Our Mission ________

 However, once a conviction is obtained, there is a very real permanence to this closure. It is nearly impossible to overturn a conviction or change a sentence once it has been rendered. 

The leading causes of individual wrongful conviction in the United States are also the leading contributing factors in California: false and unreliable evidence, illegal conduct and serious errors by police and prosecutors, a lack of adequate defense, mistaken witness identification, and false confessions. 

Countrywide, official misconduct contributed to the false convictions of 54% of defendants who were later exonerated – a rate that increases in more severe crimes. Most commonly, this misconduct is concealing exculpatory evidence (present in 44% of exonerations), but it also includes witness tampering, interrogation misconduct, evidence fabrication, and perjury at trial. 

190 out of the 292 known exonerations in the state come from the Rampart Scandal alone, which involved over 70 officers in the early 2000s planting false evidence, stealing narcotics, perjuring, and committing brutal acts of violence. A similar police corruption scandal by four “Oakland Riders” police officers came to light in 2003; these four officers were exposed for falsified reports and evidence that led to the framing of dozens of innocent people.

94% of the capital habeas cases that have been brought before the California Supreme Court have been denied. Up until 2016, California had one of the highest innocence standards in the country, as “new evidence of innocence” necessary to request review was defined almost impossibly narrowly as “evidence that was not available or known at trial that completely undermines the prosecution’s case and points unerringly to innocence.” 

The standard was lowered by the passage of SB 1134, which sought to bring the standard in line with forty three other states. Rather than evidence which points “unerringly to innocence,” the standard now mandates that the new evidence must create “a reasonable probability of a different outcome.” 

DNA is estimated to be collected in fewer than 10% of crimes. And even when it does exist and is collected, the material can become degraded, rendering  it useless in defense.

Testing can be exorbitant: in a single case, it can cost anywhere between $5,000 and $50,000. 

Despite this, most states do not allow for cases to be reviewed  unless there is “new evidence. ” These states define this narrowly as "newly discovered evidence not available at trial," which is often limited  to DNA. Potentially, then, more than 90% of criminal cases would not  have ANY  legal avenue for review if claiming innocence--- including access to an attorney.

So, while the advent of DNA has been life changing for some, the vast majority are left behind in our current criminal-legal system emphasizing finality over integrity.