The effects of confessions on misconduct and guilty pleas in exonerations: Implications for discovery policies

• Published in: Criminology & public policy 2024-02, Vol.23 (1), p.179-199
• Main Authors: Bettens, Talley, Redlich, Allison D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Confession; Confessions; Court decisions; Criminal pleas; evidence discovery policies; False arrests & convictions; false confessions; false guilty pleas; Perjury; prosecutorial misconduct; Public prosecutors; Transparency; wrongful convictions
• ISSN: 1538-6473; 1745-9133
• DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12643

Research Summary Using data from the National Registry of Exonerations, we examined how the presence of confession evidence impacts prosecutors’ tendency in order to (1) commit misconduct in any form (e.g., permitting perjury and witness tampering) and (2) specifically withhold exculpatory evidence (i.e., evidence favorable to the defense). We assess these relationships particularly in the context of wrongful convictions by guilty plea from an innocent individual (i.e., false guilty plea [FGP]) or guilty verdict at trial. We show the presence of false confessions increased the likelihood of (1) prosecutors engaging in misconduct generally and (2) prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence specifically. However, the presence of prosecutorial misconduct and withholding evidence decreased the odds of a wrongful conviction via an FGP compared to wrongful conviction via guilty verdict. Policy Implications Policies encouraging prosecutorial transparency and accountability are needed in order to better identify misconduct when it occurs, particularly in the context of guilty pleas. Open‐file discovery policies, which aim to provide full transparency, may prevent prosecutors from intentionally or unintentionally withholding evidence when faced with strong evidence like a confession, which could ultimately decrease the potential of wrongful conviction.