Exonerating DNA Evidence in Overturned Convictions: Analysis of Data Obtained From the National Registry of Exonerations

• DOI: 10.1177/08874034211033327
• Author: Brooke Nodeland,Mark Saber,Robert Wall
• Date: 01 April 2022
• Published date: 01 April 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211033327

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2022, Vol. 33(3) 256 –272

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034211033327

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Exonerating DNA Evidence

in Overturned Convictions:

Analysis of Data Obtained

From the National Registry

of Exonerations

Mark Saber1, Brooke Nodeland1,

and Robert Wall1

Abstract

In recent years, advances in DNA testing technology have been coupled with DNA

exonerations. In response, increasing public and empirical attention have been given to

the experiences of those wrongfully convicted by the criminal justice system. Several

jurisdictions have created Conviction Integrity Units (CIUs) to review convictions

of primarily violent defendants for wrongful conviction. However, empirical

examination of the impact of CIUs and other factors predicting DNA exoneration

remains limited. This study uses data from the National Registry of Exonerations

to examine the impact of CIUs, location of conviction, and other factors that make

exonerations more likely to feature DNA evidence. Findings suggest that offense

type, year of conviction, and gender are significant predictors of DNA exoneration.

Policy implications are also discussed.

Keywords

DNA exoneration, wrongful conviction, conviction integrity unit

Introduction

There has long been discussion of wrongfully convicted persons in the United States

correctional system. In fact, Edwin M. Borchard (1932) examined 65 cases obtained

1University of North Texas, Denton, USA

Corresponding Author:

Mark Saber, Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA.

Email: Mark.saber@unt.edu

1033327CJPXXX10.1177/08874034211033327Criminal Justice Policy ReviewSaber et al.

research-article2021

Saber et al. 257

from government records, newspaper articles, interviews with criminal justice offi-

cers, governors, and pardon boards, and determined that, from time to time, innocent

persons were indeed convicted of crimes. He found these wrongful convictions were

generally the result of misidentification, circumstantial evidence, perjury, and some-

times a combination of these factors. DNA exonerations have revealed that wrongful

convictions of actually innocent individuals occur, and are likely to continue to occur,

with regular frequency (Ware, 2012).

Historically, wrongful convictions were discovered using courtroom/witness testi-

mony, admissions by the guilty party, or scientific testing, such as fingerprints or blood

evidence; however, all this changed during the 1990s with the introduction of DNA

testing (Gould & Leo, 2010). DNA testing introduced a new method for testing physi-

cal evidence that could, with a near certainty, exclude a person’s DNA from a physical

sample, providing stronger evidence in determining wrongful convictions (Gould &

Leo, 2010; Rowe, 1996). DNA profiles are unique to each individual with some esti-

mates suggesting that the odds of any two unrelated people sharing the same DNA

fingerprint as billions to one (Samuels & Asplen, 2000). DNA testing quickly grew in

popularity because of its ability to rule suspects out, and it also provided a newer and

cheaper option for testing evidence (Rowe, 1996). As the use of DNA profiling became

more prevalent, convicted individuals and their attorneys began petitioning for access

to DNA evidence in their cases, so that they could test or retest the evidence with the

new procedure and, in some of these cases, it became clear that the earlier finding of

the court was a wrongful conviction (Rowe, 1996). Despite the strength of DNA evi-

dence, there were still many challenges facing convicted individuals looking to prove

their innocence, such as the commonly held belief that only a small percentage of

cases, or about 1%, were the result of wrongful convictions (B. Smith et al., 2011) and

that the trial system and suspect identifications would prevent the conviction of inno-

cent persons. However, other reported findings from the FBI lab indicated that as

many as 25% of the cases sent for DNA analysis ended up excluding the primary

suspect (Connors et al., 1996), suggesting that more than 1% of cases resulted in

wrongful convictions. In fact, they found that DNA was used to exonerate 28 individu-

als, who, without DNA testing, would have remained incarcerated (Connors et al.,

1996). As the reliability of DNA evidence continued to be demonstrated, it became

clear that the criminal justice system would have to adapt to the more frequent use of

DNA evidence being presented for those already convicted of a crime.

Texas has long been viewed as a “law and order” state, leading the nation in execu-

tions since 1976 with 570 cases (Death Penalty Information Center, 2018). Texas also

has the sixth highest prison population per 100,000 residents in the nation (The

Sentencing Project, 2018). Historically, Texas has received considerable attention, at

both the state and national levels, with regard to high-profile cases as well as high-

profile false convictions. For example, the wrongful conviction, and later posthumous

exoneration, of Timothy Cole (Loewy, 2015; Shaw, 2010) led to the creation of the

Timothy Cole Exoneration Review Commission to evaluate factors leading to wrong-

ful conviction. Also, the wrongful conviction and later subsequent exoneration of

Michael Morton led to procedural changes in trial discovery (Orr & Rodery, 2014).