Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong

By Brandon L. Garrett. 2011

367 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6de50c52f50bab4d8d7c4a30bd7491318515ffd7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. S. Wetmore
2. N. Steblay
3. J. Neuschatz
4. Scott D. Gronlund
5. G. Wells
6. Jeff Kukucka
7. S. Kassin
8. Alex R. Wooten

Citations in the corpus

• Effect of retention interval on showup and lineup performance (2015, background): “Although these entities have deemed that showups may be a less accurate identification procedure than lineups, they are still a very common practice among police departments (e.g., Flowe, Ebbesen, Burke, & Chivabunditt, 2001; Garrett, 2011).”
• The Eyewitness Post Identification Feedback Effect 15 Years Later: Theoretical and Policy Implications (2014, background): “admitted uncertainty, 9% said they didn’t see the face (Garrett, 2011).”
• The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. (2013, background): “Forensic science errors have also surfaced with alarming frequency in DNA exoneration cases and other wrongful convictions (Garrett, 2011; http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Crime-Lab-Oversight.php). In “The genetics of innocence,” Hampikian, West, and Akselrod (2011) found that several types of fo”