Skip to content Skip to footer

How Often Do Wrongful Convictions Involve Black Defendants?

How have wrongful convictions historically been broken down by race?

Fortunately for anyone who has ever been accused of committing a crime, accusations and hearsay are simply not enough: evidence must establish guilt “beyond reasonable doubt.” This system is intended to give victims an opportunity to seek justice and tell their stories, while simultaneously protecting innocent defendants from being punished for crimes they never committed.

But the system also has a critical weakness: it can only function as intended when objectivity prevails. When corruption, carelessness, or racial prejudice interferes, the consequences can be devastating to the defendants and their families.

Perhaps nowhere is this alarming phenomenon more apparent than in New York City. Over the course of 2014, numerous lawsuits have been filed against the city by wrongfully convicted criminal defendants – a disproportionate number of whom are Black. This year alone, plaintiffs filing civil suits against the city have included the “Central Park Five,” who were collectively imprisoned for 41 years for the rape of Trisha Meili; Jabbar Collins, who spent 16 years in prison for a murder someone else committed; and Jonathan Fleming, who was wrongfully incarcerated for 25 years, also for murder.

How have wrongful convictions historically been broken down by race?

National Registry of Exonerations Reports Disproportionately High Numbers for Black Defendants

Let’s begin by looking at the general numbers. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, a total of 87 exonerations were documented in 2013. These exonerations spanned a wide variety of both violent and nonviolent offenses, ranging from drug possession to assault to murder – yet the same cannot be said of the recorded racial distribution.

“Black defendants constitute 25% of prisoners incarcerated for rape,” according to the Registry, “but 61% of those exonerated for such crimes.” The five men who comprised the Central Park Five, for example, represent only a tiny fraction of this number.

The increasing prevalence of DNA testing over the years has played a crucial role in clearing charges for previously convicted “criminals.” The first DNA exoneration documented in the United States took place on August 14, 1989, clearing 22-year-old Gary Dotson of the alleged rape of Cathleen Crowell (who later admitted to fabricating her accusations and inflicting her own injuries). The National Registry currently cites a total of 1,417 exonerations – the majority of which are attributed to Black defendants.

By the Registry’s own statistics broken down by race and crime, total exonerations for “all crimes” numbered 164 for Hispanic persons, 556 for Caucasian persons, and 662 for Black persons. The largest gap is associated with sexual assault (a difference of 78 exonerations), with the second largest belonging to homicide (a difference of 59 exonerations).

But what about other data sources?

Garrett Study: “Among the Innocent Group, 71% Were Minorities”

In June of 2012, four researchers from Washington D.C.’s Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, released a research report titled “Post-Conviction DNA Testing and Wrongful Conviction.” The report was funded by US Department of Justice (DOJ). What were its statistical findings?

According to Table 9 of the report, which compares various demographics among determinate and indeterminate(please define)sexual assault convictions, Black offenders constituted 56% of indeterminate convictions whereas Caucasian offenders accounted for 43%. Regarding determinate convictions, Black offenders made up 61%, while Caucasians made up 39%.

The study does later state, “We found no evidence of variation in the likelihood of exculpatory DNA testing results across many tested combinations of convicted offender/victim race and age compositions.”

However, it also points to studies which came to the opposite conclusion – namely a 2008 exoneration study conducted by University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett.

The website of the University of Virginia School of Law summarizes the racial element of the Garrett study’s findings, stating, “[Among] the innocent group… 71% were minorities. The vast majority of exonerated rape convicts (73%) were black or Hispanic, while studies show only about 37% of rape convicts are minorities. […] In the entire innocence group, only eight pled guilty.”

Another comprehensive study which presents similarly bleak findings is “African Americans Wrongly Convicted of Sexual Assault Against Whites: Eyewitness Error and Other Case Features,” published by the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice in 2013. Its overview states that in addition to “erroneous eyewitness identification,” “Other factors that contributed to the wrongful convictions were coerced false confessions, all-White juries, discounted alibis, misconduct by officials, flawed expert testimony, and hue-and-cry circumstances.”

For further reading, refer to “Exonerations in the United States 1989-2012,” compiled by the National Registry of Exonerations.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 7 days to add 432 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.