A postconviction mentality: prosecutorial assistance as a pathway to exoneration

In the wake of identifiable errors, many prosecutors are beginning to acknowledge wrongful convictions. They have the discretion to overturn wrongful convictions, and they are uniquely positioned to do so. Still, very little scholarship has explored how, when, and why prosecutors choose to assist with exoneration. Therefore, the three broad aims of the present study include: 1) examining the determinants, motivations, and processes influencing prosecutors’ decisions to assist with innocence claims that have resulted in exoneration; 2) exploring the successes and challenges of postconviction collaboration between prosecutors and defense attorneys; and 3) identifying how prosecutorial assistance could open pathways to exoneration. To meet these aims, the study employs a mixed methods research design, featuring semi-structured interviews with 19 prosecutors and 19 defense attorneys and multivariate regression analyses of a large sample of state exoneration cases. Interviewees are selected from cases identified in the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE). All prosecutor respondents have assisted with an innocence claim that resulted in full exoneration, and all defense attorney respondents have represented a client who was exonerated with the help of a prosecutor. For the quantitative component, data collected by the NRE (N=1,610) measures prosecutorial assistance using an ordinal variable to capture differing levels of assistance. Analyses reveal a range of case-related factors that influence prosecutors’ receptivity to assist with exoneration. Overall, findings indicate that although prosecutors have become more responsive to acknowledging and correcting factual errors, they still respond within the context of a legal structure that has not been established to correct these kinds of errors. This has implications for the nature, degree, and quality of postconviction assistance that prosecutors provide. Their postconviction decision making appears to be motivated by a desire to do justice, to protect professional relationships and reputations, and to optimize efficiency. This research investigates an underexplored area and offers both theoretical and practical value. The results will aid system actors as they develop best practices for uncovering wrongful convictions efficiently and build collaborative working relationships in the postconviction setting.Ph.D.Includes bibliographical referencesby Elizabeth Webste