How to Exonerate an Innocent Man in Ten Easy Steps, or Move over, John Grisham

The Columbia Journalism Review published a fascinating article written by author Steve Weinberg telling journalists -- or true crime authors, or true crime readers, or bloggers, or whoever is interested in the subject -- exactly how to go about determining and proving, in ten easy steps, a case of wrongful conviction.

There may be a Pulitzer in it for you.

The Columbia Journalism Review is the premier academic publication in the field of journalism. The article discusses three books about wrongful convictions,including one written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who proved a wrongful conviction.

The title of the article is "Wrongful Convictions: Three Books and Ten Lessons for Journalists."

“My experience as a newspaper reporter and author," Edward Humes writes in his new book, Mean Justice, "taught me that claims of innocence from convicted criminals are often made, seldom proved, and usually refuted."

This article goes on to list very specific tips I thought equally applicable to appellate counsel.

So here is a summary of the ten rules.

ONE. In the criminal justice system, investigators often rely on statistical patterns. ..when the beginning hypothesis hardens into a conclusion too quickly, contradictory evidence might be misinterpreted or overlooked.

TWO. The reputations and records of the defense attorneys matter.

THREE. Honest mistakes or officially sanctioned lawlessness can occur in every step of the investigative process.

FOUR. Then there are the prosecutors. It seems unthinkable to many journalists that prosecutors -- officers of the court sworn to uphold justice -- would intentionally withhold exculpatory evidence, encourage witnesses to lie, or present testimony known to be untrue. But such practices are common in wrongful convictions.

FIVE. Evaluate the witnesses....Have there been inconsistencies over time in the testimony of a particular witness?

SIX. Examine the documents, build a chronology.

SEVEN. Think about the jury. In all three of these books it became obvious to the authors that many jurors give only lip service to the axiom "innocent until proven guilty."

EIGHT. Don't rule out a criminal conspiracy... Victims of Justice ends with the indictment of seven prosecutors and sheriffs deputies.

NINE. Don't expect a lot of cooperation when investigating the investigators.

TEN. Be skeptical of journalistic accounts. Reporters often are spoon-fed by prosecutors or, less often, by defense attorneys. This can lead to selective use of evidence in the journalistic account, conscious or unconscious.

That caution holds even for wrongful conviction books.

This article cites three very interesting books, including the Pulitzer winner. I'll put some Amazon links at the end of this post to those books named in the article.

Comments

[silverside]

How tough it is to follow these steps on a historic true crime though. You have newspaper accounts, maybe trial accounts. But you can't ask new questions or ferret out other witnesses. Unless you believe in Ouija boards.