JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Duke University School of Law is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Law and Contemporary Problems.No matter how careful courts are, the possibility of perjured testimony, mistaken honest testimony, and human error remain all too real. We have no way of judging how many innocent persons have been executed, but we can be certain that there were some.
Thurgood Marshall1
I INTRODUCTIONIn February 1997, the (usually conservative) House of Delegates of the American Bar Association ("ABA") overwhelmingly adopted a report from its section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities and went on record as being formally opposed to America's current system of capital jurisprudence, calling for an immediate moratorium on executions.2 The motion was supported by twenty former presidents of the ABA (some who counted themselves as supporters of the death penalty), and passed in the House of Delegates by a twothirds margin. Among the issues of concern to the ABA were the lack of competent counsel in death penalty cases, restricted access to appellate courts even when new evidence of innocence is present, and racial disparities in the administration of capital punishment.3 In this article, we focus on one of the problems that gave rise to the ABA resolution: the continuing and regular incidence of American trial courts sentencing innocent defendants to death.Elsewhere, we have published accounts of more than four hundred cases where persons were wrongfully convicted in capital (or potentially capital) cases and described several dozen of these cases in detail.4 Our discussion in this article falls into three parts. First, we explore the conceptualization of the term "innocence." (Without a precise concept, we have no suitable criterion for deciding who should and should not be considered innocent despite a crimi-
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.