Friday, July 30, 2010

On The Rate of Wrongful Conviction: Chapter 2.3

As I have mentioned seven times previously, I am preparing a monograph on the rate of wrongful conviction. Each chapter will deal with one estimate of that rate, beginning with zero and ending beyond 10%. I am posting the draft chapters here, as I write them.  I have so far posted the following: 

Chapter 0.027: The Scalia Number
Chapter 0.5: The Huff Number
Chapter 0.8: The Prosecutor Number
Chapter 1.0: The Rosenbaum Number
Chapter 1.3: The Police Number
Chapter 1.4: The Poveda Number
Chapter 1.9: The Judge Number

Now, for the first time, we break the 2% barrier. The numbers will begin to climb rapidly after this post.


Chapter 2.3
The Gross Number

In December 2008, Samuel Gross wrote:
Since 1973, 128 U.S. criminal defendants who were sentenced to death have been exonerated. This is a startlingly high number … Most likely, this extraordinary number of capital exonerations is caused in part by a higher underlying error rate among capital convictions and in part by a higher rate of detection of those errors after conviction. It is well known that more resources are devoted to capital defense than to other cases, before and after conviction, but it is hard to believe that better review alone explains the capital exoneration rate. If that were the whole story, it would mean, for example, that if we had reviewed prison sentences with the same level of care that we devoted to death sentences, there would have been approximately 87,000 non-deathrow exonerations from 1989 through 2003 rather than the 266 that were reported in a comprehensive study in 2005.
Gross realized he could compare capital murder exonerations to capital murder convictions to determine a wrongful conviction rate, at least for capital murder. All he had to do was divide the number of exonerations by a properly related number of convictions and, voila, a wrongful conviction rate. He wasn’t going to simply guess, or have others guess for him. He was going to find a good numerator and a good denominator and he was going to divide.

Gross knew, however, he had to be careful in his selection of both the numerator and the denominator. He was careful to include in his numerator only those people who were likely to be factually innocent. He intentionally excluded those who might have been removed from death row for technical reasons, those who were merely re-sentenced, and those who were re-tried and found guilty once again.
As we use the term, “exoneration” is an official act -- a pardon, a dismissal, or an acquittal -- declaring a defendant not guilty of a crime for which he or she had previously been convicted … Very likely, however, some defendants we count as “exonerated” did in fact participate in the crimes for which they were convicted. In our estimation, the probability of innocence is high for all of these exonerated defendants -- for many, innocence is beyond dispute -- and the number of misclassifications low enough to make these exonerations a useful proxy for innocence. … And, of course, the set of exonerated defendants does not include innocent defendants who were executed, nor those who remain on death row, nor the undetected innocent defendants among the thousands of defendants who have been removed from death row but remain in prison.
He was also careful when he selected his denominator. He realized he couldn’t simply divide all exonerations by all convictions because exonerations don’t happen overnight.
[W]e know that 7,534 people were sentenced to death from 1973 through 2004. In the same period, 111 defendants were exonerated after being sentenced to death for murder under a post-Furman capital sentencing statutes, or 1.5 percent of all death sentences.

That figure -- 1.5 percent -- is not the final word on exonerations for the cohort of defendants who have been sentenced to death since 1973, let alone a reasonable estimate of the rate of false capital convictions. As time passes, some defendants in this group who have not yet been exonerated will be.
To account for the lag between conviction and exoneration, Gross realized that most exonerations (95%) occurred within 20 years of conviction. He would therefore make sure his denominator accounted for that 20 year lag. He would divide all the exonerations from 1973 through 2004 (54) by all the convictions from 1973 through 1984 (2,394) to arrive at a wrongful conviction rate of 2.3 percent.
Of the post-Furman death row inmates who were exonerated between 1973 and 2004, 95 percent had been freed within 20 years of their conviction (106/111). Overall, 2,394 death sentences were pronounced in U.S. courts from 1973 through 1984. By 2004, the process of identifying exonerations for these 20 to 30-year-old death sentences was largely complete. It resulted in 54 exonerations -- almost exactly half of all capital defendants who were exonerated through 2004 -- or an exoneration rate of 2.3 percent (54/ 2,394).
He checked his number by assuming a 15-year lag instead of a 20-year lag.  He ended up with the same number: 2.3 percent.
Eighty-one percent of capital exonerations occurred within 15 years of sentencing (90/111). By the end of 2004 there had been 86 exonerations among the 3,792 capital defendants who had been sentenced to death through 1989, at least 15 years earlier, also an exoneration rate of 2.3 percent Two additional defendants who were sentenced to death before 1990 were exonerated in 2005, but judging from the pattern of previous cases, we have probably seen almost all the capital exonerations that we will see for defendants sentenced to death through 1989.
He naturally concluded that he had arrived at a good estimate of the wrongful conviction rate, at least for capital murder trials in the United States.
In other words, a good estimate of the long-term … capital exonerations rate in the United States is 2.3 percent.
Solid as his math seems to be, I disagree with Samuel Gross on this number. I will await Chapter 11.3 to make my case.


Notes:
1. When I write of Samuel Gross, I write actually of Samuel R. Gross and Barbara O’Brien. Together they wrote “Frequency and Predictors of False Conviction: Why We Know So Little, and New Data on Capital Cases”, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Volume 5, Issue 4, 927-962, December 2008

2. At the time their article was published, Samuel Gross and Barbara O’Brien were Assistant Professors of Law at Michigan State University College of Law.

3. Gross and O’Brien recognize that the wrongful conviction rate for capital murder cases is not necessarily equal to the rate for all cases. They are careful to limit their conclusion to capital murder cases. “All things considered, we believe that 2.3 percent -- the long-term rate of exoneration of death row inmates -- is a conservative estimate of the rate of wrongful death sentences.”

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

On The Rate of Wrongful Convcition: Chapter 1.9

As I have mentioned six times previously, I am preparing a monograph on the rate of wrongful conviction. Each chapter will deal with one estimate of that rate, beginning with zero and ending beyond 10%. I am posting the draft chapters here, as I write them.  I have so far posted the following: 

Chapter 0.027: The Scalia Number
Chapter 0.5: The Huff Number
Chapter 0.8: The Prosecutor Number
Chapter 1.0: The Rosenbaum Number
Chapter 1.3: The Police Number
Chapter 1.4: The Poveda Number

I am now back on track posting the draft chapters in monotonically increasing order. It's another survey number, the last for a bit. It does have some interesting new information at the bottom, regarding feeback on what an acceptable level might be


Chapter 1.9
The Judge Number

The Ramsey Ohio survey study introduced in Chapter 0.8 was so comprehensive that it allows me to determine four separate wrongful conviction estimates: one each for prosecutors, police, judges, and defense attorneys. The prosecutors were the most conservative in their estimate, guessing that the wrongful conviction rate for the country is 0.8%.  The police were the next more conservative group, guessing that the wrongful conviction rate for the country is 1.3%.

The third most conservative group within the Ramsey survey was the judges’ group. Regarding the survey question at hand, Ramsey received responses from 153 judges. Their responses are categorized below.


I will define the Judge Number for the wrongful conviction rate in the same manner I defined the Prosecutor Number: I’ll determine the median judge guess at the wrongful conviction rate using a plot. That plot is presented below. Based on the plot, I claim the single best number to represent the wrongful conviction rate estimated by the Ohio judges responding to the Ramsey survey is 1.9%.


Consider the significance of the Judge Number. If it is applicable to all 2.5 million people we have incorporated, it suggests that even the judges believe we have 47,500 people wrongfully incarcerated in this country today.

<<>>

As mentioned in the earlier chapter dealing with the Ramsey survey, I noted that Ramsey was clever enough to ask for separate guesses of the wrongful conviction rate: one for the country as a whole and one for the respondent’s jurisdiction. It’s interesting to compare the two.

For the judges, the national median guess was 1.9%, as just reported. For that same group of judges, the median guess for their jurisdiction was 0.56%. On average, the judges believed the wrongful conviction rate in their jurisdiction was somewhat more than one-half that of the national average. This makes the judges slightly less delusional than the police or the prosecutors.

For comparison, the numbers for police are 1.3% and 0.2%; that’s a factor of one-sixth. The numbers for prosecutors are 0.8% and 0.2%; that’s a factor of one-fourth.

<<>>

Ramsey was also clever enough to ask his respondents their opinion of an acceptable wrongful conviction rate. Slightly more than half the judges and police felt the acceptable rate was zero. Slightly fewer than half the prosecutors felt the acceptable rate was zero.

Good for all of them. While no one is arguing a zero rate is achievable, it’s good that half of all police, prosecutors, and judges feel a wrongful conviction is an unacceptable circumstance. Perhaps they would be willing to help free some of the 20 to 50 thousand people they estimate are now wrongfully imprisoned.

At the other extreme, one prosecutor and four judges thought 5% would be an acceptable wrongful conviction rate.

Three police respondents also thought 5% was an acceptably-low wrongful conviction rate. Four police respondents thought 10% would be acceptable. Two of them thought 15% would be okay. Astoundingly, one police respondent thought that a wrongful conviction rate of 20% was not too high.

Monday, July 26, 2010

On The Rate of Wrongful Conviction: Chapter 1.3

As I have mentioned five times previously, I am preparing a monograph on the rate of wrongful conviction. Each chapter will deal with one estimate of that rate, beginning with zero and ending beyond 10%. I am posting the draft chapters here, as I write them.  I have so far posted the following: 

Chapter 0.027: The Scalia Number
Chapter 0.5: The Huff Number
Chapter 0.8: The Prosecutor Number
Chapter 1.0: The Rosenbaum Number
Chapter 1.4: The Poveda Number

I work slightly backwards once again here, filling in with the Police Number at 1.3 percent. It's a short post.


Chapter 1.3
The Police Number

The Ramsey Ohio survey study introduced in Chapter 0.8 was so comprehensive that it allows me to determine four separate wrongful conviction estimates: one each for prosecutors, police, judges, and defense attorneys. The prosecutors were the most conservative in their estimate, guessing that the wrongful conviction rate for the country is 0.8%.  That number represents the median value from the survey, the value that split the prosecutors into two evenly-divided groups: one that guessed higher and one that guessed lower.

The second most conservative group within the Ramsey survey was the police. Regarding the survey question at hand, Ramsey received responses from 267 chiefs of police and county sheriffs. Recall that Huff had only 353 respondents from all four groups.

The police responses from the Ramsey survey are categorized below.

I will define the Police Number for the wrongful conviction rate in the same manner I defined the Prosecutor Number: I’ll determine the median police guess at the wrongful conviction rate using a plot. That plot is presented below. Based on that chart, I claim the single best number to represent the wrongful conviction rate estimated by the Ohio police responding to the Ramsey survey is 1.3%.


Consider the significance of the Police Number. If it is applicable to all people convicted, not just those who go to trial, it suggests that even the police believe we have 32,500 people wrongfully incarcerated in this country today.

<<>>

As mentioned in the earlier chapter dealing with the Ramsey survey, I noted that Ramsey was clever enough to ask for separate guesses of the wrongful conviction rate: one for the country as a whole and one for the respondent’s jurisdiction. It’s interesting to compare the two.

For the police, the national median guess was 1.3%, as just reported. For that same group of police, the median guess for their jurisdiction was 0.2%. On average, the police believed the wrongful conviction rate in their jurisdiction was less than one-sixth that of the national average. This bias is one of the reasons the Huff number is so low. Huff failed to clearly discriminate between guesses for the nation as a whole and the respondent's jurisdiction.

The number for prosecutors, by comparison, are 0.8% and 0.2%.

Friday, July 23, 2010

The Trial of Cory Maye Now Available on Kindle

I'm proud of this book. Beyond that that obvious sentiment, I'll merely repeat the back cover text of The Skeptical Juror and The Trial of Cory Maye.

<<>>

Police officer Ron Jones had worked hard to solve both the drug and race problems of Prentiss, Mississippi. He had earned the respect of those he served and protected, regardless of skin color. Among the black residents of the town he was known as one of the good ones, perhaps the only good one.

Now, in the waning hours of the first day after Christmas 2001, Ron is prepared to lead his motley team of officers into a darkened duplex to serve yet another search warrant for drugs. As the rear door is breached, Ron is the first to enter. He begins to announce “Police officer, search warrant!” but is cut short by gunfire.

“I’m hit,” he says, making his way back down the steps.

The bullet has punctured his aorta. He will bleed to death within minutes.

He falls to his knees.

“Get me to the hospital, I’ve been hit.”

He collapses to the ground.

“Good Lord, help.”

<<>>

Another drug raid gone wrong. Another police officer killed. Another citizen facing the death penalty.

Join the fictional jury as they hear testimony, deliberate, and struggle to fulfill their oath to render a true verdict in a case involving two good men. Ron Jones upheld the law. Cory Maye defended his child and his home. Their paths intersect again, this time in a jury room where Maye is on trial for his life.

Form your own opinion. Become a Skeptical Juror in The Trial of Cory Maye.

On The Rate of Wrongful Conviction: Chapter 0.8

This is a bit embarrassing. I must break the monotonically increasing sequence of my posts regarding wrongful conviction rates. I have so far posted Chapter 0.027, Chapter 0.5, Chapter 1.0, and Chapter 1.4. I realized recently that I have carelessly lost track of a substantial survey conducted by Robert Ramsey. That survey allowed me to determine wrongful conviction rates based on the estimates of prosecutors, police, judges, and defense attorneys; four separate rates, four separate chapters, two of which will be numbered lower than the Poveda Number.

Nothing to do now but face up to it. On the upside, for the first time I present both a graph and a table in one of my posts. The excitement is almost too much to bear.


Chapter 0.8
The Prosecutor Number

What is it with those folks in Ohio who are interested in wrongful convictions. They don’t count exonerations or wrongful convictions. They don’t count total convictions, or have someone else do so for them. They don’t divide to determine wrongful conviction rates. They don’t make their own guess as to what the rate might be. Those people in Ohio prefer to ask other people in Ohio to guess for them.

Ronald Huff led the way with this approach in 1986, as discussed in Chapter 0.5. Robert Ramsey followed Huff’s footsteps in 2003. While attending the University of Cincinnati, he wrote a PhD dissertation entitled False Positives in the Criminal Justice Process -- An Analysis of Factors Associated with the Wrongful Conviction of the Innocent. I suggest he could have shortened the title by eliminating the last three words.

Ramsey later joined forces with James Frank to publish the results of his work in a 2007 issue of Crime Delinquency. He removed “of the Innocent” from the title, but included additional words to make up for the loss: “Wrongful Conviction: Perceptions of Criminal Justice Professionals Regarding the Frequency of Wrongful Conviction and the Extent of System Errors.”

Ramsey’s work was Huff’s work done large. Instead of asking 353 people to guess for him, Ramsey asked 1,500. Instead of receiving 229 responses, Ramsey received 798. Instead of having the guessers guess just once, he had them guess twice: once for their own jurisdiction, always in Ohio, and once for the U.S. as a whole. Instead of forcing the guessers to select from one of just four categories of wrongful conviction rates, Ramsey allowed them to select from any of the following 10 categories.

0%
Less than 0.5%
5% to 1%
1% to 3%
4% to 5%
6% to 10%
11% to 15%
16% to 20%
21% to 25%
More than 25%

Ramsey also had an advantage in that DNA exonerations had become part of the public consciousness by the time of his survey. That would tend to increase the rates estimated by the Ohio law enforcement professionals.

Ramsey had sufficient responses to aggregate them into four groups: police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. Each group had a different estimate of the wrongful conviction rate, and each group will be discussed in a separate chapter. Not surprisingly, the prosecutors were the most conservative. They will therefore be discussed in this first of four chapters based on Ramsey’s survey.

<<>>

Ramsey received relevant responses from 96 prosecutors. Those responses are categorized below:


Ramsey did not use his survey results to identify a single wrongful conviction rate. I will do that for him.

I will define the Prosecutor Number to be the median wrongful conviction rate estimated by the prosecutors in Ramsey’s survey. The median rate divides the prosecutor survey into two evenly-divided groups, those estimating rates higher than the median and those estimating rates lower than the median.  It is, I believe, the single number that best represents the prosecutors’ responses.

An easy way to determine the median is by graphing the data. I plotted the upper limit of the wrongful conviction rate category along the horizontal axis. I plotted the running percentage total of prosecutor responses along the vertical axis. I then examined the graph to determine the wrongful conviction percentage that split the prosecutors into evenly-divided “higher than” and “lower than” groups. Based on the resulting chart, presented below, I claim the single best number to represent the wrongful conviction rate estimated by the Ohio prosecutors responding to the Ramsey survey is 0.8%.


This 0.8% number is 60% higher than the Huff number of 0.5%, even though the Huff number included police, judges, and defense attorneys, all of whom tend to be less conservative in their estimates than the prosecutors. Had Huff isolated just the prosecutor number from his survey, I suspect it would have been around 0.25%.  I attribute the less conservative estimate of the Ramsey survey to two phenomenon. First, as mentioned previously, the Ramsey survey took place in a DNA exoneration world. Second, Ramsey was clever enough to ask for two responses: one for the respondent’s jurisdiction, and one for the U.S. as a whole. I believe that caused the respondents to be less defensive when estimating for the U.S. as a whole. 

To be clear, I used the estimate rates for the U.S. in the work above.

Consider finally the significance of the Prosecutor Number, conservative as it may be. If it is applicable to all people convicted, not just those who go to trial, it suggests that even prosecutors believe we have 20,000 people wrongfully incarcerated in this country today.

Notes:
1. As of the publication of his article, Robert J. Ramsey was the Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Indiana University East. He was by that time Dr. Robert J. Ramsey. His dissertation apparently did the trick.

2. As of the publication of his article, James Frank had been the principal investigator for a number of policing-related research projects focusing on the understanding of police behavior at the street level. He received a JD from Ohio Northern University in 1977 and a PhD from the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University.