District Attorney’s offices are increasingly creating Conviction Review Units (CRUs) to re‐examine questionable convictions and guard against future error. But not all CRUs are created equal. In a recently published report entitled “Conviction Review Units: A National Perspective,” John Hollway, Executive Director of the Quattrone Center on the Fair Administration of Justice at Penn Law, highlights CRUs around the country and what we can learn from the various ways CRUs operate.
Hollway presented the report’s findings at NCIP’s symposium “In the Interest of Justice: Conviction Review Programs” held on the Santa Clara University campus on September 25, 2015.
John Hollway provides symposium attendees with information about the national landscape of conviction review. Source: Joanne Lee
Hollway’s body of research consists of interviews with the heads of 17 CRUs from across the country. CRUs that participated in interviews vary in size and time of existence. According to Hollway, there is a large spectrum of units that exist; some CRUs are very transparent and have had great success in securing exonerations while others CRUs are more hesitant to open themselves up to potential media criticism or errors in their cases and take a harder line at which cases they will consider for review.
Hollway maintains the key hallmarks of an effective CRU are independence to make decisions, flexibility to deal with cases that have unique circumstances and facts, and transparency about the review process. Offices often must balance the independence, flexibility and transparency their respective CRU will exercise when determining how the unit should be structured and operate.
The types of cases CRUs review varies widely. Some CRUs only review cases of actual innocence and do not consider due process violation cases. For these CRUs, claims based on ineffective assistance of defense counsel, prosecutorial misconduct or other due proves violations do not warrant review, despite being leading cause of wrongful conviction.
CRUs also vary in the level of transparency regarding written policies and procedures that outline the CRU’s work. While written protocols may restrict the flexibility of an office to deviate from its typical review process, publishing the rationales behind certain decisions and publishing activity and metrics are something that the public expects from all parts of government service.
The level of external participation in the conviction review process also varies. External participation in CRUs ranges from a panel of external volunteer case reviewers, to defense attorneys co-leading a CRU, to no participation whatsoever in the review process. Inviting outside perspectives in the review process gives fresh eyes to a case and can help avoid the tendency to view the evidence in a way that confirms the petitioner’s guilt.
To learn more about the various ways CRUs operate, read “Conviction Review Units: A National Perspective,” found here.
NCIP commends John Hollway and the Quattrone Center on the Fair Administration of Justice at Penn Law for publishing this groundbreaking report. NCIP looks forward to collaborating with CRUs nationwide to implement best practices and to bring troubling convictions to the attention of CRUs for further investigation.
