skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 251115 Find in a Library
Title: Estimating the Prevalence of Wrongful Convictions
Author(s): Kelly Walsh; Jeanette Hussemann; Abigail Flynn; Jennifer Yahner; Laura Golian
Corporate Author: The Urban Institute
United States of America
Date Published: September 2017
Page Count: 16
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
The Urban Institute
Washington, DC 20037
Grant Number: 2013-IJ-CX-0004
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Program/Project Description; Report (Grant Sponsored); Report (Study/Research); Research (Applied/Empirical)
Format: Document; Document (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This study extended research on wrongful convictions in the United States and the factors associated with justice system errors that lead to the incarceration of innocent people.
Abstract: Among cases in which physical evidence produced a DNA profile of known origin, 12.6 percent of the cases had DNA evidence that would support a claim of wrongful conviction; however, extrapolating to all cases in this study’s dataset, it estimated a slightly smaller rate of 11.6 percent. This finding was based on forensic, case-processing, and disposition data collected on murder and sexual assault convictions in the 1970s and 1980s across 56 circuit courts in Virginia. The study focused on 714 murder and sexual assault felony cases to estimate the rate of wrongful convictions. The estimate of 11.6 percent is different from prior estimates reported by the Urban Institute in 2012, due to both a more refined scope and additional context for case files. The current study examined Bureau of Justice Statistics data collected from felony courts in 1985 in order to determine whether this new estimated rate of wrongful convictions can be generalized to other states across the United States. The current analyses indicate that the rate of dismissal in Virginia is not significantly different from other states. This research is the only known effort to apply DNA testing to cases regardless of a person’s individual claim of innocence. The process by which case outcomes are revised by considering court processing and case disposition information highlights the limits of DNA evidence in identifying potential instances of wrongful conviction. Also, although most post-conviction efforts to show an erroneous conviction rely on DNA testing only when the conviction is probably wrong, the current work puts the DNA testing at the front end, which simultaneously used DNA to identify both wrong convictions and right convictions. Future analyses will include a determination of whether the data collected correlates with instances of potentially wrongful conviction and will present findings on the utility of DNA as a detection tool for wrongful convictions. 1 table and 12 references
Main Term(s): Wrongful conviction
Index Term(s): DNA Typing; Murder; National Institute of Justice (NIJ); NIJ final report; Sexual assault; United States of America; Virginia; Wrongful incarceration
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.