How do innocent people end up in jail

You can learn more about how we consider cases here. Please avoid sharing any personal information in the comments below and join us in making this a hate-speech free and safe space for everyone. Join our mailing list. Little evidence pointed to Mr. He did not fit the description provided to the police. And he Despite a challenging year, 20 vital policy reforms were passed across the U.

Philip and Nathan Barnett were wrongly convicted for a murder in West Virginia. Bad lawyering. Those accused of serious crimes rarely have money.

Many are represented by good public defenders, but too many get stuck with court-appointed lawyers with little or no experience. Capital cases are complex, and the stakes are enormous. All too often, the defense lawyers are in over their heads. Sleeping judges. Judges are supposed to be impartial referees intent on ensuring fair trials. They should exclude confessions that are inconsistent with the physical evidence and obtained by questionable means; exclude the testimony of career felons with dubious motives; require prosecutors to produce exculpatory evidence; and question the credentials and testimony of all experts outside the presence of the jury.

Unfortunately, judges do not always do what they should. The reasons are many and varied, but the fact that many judges are elected doesn't help. They are conscious of their upcoming re-election campaigns and how the decisions they make might affect the results. Of those judges who are appointed rather than elected, the majority are former prosecutors. Junk science. Of the people exonerated by DNA tests between and , 71 percent were convicted based on forensic testimony, much of which was flawed, unreliable, exaggerated or sometimes outright fabricated.

Brandon L. Garrett, a professor of law at University of Virginia, has studied nearly all of the trial transcripts from wrongful convictions later exposed by DNA-based exonerations. Steven Hayne was a controversial forensic pathologist who once boasted of performing more than 2, autopsies in a single year.

African Americans are burdened by a presumption of guilt that most defense lawyers are not prepared to overcome. Children and people with mental disabilities are especially vulnerable to being wrongly convicted. EJI won the release of Diane Tucker , a woman with intellectual disability who was wrongfully convicted of murdering an infant, by obtaining medical evidence that proved the baby never existed. Official misconduct and racial bias led to Mr.

E ven when incarcerated people manage to get evidence that proves their innocence, police and prosecutors often refuse to re-examine the evidence or re-open the case. Police, prosecutors, and judges are not held accountable for misconduct that leads to wrongful convictions, such as fabricating evidence, presenting false testimony, or refusing to consider proof of innocence.

Immunity laws protect them from liability even in cases of gross misconduct. Unlike teams assigned to review individual cases or a series of questionable convictions, CIUs are designed to operate indefinitely and have a dedicated staff. EJI confronts official indifference to innocence by challenging wrongful convictions in court, advocating for broader access to DNA testing, and supporting the creation of Conviction Integrity Units to prevent, identify, and correct false convictions.

Colbey was wrongly convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole when she gave birth to a stillborn baby. These cases show that confessions are not always prompted by internal knowledge or actual guilt, but are sometimes motivated by external influences. Since the late s, DNA analysis has helped identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent nationwide.

While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques—such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons—have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated—such as serology, commonly known as blood typing—are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In some cases, forensic analysts have fabricated results or engaged in other misconduct.