RUcore: Rutgers University Community Repository
A postconviction mentality
Descriptive
TitleInfo
Title
A postconviction mentality
SubTitle
prosecutorial assistance as a pathway to exoneration
Name
(type = personal)
NamePart
(type = family)
Webster
NamePart
(type = given)
Elizabeth
NamePart
(type = date)
1973-
DisplayForm
Elizabeth Webster
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
author
Name
(type = personal)
NamePart
(type = family)
Griffiths
NamePart
(type = given)
Elizabeth
DisplayForm
Elizabeth Griffiths
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
chair
Name
(type = personal)
NamePart
(type = family)
Miller
NamePart
(type = given)
Jody
DisplayForm
Jody Miller
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
internal member
Name
(type = personal)
NamePart
(type = family)
Lageson
NamePart
(type = given)
Sarah
DisplayForm
Sarah Lageson
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
internal member
Name
(type = personal)
NamePart
(type = family)
Medwed
NamePart
(type = given)
Daniel
DisplayForm
Daniel Medwed
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
outside member
Name
(type = corporate)
NamePart
Rutgers University
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
degree grantor
Name
(type = corporate)
NamePart
Graduate School - Newark
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
school
TypeOfResource
Text
Genre
(authority = marcgt)
theses
OriginInfo
DateCreated
(qualifier = exact)
2018
DateOther
(qualifier = exact);
(type = degree)
2018-10
CopyrightDate
(encoding = w3cdtf)
2018
Place
PlaceTerm
(type = code)
xx
Language
LanguageTerm
(authority = ISO639-2b);
(type = code)
eng
Abstract
(type = abstract)
In the wake of identifiable errors, many prosecutors are beginning to acknowledge wrongful convictions. They have the discretion to overturn wrongful convictions, and they are uniquely positioned to do so. Still, very little scholarship has explored how, when, and why prosecutors choose to assist with exoneration. Therefore, the three broad aims of the present study include:
1) examining the determinants, motivations, and processes influencing prosecutors’ decisions to assist with innocence claims that have resulted in exoneration; 2) exploring the successes and challenges of postconviction collaboration between prosecutors and defense attorneys; and 3) identifying how prosecutorial assistance could open pathways to exoneration. To meet these aims, the study employs a mixed methods research design, featuring semi-structured interviews with 19 prosecutors and 19 defense attorneys and multivariate regression analyses of a large sample of state exoneration cases. Interviewees are selected from cases identified in the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE). All prosecutor respondents have assisted with an innocence claim that resulted in full exoneration, and all defense attorney respondents have represented a client who was exonerated with the help of a prosecutor. For the quantitative component, data collected by the NRE (N=1,610) measures prosecutorial assistance using an ordinal variable to capture differing levels of assistance. Analyses reveal a range of case-related factors that influence prosecutors’ receptivity to assist with exoneration. Overall, findings indicate that although prosecutors have become more responsive to acknowledging and correcting factual errors, they still respond within the context of a legal structure that has not been established to correct these kinds of errors. This has implications for the nature, degree, and quality of postconviction assistance that prosecutors provide. Their postconviction decision making appears to be motivated by a desire to do justice, to protect professional relationships and reputations, and to optimize efficiency. This research investigates an underexplored area and offers both theoretical and practical value. The results will aid system actors as they develop best practices for uncovering wrongful convictions efficiently and build collaborative working relationships in the postconviction setting.
1) examining the determinants, motivations, and processes influencing prosecutors’ decisions to assist with innocence claims that have resulted in exoneration; 2) exploring the successes and challenges of postconviction collaboration between prosecutors and defense attorneys; and 3) identifying how prosecutorial assistance could open pathways to exoneration. To meet these aims, the study employs a mixed methods research design, featuring semi-structured interviews with 19 prosecutors and 19 defense attorneys and multivariate regression analyses of a large sample of state exoneration cases. Interviewees are selected from cases identified in the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE). All prosecutor respondents have assisted with an innocence claim that resulted in full exoneration, and all defense attorney respondents have represented a client who was exonerated with the help of a prosecutor. For the quantitative component, data collected by the NRE (N=1,610) measures prosecutorial assistance using an ordinal variable to capture differing levels of assistance. Analyses reveal a range of case-related factors that influence prosecutors’ receptivity to assist with exoneration. Overall, findings indicate that although prosecutors have become more responsive to acknowledging and correcting factual errors, they still respond within the context of a legal structure that has not been established to correct these kinds of errors. This has implications for the nature, degree, and quality of postconviction assistance that prosecutors provide. Their postconviction decision making appears to be motivated by a desire to do justice, to protect professional relationships and reputations, and to optimize efficiency. This research investigates an underexplored area and offers both theoretical and practical value. The results will aid system actors as they develop best practices for uncovering wrongful convictions efficiently and build collaborative working relationships in the postconviction setting.
Subject
(authority = RUETD)
Topic
Criminal Justice
Subject
(authority = ETD-LCSH)
Topic
Judicial error
Subject
(authority = ETD-LCSH)
Topic
Public prosecutors--United States
RelatedItem
(type = host)
TitleInfo
Title
Rutgers University Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Identifier
(type = RULIB)
ETD
Identifier
ETD_9101
PhysicalDescription
Form
(authority = gmd)
electronic resource
InternetMediaType
application/pdf
InternetMediaType
text/xml
Extent
1 online resource (189 pages : illustrations)
Note
(type = degree)
Ph.D.
Note
(type = bibliography)
Includes bibliographical references
Note
(type = statement of responsibility)
by Elizabeth Webster
RelatedItem
(type = host)
TitleInfo
Title
Graduate School - Newark Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Identifier
(type = local)
rucore10002600001
Location
PhysicalLocation
(authority = marcorg);
(displayLabel = Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)
NjNbRU
Identifier
(type = doi)
doi:10.7282/t3-gb3b-ft59
Genre
(authority = ExL-Esploro)
ETD doctoral
Back to the top
Rights
RightsDeclaration
(ID = rulibRdec0006)
The author owns the copyright to this work.
RightsHolder
(type = personal)
Name
FamilyName
Webster
GivenName
Elizabeth
Role
Copyright Holder
RightsEvent
Type
Permission or license
DateTime
(encoding = w3cdtf);
(point = start);
(qualifier = exact)
2018-07-15 12:06:50
AssociatedEntity
Name
Elizabeth Webster
Role
Copyright holder
Affiliation
Rutgers University. Graduate School - Newark
AssociatedObject
Type
License
Name
Author Agreement License
Detail
I hereby grant to the Rutgers University Libraries and to my school the non-exclusive right to archive, reproduce and distribute my thesis or dissertation, in whole or in part, and/or my abstract, in whole or in part, in and from an electronic format, subject to the release date subsequently stipulated in this submittal form and approved by my school. I represent and stipulate that the thesis or dissertation and its abstract are my original work, that they do not infringe or violate any rights of others, and that I make these grants as the sole owner of the rights to my thesis or dissertation and its abstract. I represent that I have obtained written permissions, when necessary, from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis or dissertation and will supply copies of such upon request by my school. I acknowledge that RU ETD and my school will not distribute my thesis or dissertation or its abstract if, in their reasonable judgment, they believe all such rights have not been secured. I acknowledge that I retain ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use all or part of this thesis or dissertation in future works, such as articles or books.
RightsEvent
Type
Embargo
DateTime
(encoding = w3cdtf);
(point = start);
(qualifier = exact)
2019-09-03
DateTime
(encoding = w3cdtf);
(point = end);
(qualifier = exact)
2020-10-31
Detail
Access to this PDF has been restricted at the author's request. It will be publicly available after October 31st, 2020.
Copyright
Status
Copyright protected
Availability
Status
Open
Reason
Permission or license
Back to the top
Technical
RULTechMD
(ID = TECHNICAL1)
ContentModel
ETD
OperatingSystem
(VERSION = 5.1)
windows xp
CreatingApplication
Version
1.7
ApplicationName
Microsoft® Word 2016
DateCreated
(point = end);
(encoding = w3cdtf);
(qualifier = exact)
2018-08-02T12:55:11
DateCreated
(point = end);
(encoding = w3cdtf);
(qualifier = exact)
2018-08-02T12:55:11
Back to the top
Statistical Profile