefits to innocent defendants are smaller than usually assumed; it could even make those defendants worse off. Second, the principle reinforces a widely recognized political process failure in criminal justice, hurting not just defendants but society as a whole. The magnitude of these effects is uncertain, but they could more than cancel out the principle’s putative benefits.

The Article then analyzes alternative justifications for the Blackstone principle. None is satisfactory; each rests on dubious empirical premises, logical errors, or controversial premises. There is thus no fully persuasive justification for the principle. Rejecting the Blackstone principle would require us to re-think — although not necessarily redesign — various aspects of our criminal-procedure system.