The National Registry of Exonerations, a joint project of the law schools at University of Michigan and Northwestern, reported last week that in 2012, law enforcement cooperated in some way in a higher percentage of cases than in the past. Does this mean less resistance of science by law enforcement?
The answer is that we can’t tell from this data. But the report is worth looking at nonetheless.
Here is what the report says about law enforcement cooperation (I have removed the bullets, spacing, etc.):
In 2012 there was a dramatic increase in the number and the proportion of exonerations that prosecutors or police participated in obtaining. Of the 63 exonerations in 2012, prosecutors or police initiated or cooperated in 34, or 54%. Over the past 24 years, prosecutors and police have cooperated in 30% of the exonerations we know about (317/1050). Last year for the first time they cooperated in a majority of exonerations, and the number of such cases is a large increase from the previous high (22 of 57 in 2008, or 39%).
This is all to the good. But there are some aspects of the findings that counsel caution. First, the author(s) of the report freely admit they don’t know why this is happening. It could have many causes.
This increase [in cooperation] may be due to a confluence of related factors: changes in state laws that facilitate post-conviction DNA testing, the emergence of Conviction Integrity Units in several large prosecutorial offices, and, perhaps, a change in how law enforcement officers view the possibility of false convictions at trial.
And just to be clear, it’s good that they admit that it’s not clear what the cause or causes could be. Too often, those working with statistics take an opposite tack.
As far as resistance to science, however, the report may indicate that the cases where science and forensics matter most still do not get cooperation for law enforcement. The first clue is that 57% of the exonerations in 2012 were homicide cases, and another 24% were sexual assaults — 81% in all. These are the types of cases in which resistance science on eyewitness identification, interrogation, and forensics can matter the most. These cases also have the highest public profile. And there, perhaps, is the rub: “Official cooperation is least common among exonerations for highly aggravated and publicized crimes – murders with death sentences and mass child sex abuse prosecutions – and most common among exonerations for robberies and drug crimes.”
The best way to answer whether this increased cooperation represents any lessening of the resistance to science would be to look at the individual exoneration cases for 2012: do they feature law enforcement cooperation over these science-based issues, or is it something else — for example, information on a witness interviews illegally withheld from the defendant in a previous trial?
Perhaps we will see that in the next report from the Registry.