In the National Registry of Exonerations, look up the Paul House case that is discussed in the textbook.
Considering the new post-conviction evidence, do you think this is an "extraordinary case" in which "no reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Why or why not? Should the appellate courts require evidence this strong to require the trial courts to consider new evidence of innocence?
Question 2: DNA exonerations
Many people still think there is no such thing as "exoneration" without DNA being involved. Why do people think this, and how would you explain to them that it's wrong?
What is the difference between DNA exonerations and non-DNA exonerations?
What proportion of exonerations are DNA exonerations? How would you find this out using the Registry data?
Has this proportion changed over time? How would you find this out using the Registry data? In what way? Why?
How does the mix of crimes differ between DNA and non-DNA exonerations? How would you find this out using the Registry data? What explains the different patterns of crime between the two exoneration types?
Full Answer Section
Appellate Courts and New Evidence
Appellate courts should require evidence as strong as that presented in the Paul House case to consider new evidence of innocence. While it may be difficult to establish a definitive standard for the strength of evidence required, cases with overwhelming evidence of innocence, such as DNA exonerations, should be given priority.
- DNA Exonerations vs. Non-DNA Exonerations
The misconception that exonerations can only occur through DNA evidence is likely due to the high-profile nature of DNA exoneration cases. However, many individuals have been exonerated based on other types of evidence, such as eyewitness recantations, newly discovered evidence, or prosecutorial misconduct.
Key Differences:
- DNA Exonerations: These cases involve the use of DNA evidence to prove the innocence of a convicted individual. DNA evidence is considered highly reliable and can definitively exclude a suspect.
- Non-DNA Exonerations: These cases involve other types of evidence, such as eyewitness recantations, newly discovered evidence, or prosecutorial misconduct. While this evidence can be compelling, it may not be as definitive as DNA evidence.
Proportion of DNA Exonerations:
To determine the proportion of DNA exonerations, you can analyze the data in the National Registry of Exonerations. The registry provides detailed information on each exoneration case, including the type of evidence that led to the exoneration. By comparing the number of DNA exonerations to the total number of exonerations, you can calculate the proportion.
Changes Over Time:
To determine whether the proportion of DNA exonerations has changed over time, you can compare the data from different time periods. The registry provides data on exonerations by year, allowing you to analyze trends and identify any changes in the proportion of DNA exonerations.
Crime Patterns:
To analyze the differences in crime patterns between DNA and non-DNA exonerations, you can examine the types of crimes for which individuals have been wrongfully convicted. For example, you could compare the number of DNA exonerations for murder cases versus non-murder cases. This analysis can help to identify potential biases or systemic issues within the criminal justice system.
By analyzing the data in the National Registry of Exonerations, you can gain a better understanding of the factors that contribute to wrongful convictions and the role of DNA evidence in exonerations.
Sample Answer
1. Paul House Case Analysis
The Paul House case is indeed an extraordinary case of wrongful conviction. Despite overwhelming evidence pointing to his innocence, House was sentenced to death and spent nearly 30 years in prison. The new post-conviction evidence, including DNA testing, definitively proved his innocence.
Extraordinary Case?
Yes, the Paul House case can be considered an extraordinary case. The strength of the evidence pointing to House's innocence, coupled with the fact that he was sentenced to death, make it a particularly egregious example of wrongful conviction. A reasonable juror, presented with the new evidence, would likely have found House not guilty.