2016
INNOCENTS DATABASE
EXONERATION REPORT

By Hans Sherrer
The Justice Institute

2016 Innocents Database Exoneration Report
Copyright © 2017 by Hans Sherrer
Permission is granted to publish content in this report with the sole proviso that credit for the source must be given.
Permission is granted to print this report for non-commercial use.

Published by:
The Justice Institute
PO Box 66291
Seattle, WA 98166
Website: http://justicedenied.org
Email: contact@justicedenied.org

March 20, 2017
Trade Paperback ISBN: 154480430X
Trade Paperback ISBN-13: 978-1544804309

The map of the United States on the cover uses colors for each state to represent the total number of known
exonerations for each state through 2016. The map was created with Carto.com.
The Justice Institute’s logo that represents the snake of evil and injustice climbing up to tilt the scales of justice, is
in the lower left-hand corner of the cover.

Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Observations ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Longest Time From Conviction To Judicial Exoneration ........................................................................................... 5
Longest Time From Conviction To Executive Exoneration........................................................................................ 6
Longest Time From Commission Of Crime To Conviction........................................................................................ 7
Table 1  Known Exonerations By Year (U.S. & Int.) ............................................................................................ 9
Chart 1  Exonerations By Year............................................................................................................................... 9
Table 2  Number of Exonerated People By State................................................................................................. 10
Map 1  U.S. Map of Total Exonerations for each State....................................................................................... 11
Table 3  Number of Exonerated People By Jurisdiction (U.S.) ........................................................................... 11
Table 4  Number of Exonerated People By Sex/Type (U.S.)............................................................................... 11
Table 5  Number of Exonerated People By Type of Crime (U.S.)....................................................................... 12
Chart 2  Percentage of Exonerations by type of Crime (U.S.) ............................................................................. 12
Table 6  Number of Exonerated People by Race/Ethnicity (U.S.) ....................................................................... 12
Table 7  Number of Exonerated People By Primary Types of Exculpatory Evidence (U.S.).............................. 13
Table 8  Number of Exonerated People By Conviction Method (U.S.)............................................................... 13
Table 9  Number of Exonerated People Convicted After More Than One Trial (U.S.)....................................... 13
Table 10  Number of State Prisoners Exonerated After Federal Habeas Granted (U.S.)..................................... 13
Table 11  Number of Exonerated People Convicted By Primary Types of Prosecution Evidence (U.S)............... 14
Table 12  Number of Exonerated People By Method of Exoneration (U.S.)....................................................... 14
Table 13  Number of Exonerated Persons Involved In A Case With A Co-Defendant (U.S.) ............................ 14
Table 14  Number of Exonerations Involving DNA Evidence By Year .............................................................. 15
Chart 3  Exonerations Relying On DNA Evidence in the U.S. and Internationally............................................ 15
Chart 4  Percentage of Exonerations based on DNA evidence – 1989-2006 (U.S.) ........................................... 16
Table 15  Number of Exonerated People Aided By Conviction Integrity Unit (U.S.) ........................................... 16
Table 16  Number of Exonerated People By Years In Custody (U.S.) ................................................................ 16
Table 17  Average Years Exonerated Person Was In Custody Before Release (All types of cases) ................... 17
Table 18  Avg Years Exonerated Person Was In Custody Before Release (Homicide or Sexual Assault only) ....... 17
Table 19  Avg Years Exonerated Person Was In Custody Before Release (Non-Homicide or Sexual Assault only) .. 17
Chart 5  Average Years in Custody Before Exoneration (U.S.)............................................................................... 17
Table 20  Number of Exonerated People By County (12 or more) (U.S.) ........................................................... 18
Table 21  Number of Exonerated People By Country – International Cases Only .............................................. 19
Table 22  Number of Exonerated People By Type of Crime (International) ....................................................... 21
Table 23  Number of Exonerated People By Method of Exoneration (International) .......................................... 21
Table 24  Number of Exonerated Persons Involved In A Case With A Co-Defendant (International) ............... 21
Map 2  World Map of Total Exonerations for each Country............................................................................... 22
Federal Court Is The Death Zone For Innocent State Prisoners ................................................................................ 23

A question, correction, or suggestion regarding the Innocents Database can be emailed to:
innocents@justicedenied.org

Introduction

T

his is the second yearly report of information recorded in the Innocents Database through the last calendar
year – 2016.1 The Innocents Database is an ongoing independent non-profit project begun in February
1997 that records every documentable exoneration in the United States and every other country.2 The Innocents
Database is online at www.justicedenied.org/exonerations.htm, and it can be accessed from Justice Denied’s
website at www.justicedenied.org. This Report is compiled from information available in the database online.3
The database includes 8,131 cases concluded through December 31, 2016: 5,224 U.S. cases and 2,907
international cases.
Since the Innocents Database was founded there has been a continuing increase in the reporting of cases in
accessible digital form. That has resulted in more cases being included for recent years. However, that doesn’t mean
more people are exonerated today than ten, twenty, or even forty years ago. It does means it is easier to find a larger
number of recent exoneration cases. For example, Table 1 lists 484 U.S. cases and 462 international cases for 2016,
and 84 U.S. cases and 97 international cases for 2005. There may have been a comparable number of exonerations in
2005 as 2016 – but finding and identifying contemporary cases is less challenging than 2005 cases, much less cases
in 1995 or 1975.
Nevertheless, the 5,224 U.S. cases listed in the database through 2016 – 4,313 cases from 1989 to 2016 and 911
cases prior to 1989 – provide data that can be useful to make general observations and identify possible trends. 1989
is used as a quasi demarcation because the first DNA exoneration in the U.S. was in 1989. Internationally the first
exoneration was in Canada in 1992.
The Report includes 24 tables of data. Most of the 24 tables include information about U.S. cases for both the
years 1989 to 2016, and pre-1989, and several include information about international cases. Those tables are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Table 1. Known Exonerations By Year (U.S. & Int.)
Table 2. Number of Exonerated People By State
Table 3. Number of Exonerated People By Jurisdiction (U.S.)
Table 4. Number of Exonerated People By Sex/Type (U.S.)
Table 5. Number of Exonerated People By Type of Crime (U.S.)
Table 6. Number of Exonerated People by Race/Ethnicity (U.S.)
Table 7. Number of Exonerated People By Primary Types of Exculpatory Evidence (U.S.)
Table 8. Number of Exonerated People By Conviction Method (U.S.)
Table 9. Number of Exonerated People Convicted After More Than One Trial (U.S.)
Table 10. Number of State Prisoners Exonerated After Federal Habeas Granted (U.S.)
Table 11. Number of Exonerated People Convicted By Primary Types of Prosecution Evidence (U.S.)
Table 12. Number of Exonerated People By Method of Exoneration (U.S.)
Table 13. Number of Exonerated Persons Involved In A Case With A Co-Defendant (U.S.)
Table 14. Number of Exonerations Involving DNA Evidence By Year (U.S. & Int.)
Table 15. Number of Exonerated People Aided By Conviction Integrity Unit (U.S.)
Table 16. Number of Exonerated People By Years In Custody (U.S.)
Table 17. Average Years Exonerated Person Was In Custody Before Release (U.S. & Int.)
Table 18. Average Years Exonerated Person Was In Custody Before Release (Homicide or Sexual Assault

1

This report includes cases that were concluded through December 31, 2016, and which were added to the database up to March 7, 2017.
For an explanation of cases considered an exoneration for inclusion in the Innocents Database, see, Hans Sherrer, “An Exoneration Can
Be Judicial Or By Executive Or Legislative Clemency,” Justice Denied, Issue 59 (Spring 2015), available online at,
http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/2811. Summarized, an exoneration is when a convicted living or deceased person’s
presumption of innocence is restored by judicial, executive, or legislative action, or their conviction is recognized as a miscarriage of
justice by either legislative or executive action based on evidence of their innocence.
2
The Innocents Database was created and is maintained by Hans Sherrer, president of the Justice Institute, and publisher and editor of
Justice Denied: the magazine for the wrongly convicted.
3
The Innocents Database contains millions of bits of data. The database can be sorted and searched on over 100 fields online at,
http://forejustice.org/exonerations.htm .

1

•
•
•
•
•
•

only) (U.S. & Int.)
Table 19. Average Years Exonerated Person Was In Custody Before Release (Non-Homicide or Sexual
Assault only) (U.S. & Int.)
Table 20. Number of Exonerated People By County (12 or more) (U.S.)
Table 21. Number of Exonerated People By Country – International Cases
Table 22. Number of Exonerated People By Type of Crime (International)
Table 23. Number of Exonerated People By Method of Exoneration (International)
Table 24. Number of Exonerated Persons Involved In A Case With A Co-Defendant (International)

2

Observations

T

he following are observations regarding known exonerations in the United States in 2016. The data
underlying these observations is in the tables in this report and the Innocents Database.
In 2016, there was an exoneration in all but nine states: Alabama; Alaska; Hawaii; Kentucky; New
Hampshire; New Mexico; Rhode Island; South Dakota; and Vermont.
In 2016, eight states had 10 or more exonerations: Pennsylvania (150); Texas (134); New York (33); Illinois
(19); Oregon (16); California (12); Virginia (12); and, Ohio (10).
Five counties had ten or more exonerations in 2016: Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (146); Harris County,
Texas (80); Cook County, Illinois (13); Cuyahoga County, Ohio (10); and, Deschutes County, Oregon (10).4
Four cities had ten or more exonerations in 2016: Philadelphia (146); Houston (22); New York City (17);
Chicago (13).
In 2016, 92% of exonerations were of men, and 8% were of women. That was consistent with the historical
average of 91% men and 9% women.
In 2016, 74% of exonerations involved a case in which no crime was committed.
In 2016, 26% of exonerations were by way of an acquittal, by either a court reviewing the person’s conviction
or after a retrial. The remaining exonerations were by way of the dismissal of charges. That is consistent with the
historical average of 22% of exonerations in the U.S. by way of an acquittal.
In 2016, 8% of exonerated people had one or more co-defendants also wrongly convicted. That was less than
half the historical average of 18% of exonerations involving two or more co-defendants.
In 2016, 53% of exonerations were of a drug related conviction; 18% were of a non-violent related conviction;
14% were of a homicide related conviction; and 7% were of sexual assault/abuse related conviction.
In 2016, no one was posthumously exonerated.
In 2016, 77% of exonerated persons spent less than a year in custody, or were sentenced to probation or a fine;
23% spent a year or more in custody; 11% spent 10 years or more in custody; 7% spent 20 years or more in
custody; and one person spent more than 30 years in custody. That was Keith Allen Harward, convicted of the
1982 murder of the husband of a rape victim in Virginia, and who was released after more than 33 years in
custody.
In 2016, 64% of exonerated people were convicted by a guilty or no-contest plea, 29% by a jury, and 7% after
a bench (judge only) trial.
In 2016, 96% of exonerations were of a person convicted in state court, and 4% in federal court.
In 2016, 2.5% of exonerations involved a false confession by the exonerated person or a co-defendant. That is
less than half the average for the ten years from 2007 to 2016 when more than 5% of exonerations involved a false
confession, and less than one-third the historical average of 8%.
The average of 17 years spent in custody by people exonerated in 2016 of a homicide or sexual assault related
crime was seven times the average of 2½ years spent in custody by an exonerated person who was convicted of
any other type of crime.
Other than the six women exonerated in 2016 of a homicide related crime, the women who were incarcerated
for all other types of crimes spent an average of less than nine months in custody.
In 2016, 3.5% of U.S. exonerations were primarily based on new DNA evidence. Although they get a lot of
press coverage, DNA exonerations are uncommon. They accounted for less than 3% of exonerations from 2013 to
2016, and since the first DNA exoneration in 1989, 8.3% of exonerations in the U.S. – 1 out of 12 – were
primarily based on DNA evidence.

4

The only known exonerations in Deschutes County were the ten in 2016, so it isn’t listed in Table 20 that only includes counties with
12 or more total exonerations.

3

Conviction integrity units in ten jurisdictions aided in the exoneration of 118 people in 2016. There were 79 in
Harris County (Houston) Texas; eight in Cook County, Illinois; seven each in Bexar County, Texas and Cuyahoga
County, Ohio; and 17 in six other counties. The 173 exonerations aided by the Harris County CIU from 2014 to
2016 are due to laboratory testing for the first time of evidence in drug cases that turned out not to be an illegal
substance, or retroactive application of rulings in two cases in which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled
the Texas statute relied on for the convictions was unconstitutional.5 In contrast with the Harris County CIU
acting as a pass-through for testing conducted by a crime lab and new court rulings, the 21 exonerations by the
Kings County, New York CRU are attributable to serious reinvestigation of those cases by CRU personnel after
District Attorney Kenneth Thompson took office in January 2014.6
In 2016, six state prisoners were exonerated after their federal habeas corpus petition was granted. That is
comparable with the average of about four per year since enactment of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996.7 The difficulty of a state prisoner to prevail in federal court is emphasized by the small
number of exonerations contrasted with the thousands of state prisoner habeas petitions filed annually in U.S.
District Courts.8 That puts to rest the folklore a state prisoner can expect to get a fairer shake in federal court than
their state’s courts. See page 23 of this report for the mini-report, Federal Court Is The Death Zone For Innocent
State Prisoners.
In the U.S. there are over a million felony convictions yearly in state courts, and more than 125,000
convictions in federal courts, so even given only a 2% wrongful conviction rate – and there are estimates the
actual rate is 10% or more – there would be more than 22,000 wrongful convictions per year.9 So the 484 cases in
the database for 2016 are little more than 2% of that number. What is unknown – and for the foreseeable future it
will remain unknown – is exactly how many innocent people have had their wrongful conviction(s) overturned.
Also unknown is the infinitely larger number of innocent people – possibly totaling over a million – who have not,
and never will have their wrongful conviction(s) overturned: those people will forever be officially branded as a
criminal for a crime committed by another person, or that may not have even occurred. Thus, the known
exonerations are a miniscule representation of the actual number of wrongly convicted persons.
The inadequacy of current data regarding wrongful convictions is illustrated by the fact that even though far
more Caucasians are convicted than any other “racial” group, 50% of the exonerations in 2016 were identified as
being Blacks. From 2012 to 2016 46% of known exonerations were of a Black man or woman.
he following are observations regarding known exonerations in countries other than the United States in
2016. The data underlying these observations is in the tables in this report and the Innocents Database.
In 2016, there was an identifiable exoneration in 41 countries. That is comparable to the 39 countries with a
known exoneration in 2015.
In 2016, eight countries had 10 or more exonerations: Turkey (275); India (32); United Kingdom (England)
(25); Malawi (19); Australia (14); and, China (11).
In 2016, 91% of exonerations were of men, and 9% were of women. That was consistent with the historical
average of 88% men and 12% women.
In 2016, 22% of exonerations involved a case in which no crime was committed.

T

5

The two statutes involved online solicitation of a minor, and photographing people in public without consent.
DA Thompson died of cancer at the age of 50 on October 9, 2016. It is unknown at this time if his predecessor will support the CRU as
a mechanism to ferret out unreliable convictions, or revert to the approach of Thompson’s predecessor Charles Hynes., that the CRU was
effectively only a public relations prop.
7
Also known as AEDPA, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Signed into law by President Clinton on April 24, 1996.
8
See, Judicial Facts and Figures 2015, Table 4.6. “U.S. District Courts – Prisoner Petition Filed, by Nature of Suit,” USCourts.gov.
Available online at, http://www.uscourts.gov/file/19692/download. (Last visited March 15, 2017) 2015 is the most recent year that the
statistics are available.
9
850,365 defendants were convicted in federal court during the six years 2010 to 2015 – an average of 141,727 per year. See, U.S.
Attorneys’ Statistical Reports available online at, http://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/annual-statistical-reports (Last visited March 15,
2017). There were 1,132,290 felony convictions in state courts in 2006, the latest year for which the data is available from the Bureau of
Justice Statistics. See, Sean Rosenmerkel, Matthew Durose and Donald Farole, Jr., Ph.D.; “Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2006 –
Statistical Tables,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 2009, NCJ 226846. Available online at,
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf (Last viewed March 15, 2017).
6

4

In 2016, 96% of exonerations were by way of an acquittal, by either a court reviewing the person’s conviction
or after a retrial. The remaining exonerations were by way of the dismissal of charges. That was higher than the
historical average of 78% of exonerations outside the U.S. by way of an acquittal.
In 2016, 17% of exonerated people had co-defendants also wrongly convicted. That was about half the
historical average of 33% of exonerations involving two or more co-defendants.
In 2016, 9% of exonerations were of a homicide related conviction, 4% were of sexual assault/abuse related
conviction, 5% were of a fraud related conviction, 63% were of a violence related conviction other than homicide,
rape, assault, robbery, etc., and 13% were of a non-violent related conviction. Less than 1% of exonerations were
of a drug related conviction, contrasted with 53% in the U.S. in 2016.
In 2016, there were two posthumous exonerations internationally.
In 2016, seven people were exonerated after more than 20 years of imprisonment. The longest was the more
than 23 years of imprisonment by Chen Man, who was convicted of a murder and arson in China he didn’t
commit. Four of the other seven people who served more than 20 years were also convicted in China, and the
other two were convicted in Japan.
The average of 9 years spent in custody by people exonerated in 2016 of a homicide or sexual assault related
crime was six times the average of 1½ years spent in custody by an exonerated person who was convicted of any
other type of crime.
In 2016, Kengo Iwamoto in Japan was the only person whose exoneration was primarily based on new DNA
evidence. There have been a total of 39 DNA exonerations outside the U.S. since Canadian David Milgaard was
cleared of murder and rape in 1992. Twelve of those exonerations were in Canada, 10 in the United Kingdom
(England), three in Indonesia, three in New Zealand, three in Japan, and eight in seven other countries.
he following are three notable U.S. 2016 exoneration cases: the longest time from conviction to a judicial
exoneration; the longest time from conviction to an executive (pardon) exoneration; and the longest time
from an exonerated person’s conviction and the commission of the crime.

T

Longest Time From Conviction To Judicial Exoneration
52 years
Paul Gatling
Convicted in 1964. Exonerated in 2016
Kings County, New York

P

aul Gatling was convicted in 1964 of the shooting murder of Lawrence Rothbort on the night of October
15, 1963 during an attempted robbery in his Brooklyn, New York home. Rothbort’s wife Marlene told
police a man entered their apartment and demanded money, and shot her husband when he refused to give him
any money. She gave the police a description of the assailant.
Gatling, a decorated Korean War veteran, was questioned after the police were told he had been seen in the
area of the apartment building. There was no physical or forensic evidence linking Gatling to the shooting. He was
charged with first-degree murder based on his identification by the victim’s wife, after she had first failed to
identify him in a four person line-up.
The 29-year-old Gatling proclaimed his innocence and pled not guilty during his arraignment. However,
during his trial the visibly pregnant Marlene pointed to him as the man who shot her husband. Facing a possible
death sentence if he was convicted by the jury, Gatling’s trial abruptly ended when he accepted the prosecution’s
offer to plead guilty to second-degree murder in exchange for a prison sentence.
Gatling had buyer’s remorse about his guilty plea, but his motion to withdraw it was denied.
In October 1964 he was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison.
Legal Aid Society lawyer Malvina Nathanson took an interest in Gatling’s case because of his insistence he
was innocent. Her investigation led her to believe he was in fact innocent. In 1973 she submitted a clemency
5

application on Gatling’s behalf to New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. In one of his last acts before leaving
office on December 18, 1973, Rockefeller commuted Gatling’s sentence.
Gatling was released in January 1974 after more than ten years in custody.
In January 2014 new Kings County District Attorney Kenneth Thompson took office. Gatling read that
Thompson was planning to reinvigorate the DA Office’s Conviction Review Unit that had been created in 2011
by Thompson’s predecessor, DA Charles J. Hynes. However, under Hynes it had not contributed to the
overturning of a single conviction.
Gatling contacted Nathanson. Although they had not been in contact for decades, she had kept her file about
Gatling’s case. She sent it to him, and he provided it to Eric Sonnenschein, one of ten assistant district attorneys
that Thompson had assigned to the CRU.
The CRU initiated an investigation of Gatling’s case. The investigation discovered that Gatling was not
provided with a lawyer prior to being interrogated about the crime, and that prior to Gatling’s guilty plea his
lawyer had not been provided with favorable evidence known to the DA, as was required by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963).
The non-disclosed evidence included: immediately after the crime Marlene Rothbort described the assailant as
younger than Gatling; the Rothbort’s neighbors told the police the couple often had violent arguments —
sometimes during the night; that Marlene told detectives she was having an affair with a musician, Leon Tolbert,
who was living as a boarder in the Rothbort’s home; and, that when Tolbert was interviewed he told the police he
had recently heard Marlene threaten to kill her husband if he ever hit her again.
The CRU’s report determined that Gatling’s conviction was a miscarriage of justice, and recommended that
the DA’s Office support the withdrawal of Gatling’s guilty plea and the setting aside of his conviction. DA
Thompson agreed with the recommendation. The DA’s Office filed a motion for withdrawal of Gatling’s guilty
plea and to set-aside his conviction. On May 2, 2016 Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Dineen Riviezzo granted
the DA’s motion, and also granted the DA’s motion to dismiss the charge against the 81-year-old Gatling.
Thompson told reporters: “Paul Gatling repeatedly proclaimed his innocence even as he faced the death
penalty back in the 60s. He was pressured to plead guilty and, sadly, did not receive a fair trial.”10
After the hearing that cleared him almost 52 years after his conviction, Gatling told reporters that Marlene
Rothborts’ testimony doomed him: “The cops told me they would make sure I was convicted and the lawyers said
they were going to execute me. I was a young black man. With the white, pregnant wife in front of an all-white
jury pointing me out, it was over.”11

Longest Time From Conviction To Executive Exoneration
24 years
Earnest Leap
Convicted in 1992. Exonerated in 2016
Jackson County, Missouri

I

n 1989 Earnest Leap was 31 and living in Jackson County, Missouri. He had primary custody of his two
sons, five-year-old Brodie and his toddler brother Josh, that he had with his ex-wife Karen.
Leap and Karen were divorced in September 1989. She was displeased he was granted primary custody of
their sons, which meant they spent more time with Leap than with her. Although there had never been any
allegation by anyone that Leap had abused Brodie, on December 1, 1989 Karen quizzed Brodie, “Have you been

10

“Man, 81, who served 10 years for 1960s New York murder he did not commit is finally cleared of his crime,” By Mia De Graff, Daily
Mail, May 2, 2016. Online at, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3570129/Man-81-served-10-years-1960s-New-York-murder-didnot-commit-finally-cleared-crime.html .
11
“Man Convicted of Brooklyn Murder Exonerated After 52 Years,” by Dan Slepian and Corky Siemaszko, NBCNews.com, May 2,
2016. Online at, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-convicted-brooklyn-murder-exonerated-after-52-years-n566076 .

6

touched down there?”12 Brodie said “No.” She kept asking him again and again, and he finally told her “Yes.”
Based on Brodie’s statement Karen went to the police and asserted that Leap had fondled his son’s genitals.
Leap was charged with criminal sexual assault. After insisting on his innocence for three years, to avoid
Brodie having to testify at a trial, he took his lawyer’s advice to agree to an Alford plea in exchange for probation.
Under the deal Leap’s conviction would be expunged after three years of good behavior. At the time Missouri did
not have a sex offender registration law.
In 1994 a federal law was enacted creating a public sex offender registry in each state. So a year before he
expected to have his conviction erased, Leap was required to register – and be publicly identified – as a child sex
offender.
Eighteen years after accusing his dad of sexually touching him, Brodie recanted his claim in 2007. He asserted
in an Affidavit that his mother pressured him into falsely accusing his father because she was angry he had been
granted primary custody of him and his younger brother.
In 2015, the 57-year-old Leap retired as a driver for United Parcel Service. Brodie, who was a Navy veteran,
moved in with his dad to help with his mission of being granted a pardon and clearing his name. In an October
2015 interview with The Kansas City Star, Brodie said about his false accusation, “I live with the guilt of that lie
every day of my life.” Brodie’s brother Josh said about his dad, “The only stable component of my childhood was
the immutable presence of my father.”13
Missouri State Representative Jim Neely saw the story in The Kansas City Star, and became an advocate for
Leap. In May 2016 Neely delivered a letter to Missouri Governor Jay Nixon in support of a pardon for Leap,
which was signed by more than a third of Missouri House representatives.
On August 19, 2016 Governor Nixon signed Leap’s pardon. Nixon stated: “The executive power to grant
clemency is one I take with a great deal of consideration and seriousness. … the information that has come to light
more recently and the fact that he has been a law-abiding and productive member of society were compelling
enough for me to grant a pardon.”14

Longest Time From Commission Of Crime To Conviction
55 years
Jack McCullough
Crime occurred in 1957. Convicted in 2012. Exonerated in 2016
DeKalb County, Illinois

J

ack McCullough was 72 when he was convicted on September 12, 2012 of the cold-case abduction of 7year-old Maria Ridulph in Sycamore, Illinois on the evening of December 3, 1957 and her murder.
Ridulph’s body was found five months later in 1958.
At the time of Ridulph’s murder McCullough was 18 and living in Sycamore. McCullough was questioned by
police, and he told them that on the evening of Ridulph’s disappearance he was in Rockford, Illinois. Rockford is
42 miles from Sycamore.
Fifty-four years later, in 2011, McCullough was living in Washington state when he was charged with
Ridulph’s murder. He was extradited to Illinois. McCullough’s prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence
that included alleged admissions he had made that suggested he was involved – but he did not confess and
adamantly denied he abducted and killed Ridulph.
McCullough waived his right to a jury trial. After McCullough’s conviction by Kane County Associate Judge
12

“‘Lie’ begets lifetime of regret for Clay County father, son,” By Eric Adler, The Kansas City Star, October 24, 2015. Online at,
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article41364675.html .
13
Id.
14
“Decades after ‘lie’ puts dad on sex offender registry, he’s pardoned,” By Eric Adler, The Kansas City Star, August 19, 2016. Online
at, http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article96788667.html .

7

James Hallock following a bench trial, he was sentenced to life in prison.
DeKalb County State’s Attorney Richard Schmack took office in 2013. McCullough was in the process of
appealing his conviction. McCullough initially opposed McCullough’s direct appeal. However, Schmack began
having doubts when he reviewed the case, including police reports from 1957 and ’58 that Judge Hallock had
excluded from consideration as evidence during McCullough’s trial.
Schmack reopened McCullough’s case, and the investigation discovered the new evidence of phone records
that corroborated McCullough’s alibi that at the exact time Maria Ridulph was abducted in Sycamore, he was 42
miles away in Rockford.
Based on the reinvestigation, Schmack publicly proclaimed that McCullough was factually innocent and had
been wrongly convicted.
On April 15, 2015 DeKalb County Judge William Brady granted a motion by the DeKalb County State’s
Attorney’s Office to vacate McCullough’s conviction. The motion was based on evidence of McCullough’s actual
innocence not considered by Judge Hallock in finding him guilty.
Judge Brady ordered McCullough’s release on bond, and two hours later he was released from the DeKalb
County Jail.
On April 22, 2016 Judge Brady granted a motion by the State's Attorney’s Office to dismiss the murder charge
against McCullough.

8

Table 1  Known Exonerations By Year (U.S. & Int.)
USA

Posthumous

International

Posthumous

2016

Year

484

0

462

2

2015

721

4

211

2

2014

351

4

208

1

2013

206

4

189

0

2012

149

0

142

2

2011

131

2

161

1

2010

333

0

96

0

2009

158

3

155

3

2008

135

0

163

0

2007

142

28

172

8

2006

175

80

114

3

2005

84

0

97

1

2004

93

0

139

0

2003

127

2

74

3

2002

92

1

50

2

2001

106

1

50

0

2000

257

2

33

0

1999

62

0

27

0

1998

49

0

34

4

1997

57

0

15

1996

60

1

8

0
0

1995

85

0

19

0

1994

44

0

10

0

1993

46

0

10

0

1992

43

0

18

0

1991

50

0

12

0

1990

39

0

5

0

1989

34

1

13

0

1989-2016 total

4313

133

2687

32

<1989 total

911

27

220

34

Total

5224

160

2907

66

Chart 1  Exonerations By Year

9

Table 2  Number of Exonerated People By State
State/Territory

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
U.S. Military
Totals

0
0
1
2
12
3
1
1
1
4
4
0
0
3
19
4
4
5
0
3
1
2
4
4
3
1
2
3
1
5
0
6
0
33
9
1
10
5
16
150
3
0
1
0
4
134
1
0
0
12
2
1
2
1
0
484

5
6
1
3
8
2
6
5
2
12
4
2
0
0
23
6
8
3
1
3
1
1
4
2
4
1
2
2
2
3
2
6
1
39
21
0
6
2
2
403
0
0
1
1
6
74
1
1
0
11
9
0
9
0
4
721

1
1
1
1
13
4
0
0
3
4
0
0
2
0
17
0
4
2
2
3
1
3
2
18
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
5
4
34
5
0
10
3
4
112
0
1
2
0
3
61
3
0
0
3
3
2
5
1
1
351

3
0
1
1
9
0
10
0
1
3
6
1
1
0
16
1
2
1
0
1
0
2
4
7
2
0
5
0
0
0
1
2
1
21
2
0
2
1
1
54
0
0
3
0
2
12
0
2
0
5
12
0
4
2
2
206

2
1
4
0
13
1
1
0
5
3
1
0
0
1
14
4
2
0
1
2
0
1
6
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
29
6
0
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
0
2
16
1
0
0
3
4
0
1
1
2
149

2
0
0
1
12
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
12
0
2
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
2
3
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
15
3
1
7
2
2
6
0
2
1
0
2
18
1
0
0
4
2
0
1
1
0
131

0
0
3
2
7
2
1
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
1
4
0
2
6
27
3
6
5
0
1
0
0
173
0
15
5
0
8
18
4
2
0
1
1
0
1
12
0
0
0
1
5
1
4
0
0
333

1
0
1
0
14
0
3
0
3
3
4
1
0
0
10
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
19
0
3
3
1
5
1
2
1
1
14
2
0
4
4
2
2
1
0
2
0
2
20
1
0
0
5
4
2
8
0
2
158

0
0
1
1
9
0
1
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
12
5
0
0
4
1
0
2
4
9
1
4
3
1
1
0
0
0
1
14
3
0
17
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
15
0
0
2
3
2
4
2
0
0
134

0
0
0
0
10
0
1
0
0
12
3
0
0
0
6
0
1
1
1

10

2
0
2
0
2
2
3
1
0
0
1
1
2
1
13
3
2
9
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
5
9
2
0
0
2
1
0
9
0
28
142

10 yr
total
14
8
13
11
107
14
24
6
16
51
27
4
4
4
134
23
24
14
12
23
5
16
34
96
18
21
26
8
11
12
8
196
9
227
59
4
75
48
36
733
6
5
13
3
28
371
10
3
2
49
44
10
45
6
39
2809

19892016
40
9
31
15
406
17
38
6
24
115
46
4
7
6
234
38
34
17
20
61
6
34
83
140
26
26
56
91
16
25
8
212
13
367
76
6
116
66
47
829
6
9
19
7
38
490
19
4
2
77
93
19
69
6
44
4313

Pre1989
18
3
1
8
82
2
8
0
13
41
21
0
0
3
41
8
2
3
6
24
4
14
75
64
6
7
12
0
2
6
0
37
7
185
26
0
27
7
6
22
0
0
38
0
3
27
2
2
0
14
10
3
7
0
10
911

Total
58
12
32
23
488
19
46
6
37
160
67
4
7
9
275
46
36
20
26
85
10
48
158
204
32
33
68
91
18
31
8
249
20
552
102
6
143
73
53
851
6
9
57
7
41
517
21
6
2
91
103
22
76
6
54
5224

Map 1  U.S. Map of Total Exonerations for each State (See Table 1’s Total column for data.)

Maps created with Carto.com.

Table 3  Number of Exonerated People By Jurisdiction (U.S.)

100

10 yr
total
2106

19892016
3953

Pre1989
782

42

220

360

129

489

135

142

2809

4313

911

5224

19892016
3933

Pre1989
822

Jurisdiction

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

State case

465

690

323

187

130

117

312

140

107

Federal case

19

31

28

19

19

14

21

18

28

Total

484

721

351

206

149

131

333

158

Total
4735

Table 4  Number of Exonerated People By Sex/Type (U.S.)
2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Male

444

682

312

186

129

118

308

138

120

131

10 yr
total
2568

Female

40

38

38

20

19

12

24

20

15

11

237

374

69

443

Business

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

5

6

4

10

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

16

16

484

721

351

206

149

131

333

158

135

142

2809

4313

911

5224

Type

Total

11

Total
4755

Table 5  Number of Exonerated People By Type of Crime (U.S.)
Type

27

10 yr
total
470

19892016
936

Pre1989
428

5

44

90

5

95

20

19

174

382

41

423

10

12

7

111

214

3

217

12

14

15

112

197

114

311

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Homicide

59

78

58

49

39

35

37

56

32

Homicide/Sex
Sexual Assault/Rape/
Indecent Assault
Child Sex Assault/
Abuse
Robbery/Theft/
Burglary/Extortion
Assault

7

3

2

2

7

6

5

4

3

8

12

16

21

20

16

20

22

24

12

9

6

9

11

11

6

13

11

10

8

12

11

Total
1364

9

21

11

2

6

5

5

5

4

7

75

119

9

128

Drug
Fraud/Forgery/
Embezzlement/Bribery
Child Abuse/Assault

257

468

170

72

19

13

200

21

17

13

1250

1553

17

1570

10

17

9

16

9

5

9

9

11

5

100

145

40

185

3

1

4

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

11

18

0

18

Violent Other

14

21

17

12

8

2

12

6

12

30

134

172

48

220

Non-violent Other

87

75

44

15

24

26

22

12

10

14

329

487

206

693

Total

484

721

351

206

149

131

333

158

135

142

2809

4313

911

5224

Chart 2  Percentage of Exonerations by type of Crime (U.S.)

Percentage of Exonerations by type of Crime (U.S.)
Homicide
Homicide/Sex
Sexual Assault
Child Sex Assault
Robbery/Theft

2012-2016

Assault

1989-2016
Pre-1989

Drug
Fraud/Forgery
Child Abuse
Violent Other
Non-violent Other
0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Table 6  Number of Exonerated People by Race/Ethnicity (U.S.)
Type

39

10 yr
total
583

19892016
1145

Pre1989
448

42

62

663

1111

185

1296

8

6

14

135

262

24

286

1

0

0

12

18

6

24

0

0

0

11

16

2

18

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

White

75

94

79

56

50

45

45

52

48

Black

101

108

84

54

53

51

54

54

Hispanic

21

26

19

9

17

8

7

Asian

2

4

2

1

0

1

1

Native American

1

8

0

1

0

0

1

Total
1593

Middle eastern roots

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

0

2

Black/Asian

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Other

1

2

4

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

10

15

0

15

Unidentified

282

479

162

85

29

25

224

42

39

27

1394

1743

246

1989

Total

484

721

351

206

149

131

333

158

135

142

2809

4313

911

5224

12

Table 7  Number of Exonerated People By Primary Types of Exculpatory Evidence* (U.S.)
Type

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

No crime occurred

360

590

219

103

45

33

219

43

42

38

10 yr
Total
1692

19892016
2123

Pre1989
256

Insufficient evidence
New forensic evidence
(DNA & other)
Prosecution concealment of
evidence
Prosecution fabricated evidence

95

119

36

20

23

21

27

23

31

20

415

498

185

683

113

87

70

20

32

29

29

30

26

16

452

630

27

657

193

425

124

76

13

16

197

35

7

33

1119

1417

53

1470

166

407

115

59

1

8

190

New witness evidence

21

16

10

8

6

3

7

4

2

2

954

1185

12

1197

4

3

5

83

135

60

195

Recantation by accuser

37

14

15

3

6

16

10

New DNA evidence**

17

12

8

11

18

22

18

8

4

7

120

170

40

210

22

17

19

164

360

0

360

Confession by perpetrator
9
5
6
4
CCTV, Electronic, or
8
13
5
4
Photographic evidence
* More than one can apply to a particular case
** Does not include cases where DNA was contributory evidence

5

3

2

4

6

3

47

115

94

209

3

3

0

0

1

1

38

48

0

48

2007

Total
2379

Table 8  Number of Exonerated People By Conviction Method (U.S.)
Type

2011

2010

10 yr
total

19892016

Pre1989

Total

87

98

1070

1701

534

2235

11

16

209

245

92

337

20

4

1294

1407

23

1430

2

1

27

42

2

44

37

15

23

209

918

260

1178

158

135

142

2809

4313

911

5224

2015

2014

2013

Jury trial

143

166

108

103

89

82

96

98

Judge (Bench trial)

33

63

30

11

11

12

10

12

Guilty Plea

302

488

175

72

25

13

185

10

Alford Plea

6

4

4

0

3

1

5

1

Unidentified

0

0

34

20

21

23

37

484

721

351

206

149

131

333

Total

2012

2007

2016

2009

2008

Table 9  Number of Exonerated People Convicted After More Than One Trial (U.S.)
Type

5

10 yr
total
69

19892016
154

Pre1989
80

1

1

14

26

17

43

0

0

4

6

1

7

0

0

0

0

2

3

5

6

4

6

87

188

101

289

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2 trials

12

21

7

7

3

2

3

6

3

3 trials

1

1

2

3

3

1

1

0

4 trials

2

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

5 trials

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

15

22

10

11

6

3

4

Total
234

Table 10  Number of State Prisoners Exonerated After Federal Habeas Granted (U.S.)
Year
Number

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

6

7

3

4

2

2

4

6

4

7

13

10 yr
total
47

19892016
90

Pre1989
36

Total
126

Table 11  Number of Exonerated People Convicted By Primary Types of Prosecution Evidence* (U.S)

Eyewitness error

28

39

41

32

25

28

32

25

51

38

10 yr
total
311

Victim ID error

38

33

24

21

22

18

21

13

18

19

189

365

62

427

Informant evidence

18

14

10

4

2

11

6

12

3

7

69

164

51

215
232

Type

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

19892016
656

Pre1989
222

Total
878

Expert witness

23

14

5

4

12

8

10

10

11

6

80

216

16

Judge’s Errors

67

95

37

22

24

12

18

22

21

15

266

413

144

557

Police Misconduct/Perjury

194

427

132

72

20

22

201

17

9

9

909

1411

66

1477

Prosecutor Misconduct

37

31

24

20

14

12

12

14

8

33

168

353

73

426

False Confession
Co-defendant falsely confessed
(Defendant didn't confess)
Concealed evidence

13

27

22

9

11

11

18

13

26

8

145

292

73

365

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

55

9

64

186

422

124

77

14

4

182

16

6

35

880

1394

63

1457

Circumstantial evidence

40

39

36

11

7

8

9

9

3

5

127

218

149

367

Drug analysis (erroneous)

83

52

47

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

101

185

0

185

* More than one can apply to a particular case

Table 12  Number of Exonerated People By Method of Exoneration (U.S.)
Type
Acquitted by Court

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

113

140

92

36

28

27

28

25

10

46

10 yr
total
545

19892016
633

Pre1989
217

Total
850

Acquitted after Retrial

14

19

9

11

8

4

9

5

5

9

93

199

73

272

Charges dismissed

355

558

248

156

112

2

294

118

117

83

2139

3283

485

3768

Pardoned
Total

2

4

2

3

1

2

2

10

3

4

33

198

136

334

484

721

351

206

149

131

333

158

135

142

2810

4313

911

5224

Table 13  Number of Exonerated Persons Involved In A Case With A Co-Defendant (U.S.)
Type

2016

2015

2014

2 Co-defendants
3 Co-defendants

22

13

7

12

4 Co-defendants

6

5 Co-defendants

0

6 Co-defendants

16

10 yr
total
136

19892016
318

Pre1989
95

4

50

90

35

125

0

1

27

63

21

84

0

0

20

39

22

61

5

1

0

6

6

12

18

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

6
12

14

14

28

12

15

27

0

0

0

0

0

10

20

0

0

0

0

10
0

10

0

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

29

8

11

3

7

6

12

8

25

14

4

6

4

4

8

3

8

3

0

8

4

1

0

2

3

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7 Co-defendants

1

0

9 Co-defendants

0

9

3

3

0

0
0

0
0

0

3
0

10 Co-defendants

0

10

0
0

Total
413

12 Co-defendants

0

0

0

0

0

18

18

14 Co-defendants

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

16 Co-defendants

0

0

0

0

0

16

16

17 Co-defendants

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

17

17

24 Co-defendants

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

48

48

0

0

0

0

0

28

28

28

0

28

24

23

14

36

19

49

295

580

337

917

28 Co-defendants

0

0

0

0

Total

36

55

38

37

14

Table 14  Number of Exonerations Involving DNA
Evidence By Year
Year

U.S.

U.S.

Primary
Evidence

Contributory
Evidence*

International
US Total

All DNA
Evidence*

2016

17

2

19

1

2015

12

6

18

1

2014

8

13

21

2

2013

11

3

14

1

2012

18

3

21

2

2011

22

4

26

3

2010

18

3

21

1

2009

22

5

27

5

2008

17

3

20

4

2007

19

0

19

0

2006

19

2

21

0

2005

17

4

21

1

2004

13

1

14

5

2003

21

3

24

1

2002

23

0

23

1

2001

20

0

20

2

2000

15

1

16

2

1999

13

0

13

1

1998

4

0

4

3

1997

8

1

9

1

1996

14

3

17

0

1995

7

1

8

1

1994

8

3

11

0

1993

4

1

5

0

1992

5

1

6

1

1991

3

0

3

0

1990

1

0

1

0

1989

1

0

1

0

Total

360

63

423

39

* All international cases involved DNA as primary evidence.
** Contributory DNA evidence was insufficient to be relied on to exonerate the
person, however, when combined with other exculpatory evidence it contributed to
the person’s exoneration.

Chart 3  Exonerations Relying On DNA Evidence in the U.S. and Internationally
25
20
15

U.S. Primary Evidence
U.S. Contributory Evidence

10

Int. DNA Evidence

5

15

2016

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

Year

0

Chart 4  Percentage of Exonerations based on DNA evidence – 1989-2006 (U.S.)

Pct. of Exonerations based on DNA evidence - 1989-2016 (U.S.)
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%

19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16

0.0%

Table 15  Number of Exonerated People Aided By Conviction Integrity Unit (U.S.)
Jurisdiction
Harris County, TX

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Total

79

48

46

0

0

0

2

1

0

176

Dallas County, TX

0

0

3

0

6

4

1

6

9

29

Kings County, NY

4

7

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

21

Cook County, IL

8

3

3

4

2

0

0

0

0

20

Bexar County, TX

7

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

Cuyahoga County, OH

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

Multnomah County, OR

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

New York County, NY

0

0

0

1

3

0

0

0

0

4

Baltimore, MD

1

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Tarrant County, TX

4

0

Lake County, Illinois

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Philadelphia County, PA

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

4

Santa Clara County, CA

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

Orleans Parish, Louisiana

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Ventura County, CA

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Bronx County, NY

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Broward County, TX

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

118

64

65

5

12

4

3

7

9

287

Total

Table 16  Number of Exonerated People By Years In Custody (U.S.)
Years

2016

2015

2014

Probation/Fine

314

521

Less than 1 yr

58

68

56

10 yr
total
1587

19892016
2059

9

218

287

72

359

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

210

98

42

37

221

53

36

41

13

8

7

7

3

4

Pre1989
297

Total
2356

1 to 9 yrs

58

76

43

44

55

42

66

43

53

43

523

1131

446

1577

10 to 19 yrs

19

24

34

32

30

27

24

38

23

24

275

562

70

632

20 to 29 yrs

34

26

14

16

12

18

12

19

18

10

179

241

21

262

30 to 39 yrs

1

6

9

3

2

0

3

2

1

0

27

32

5

37

40 and greater

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

484

721

351

206

149

131

333

158

135

142

2810

4313

911

5224

Total

16

Table 17  Average Years Exonerated Person Was In Custody Before Release (All types of cases)
2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

10 yr
average

19892015

Pre1989

Total
Avg.

Men

8.7

7.8

10.5

11.3

10.2

11.1

9.1

12.8

10.1

9.4

9.8

9.2

5.2

8.3

Women

2.5

4.4

4.4

3.0

5.3

5.3

5.7

5.0

5.9

2.2

4.2

4.7

3.0

4.5

Combined

8.1

7.5

9.6

10.6

9.7

10.8

8.9

11.9

9.8

8.7

9.3

8.8

5.1

8.0

Years
United States

International
Men

6.3

5.7

3.7

5.2

6.4

4.6

6.4

4.8

3.2

3.6

4.9

5.5

4.7

5.4

Women

5.5

2.6

1.0

1.5

3.9

7.8

2.3

1.1

1.0

6.1

3.2

3.6

3.5

3.5

Combined

6.2

5.1

3.4

4.9

6.2

4.8

5.9

4.5

3.0

3.8

4.8

5.3

3.1

5.0

Table 18  Average Years Exonerated Person Was In Custody Before Release (Homicide or Sexual Assault

only)

Years

10 yr
average

19892016

Pre1989

Total
Avg.

15.5

12.9

6.3

11.2

8.6

7.6

3.8

7.0

15.0

12.6

6.2

11.0

6.9

7.4

6.5

7.3

6.4

4.9

5.3

4.6

5.2

5.6

6.7

7.2

6.3

7.1

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

17.7

15.6

17.7

16.2

14.1

15.9

13.9

15.4

15.3

11.9

Women

7.3

14.7

11.5

5.4

9.9

9.3

12.5

5.7

9.0

2.3

Combined

17.1

15.6

17.1

15.3

13.7

15.7

13.8

14.4

15.0

11.1

Men

9.2

7.9

4.6

9.2

7.4

6.3

10.7

7.0

3.8

5.5

Women

7.9

4.5

4.1

2.1

5.6

7.8

1.4

Combined

9.1

7.4

4.6

8.3

7.3

6.5

United States
Men

International
2.4
8.9

2.1
6.8

3.7

Table 19  Average Years Exonerated Person Was In Custody Before Release (Non-Homicide or Sexual Assault only)
2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

10 yr
average

19892016

Pre1989

Total Avg.

Men

2.7

2.4

3.6

3.4

4.7

5.5

4.9

6.1

4.5

6.2

3.9

4.0

2.5

3.8

Women

0.7

0.8

1.3

0.7

2.0

2.6

2.2

4.0

3.6

2.0

1.6

2.8

2.0

2.7

Combined

2.5

2.2

3.2

3.1

4.3

5.3

4.7

5.8

4.5

5.7

3.6

3.9

2.6

3.6

Years
United States

International
Men

1.4

2.0

1.8

2.4

5.7

2.6

2.6

2.4

2.4

1.9

2.7

2.9

3.0

2.9

Women

1.8

0.8

1.0

0.2

2.7

0.0

2.0

0.6

0.8

5.3

1.4

1.5

2.5

1.6

Combined

1.5

1.8

1.6

2.3

5.5

2.6

2.6

2.2

2.3

2.1

2.6

2.8

1.7

2.6

Chart 5  Average Years in Custody Before Exoneration (U.S.)
18.0
16.0
Avg Yrs Imprisoned Before
Release (Homicide/Sexual
Assault cases only) U.S.

14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0

Avg Yrs Imprisoned Before
Release (NonHomicide/Sexual Assault
cases only) U.S.

6.0
4.0
2.0

20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16

Ye
ar
s

0.0

17

Table 20  Number of Exonerated People By County (12 or more) (U.S.)
County/Parish/Borough State

Major City

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

10 yr 1989total 2015
709
770

Pre1989
10

Total

Philadelphia

PA Philadelphia

146

397

110

53

0

2

1

0

0

0

Los Angeles

CA Los Angeles

1

1

4

4

8

6

2

8

3

5

42

248

47

780
295

Harris

TX Houston

80

53

47

3

4

1

4

3

1

1

197

212

3

215

Cook

IL Chicago

13

5

13

11

10

11

4

7

6

4

84

156

25

181

Camden

NJ Camden

0

1

0

0

0

0

172

0

0

0

173

174

3

177

New York (Manhattan)

NY New York City

3

11

5

5

7

5

0

3

6

1

46

68

56

124

Kings (Brooklyn)

NY New York City

8

15

1

5

2

1

3

1

1

4

55

90

24

114

Wayne

MI Detroit

3

0

5

4

1

0

6

2

3

0

24

44

32

76

Bronx

NY New York City

2

0

4

6

2

3

3

1

0

2

23

47

14

61

Suffolk

MA Boston

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

4

25

26

51

Queens

NY New York City

2

2

1

1

2

4

2

1

0

2

17

35

13

48

Tulsa

OK Tulsa

2

0

2

0

1

7

17

2

0

0

31

39

0

39
38

Swisher

TX Tulia

0

1

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

3

38

0

Cuyahoga

OH Cleveland

10

1

5

0

1

5

2

1

1

1

27

32

5

37

Essex

MA Salem

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

2

9

27

36

District of Columbia

DC District of Columbia

1

2

3

1

5

1

0

3

0

0

16

24

11

35

Suffolk

NY Southhampton

2

2

0

1

7

1

0

1

2

0

16

22

11

33

King

WA Seattle

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

0

6

20

7

27

Orleans

LA New Orleans

2

1

1

1

2

1

0

0

0

0

8

24

2

26

Kern

CA Bakersfield

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

24

25

Charleston

SC Charleston

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

2

25

0

25

Milwaukee

WI Milwaukee

1

2

0

0

0

0

2

6

0

3

14

24

0

24

San Diego

CA San Diego

0

0

3

0

1

3

0

1

1

0

10

22

1

23

Monroe

NY Rochester

2

2

1

1

1

0

2

0

0

0

8

12

11

23

Miami-Dade

FL Miami

1

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

3

7

13

10

23

Richmond

VA Richmond

7

8

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

0

18

22

1

23

Broward

FL Fort Lauderdale

1

3

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

2

9

17

5

22

Erie

NY Buffalo

1

2

1

0

0

0

2

1

1

2

11

13

8

21

Montgomery

TX Conroe

8

5

1

1

0

2

0

0

0

0

18

21

0

21

Middlesex

MA Lowell

2

1

0

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

5

13

7

20

East Baton Rouge

LA Baton Rouge

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

18

19

Richland

OH Mansfield

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

14

2

18

18

0

18

Oakland

MI Oak Park

0

0

3

0

1

0

4

1

1

0

12

14

4

18

Berrien

IN Benton Harbor

0

0

0

2

0

0

1

14

0

0

15

17

0

17

Santa Clara

CA Cupertino

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

2

7

16

0

16

Clark

NV Las Vegas

3

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

7

13

3

16

Maricopa

AZ Phoenix

1

1

0

0

2

0

2

0

1

0

7

15

1

16

Jefferson

AL Birmingham

0

2

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

5

16

0

16

Oklahoma

OK Oklahoma City

2

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

2

9

13

3

16

San Francisco

CA San Francisco

0

2

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

5

8

8

16

Allegheny

PA Pittsburgh

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

3

14

1

15

York

NC Rock Hill

0

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14

14

0

14

Franklin

OH Columbus

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

2

9

5

14

Bexar

TX San Antonio

8

3

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

13

13

1

14

Orange

CA Santa Ana

1

0

2

0

1

0

2

0

0

0

6

13

0

13

New Haven

CT New Haven

0

3

0

4

0

0

1

2

0

0

10

12

1

13

Hillsborough

FL Tampa

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

4

11

2

13

Multnomah

OR Portland

5

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

8

12

1

13

Hampden

MA Springfield

0

0

0

2

3

1

1

0

0

0

7

10

3

13

Chelan

WA Wenatchee

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

0

12

Macomb

MI Michigan

0

0

0

1

0

0

4

0

0

0

6

11

1

12

Travis

TX Austin

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

0

5

12

0

12

Tarrant

TX Fort Worth

6

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

8

12

0

12

18

Table 21  Number of Exonerated People By Country – International Cases Only
Country
Afghanistan
Angola
Australia
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Bermuda
Bhutan
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Canada
Cayman Islands
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Egypt
Fiji
Finland
France
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Isle of Man
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jersey
Kenya
Kosovo
Kuwait
Latvia
Libya
Lithuania
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Malta

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

0
0
14
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
4
0
0
1
1
0
5
0
32
0
0
2
0
1
3
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
19
4
0
7

0
0
10
5
0
3
0
0
0
2
2
0

0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
16
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0

0
0
8
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
18
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
6
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0

0
0
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
0

0
0
22
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
0
0

0
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
8
0
0
6
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
12
1
1
1
0
4
0
0
2
0
40
0
0
5
0
1
8
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0

0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
6
0
18
0
3
3
1
16
16
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0

0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
52
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
5
1
1
0
1
12
0
7
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0

0
0
0
1
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
1
2
0
0
2
0
4
1
0
1
0
1
1
7
0
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0

2
0
1
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
1
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0

0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
4
0
0
1
6
0
2
2
0

0

0

0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
2
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

19

10 yr
total
1
18
116
9
11
4
2
3
7
7
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
59
6
0
26
3
7
3
1
3
4
0
22
17
6
13
5
10
14
0
36
1
179
4
4
13
1
20
35
14
13
1
24
1
1
1
8
1
21
29
2
7

19892016
1
18
154
9
12
4
2
3
7
9
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
98
6
3
31
3
8
7
1
3
4
1
23
17
6
20
16
11
15
0
36
3
186
7
4
26
1
28
37
19
16
1
26
1
2
1
8
1
22
34
2
7

Pre1989
0
0
16
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
27
0
0
3
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
1
1
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
1
18
170
9
12
4
3
3
7
9
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
104
6
3
31
3
8
7
1
3
4
1
23
17
6
27
43
11
15
3
36
3
192
7
4
29
1
29
38
24
26
1
26
1
2
1
8
1
22
34
2
7

Country

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Mauritius
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Namibia
Nauru
Netherlands
Netherlands (Dutch) Antilles
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
North Korea
Northern Mariana Islands
Norway
Pakistan
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turks and Caicos Islands
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom (Great Britain)
U.N. Court in the Hague
Vanuatu
Vietnam
Virgin Islands (British)
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Total

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
275
0
1
0
1
25
1
1
0
0
0
3
462

0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
3
0
1
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
1
0
0
1
211

0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
13
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
65
0
0
1
2
0
4
208

0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
4
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
63
0
0
0
7
26
0
0
1
0
2
0
189

0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
1
20
0
0
0
0
4
0
142

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
5
53
0
0
0
1
0
1
161

0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
1
4
96

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
4
0
0
2
0
11
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
9
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
3
46
0
0
0
0
0
1
155

0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
6
3
4
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
1
0
1
0
0
1
163

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
12
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
66
0
0
0
1
0
2
172

20

10 yr
total
1
3
3
2
4
0
3
2
1
61
1
9
2
3
42
14
4
10
0
1
2
1
1
12
1
0
9
5
0
2
9
2
15
16
10
1
6
1
16
4
3
32
2
1
9
1
341
5
9
0
17
419
2
1
4
4
7
17
1959

19892016
1
9
3
2
5
0
6
2
1
72
1
16
2
3
70
23
4
10
1
1
2
2
1
12
1
7
9
5
0
2
10
2
30
17
16
1
6
1
19
5
3
33
6
1
10
1
344
5
12
1
18
855
2
2
11
4
7
18
2687

Pre1989
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
107
0
0
1
0
0
0
220

Total
1
9
3
2
5
1
7
2
1
74
1
17
2
3
70
23
4
11
1
1
2
17
1
12
1
7
9
5
1
2
11
2
32
17
16
2
6
1
19
5
3
33
6
1
10
1
344
5
12
1
18
962
2
2
12
4
7
18
2907

Table 22  Number of Exonerated People By Type of Crime (International)
Type

35

10 yr
total
376

19892016
617

Pre1989
53

1

2

20

26

1

27

18

19

28

133

220

3

223

5

3

4

3

49

74

1

75

8

5

8

10

21

97

168

45

213

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Homicide

43

61

50

28

38

29

19

32

41

Homicide/Sex
Sexual Assault/Rape/
Indecent Assault
Child Sex Assault/
Abuse
Robbery/Theft/
Burglary/Extortion
Assault

1

1

3

3

1

1

7

0

9

8

11

9

7

10

14

7

10

9

3

0

5

7

12

9

10

7

19

Total
670

13

8

6

3

4

3

24

25

8

113

140

13

153

Drug
Fraud/Forgery/
Embezzlement/Bribery
Child Abuse/Assault

2

12

4

8

2

4

7

9

10

19

77

106

4

110

25

23

4

12

2

10

9

10

7

13

115

143

7

150

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

6

0

6

Violent Other

290

10

17

11

47

7

11

17

30

9

449

514

54

568

Non-violent Other

59

61

91

99

35

83

16

34

16

34

528

673

39

712

Total

462

211

208

189

142

161

96

155

163

172

1959

2687

220

2907

Table 23  Number of Exonerated People By Method of Exoneration (International)

433

169

120

122

121

63

35

29

22

42

10 yr
total
1156

Acquitted after Retrial

9

13

4

7

0

7

6

4

11

14

75

107

Charges dismissed

20

21

84

59

21

9

4

9

7

1

272

300

2

302

Pardoned

0

8

0

1

0

5

0

1

1

6

22

96

13

109

Type

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

Acquitted by reviewing Court

2008

2007

19892016
1212

Pre1989
14
15

122

Total
1226

Table 24  Number of Exonerated Persons Involved In A Case With A Co-Defendant (International)
Type

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2 Co-defendants

14

3 Co-defendants

9

4 Co-defendants

12

4

5 Co-defendants

10

5

10

0

10

15

6 Co-defendants

6

6

12

0

0

5

7 Co-defendants

0

0

14

0

0

0

8 Co-defendants

8

7

0

0

0

9 Co-defendants

0

0

0

0

9

11 Co-defendants

0

0

0

0

12 Co-defendants

0

12

0

0

13 Co-defendants

0

0

0

0

16 Co-defendants

0

0

16

17 Co-defendants

0

0

0

18 Co-defendants

0

0

0

19 Co-defendants

19

0

20 Co-defendants

0

0

2010

20

28

26

20

5

24

12

3

15

9

0

8

16

0

14

10 yr
total
161

19892016
234

Pre1989
15

12

117

165

30

195

8

68

98

1

99

2009

2008

2007

Total

7

9

18

11

13

9

4

16

0

5

10

5

70

75

5

80

1

0

0

6

36

54

0

54

7

0

7

7

35

35

6

41

0

0

8

0

8

31

31

0

31

0

0

9

0

0

18

18

0

18

22

0

0

0

0

0

22

22

0

22

0

12

0

0

0

0

24

24

0

24

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

16

16

0

16

0

17

0

0

0

0

0

17

17

0

17

0

0

18

0

0

0

0

18

18

0

18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

19

19

0

19

0

0

0

20

0

0

0

0

20

20

0

20

249

29 Co-defendants

0

0

29

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

29

29

0

29

Total

78

78

121

37

93

100

26

48

60

60

701

875

70

945

21

Map 2  World Map of Total Exonerations for each Country (See Table 21’s Total column for data.)

Map created with Carto.com.

22

Federal Court Is The Death Zone For Innocent State Prisoners15

F

ederal court is the place where an innocent state prisoner goes as a last resort when the highest court in
their state has denied justice. It is common to hear people assert a prisoner will finally get justice when
they get out of what is viewed as a state court system rigged to protect shady convictions and wrongdoing by
prosecutors and police. Federal court is envisioned as nirvana populated with judges dedicated to seeking the
truth. Unfortunately, reality is that the overwhelming majority of state prisoners have the last vestige of their
belief in justice crushed in federal court.
Six state prisoners were exonerated in 2016 after having their federal habeas corpus petition granted.16 Six out
of the thousands of federal habeas petitions filed each year by state prisoners in the United States, plus Puerto
Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Those six people were:
● Joel Albert Alcox, convicted of murder and robbery in California. He spent 26 years in custody.
● Jaime Caetano, convicted of possessing a dangerous weapon (stun gun) in Massachusetts. She was jailed for
several days.
● Teshome Campbell, convicted of first-degree murder in Illinois. He spent 18 years in custody.
● Jimmie Gardner, convicted of rape and assault in West Virginia. He spent 27 years in custody.
● William Haughey, convicted of arson in New York. He spent 8 years in custody.
● Jules Letemps, convicted of sexual assault and kidnapping in Florida. He spent 27 years in custody.
The exoneration in 2016 of those six after federal court review of their convictions wasn’t an anomaly. It was
slightly more than the annual average of less than five from 2002 to 2016, when there were a total of 64
exonerations of a state prisoner following the grant of their federal habeas corpus. For each year from 2002 to
2016 the number of exonerations were:
2016 = 6
2015 = 7
2014 = 3
2013 = 4
2012 = 2
2011 = 4
2010 = 4
2009 = 6
2008 = 4
2007 = 7
2006 = 3
2005 = 2
2004 = 3
2003 = 5
2002 = 4
Total = 64
The 64 state prisoner exonerations in the fifteen years from 2002 to 2016 was less than one for each of the 94
federal court districts. Those 64 exonerations were of state prisoners in only 20 states, plus the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico:
Arizona = 1
California = 12
Connecticut = 1
District of Columbia = 2
Florida = 2
15

This is a modification of the article by Hans Sherrer, “Federal Court Is The Death Zone For Innocent State Prisoners,” published by
Justice Denied on February 16, 2017. Available online at, http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3511 .
16
Innocents Database, http://forejustice.org/idb1989us.html .

23

Illinois = 6
Louisiana = 1
Massachusetts = 4
Nevada = 3
New Jersey = 1
New York = 12
North Carolina = 2
Ohio = 6
Oklahoma = 2
Oregon = 1
Pennsylvania = 1
Puerto Rico = 1
Texas = 1
Virginia = 1
Washington = 1
West Virginia = 1
Wisconsin = 2
More than half – 36 – came from federal courts in four states: California (12); Illinois (6); Ohio (6); and, New
York (12). So in the fifteen years from 2002 to 2016 there wasn’t a single state prisoner exonerated by a federal
court in thirty states!
The rarity of an exoneration as the result of action by a federal court is not only shown by how few occur, but
by the low number of successful petitions compared with the number of habeas petitions filed. From 2002 to 2016
there were 51,010 federal habeas petitions filed by state prisoners seeking to overturn their conviction(s).17 That
means the overall success rate was one out of 797, or 00.1255%. That is very long odds at best.
However, federal courts treat a case in which the death penalty was imposed more favorably than a non-death
penalty case. That is reflected in the significant difference in the exoneration rate between the two types of cases.
There were 56 exonerations out of the 50,884 state prisoner non-death penalty federal habeas petitions filed.
So 1 out of 909 petitions was successful, a rate of 0.11%.
There were 126 habeas petitions filed in a death penalty case, and 8 exonerations. So 1 out of 15.75 petitions
was successful, a rate of 6.3%.
Hovering over every failed federal habeas corpus petition is the gleeful ghost of deceased U.S. Supreme Court
Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He was a champion of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA) enacted in 1996. Rehnquist was a passionate proponent of limiting the ability of state prisoners to
successfully raise post-conviction constitutional claims in federal court. The AEDPA codified some of the judicial
rules in effect during his reign as chief justice.
The AEDPA established procedural requirements and review standards so onerous that few state prisoners
meet them, regardless of the merits of their case – or their factual innocence. Consequently, the AEDPA is
working exactly as Rehnquist intended to make federal court the place where unjustly convicted or sentenced state
prisoners go to have their hopes die.
Many commentators – including federal appellate court judges – have observed that the AEDPA has had a
devastating effect on the ability of a state prisoner – even those who may be actually innocent – to obtain federal
habeas relief. In 2015 articles by Alex Kozinski and Stephen Reinhardt, who are both judges on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, explained the negative effect of the AEDPA on state prisoners seeking federal
habeas corpus relief.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in “The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The
Court’s Ever Increasing Limitations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and Some
17

Information source: Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary, United States Courts, http://www.uscourts.gov/statisticsreports/analysis-reports/statistical-tables-federal-judiciary . (last viewed March 15, 2017)

24

Particularly Unfortunate Consequences,” 113 Mich. L.R. 1219, Issue 7, (2015):
“The collapse of habeas corpus as a remedy for even the most glaring of constitutional
violations ranks among the greater wrongs of our legal era. Once hailed as the Great Writ, and still
feted with all the standard rhetorical flourishes, habeas corpus has been transformed over the past
two decades from a vital guarantor of liberty into an instrument for ratifying the power of state
courts to disregard the protections of the Constitution.
… any participant in our habeas regime would have to agree that it resembles a twisted
labyrinth of deliberately crafted legal obstacles that make it as difficult for habeas petitioners to
succeed in pursuing the Writ as it would be for a Supreme Court Justice to strike out Babe Ruth,
Joe DiMaggio, and Mickey Mantle in succession—even with the Chief Justice calling balls and
strikes.” (1219-20)
Similarly, Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in, “Criminal Law 2.0,” 44 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc (2015)
(Preface, iii):
“The federal court safety-value was abruptly dismantled in 1996 when Congress passed and
President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. …
We now regularly have to stand by in impotent silence, even though it may appear to us that an
innocent person has been convicted.
AEDPA is a cruel, unjust and unnecessary law that effectively removes federal judges as
safeguards against miscarriages of justice. It has resulted and continues to result in much human
suffering.” (xli-xlii)
The United States Court website has statistical tables regarding the filing of federal habeas petitions.18
The information about the exonerated individuals and the number of exonerations is from the Innocents
Database.19

18

Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary, United States Courts, http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/statisticaltables-federal-judiciary . (last viewed March 15, 2017)
19
Innocents Database, http://forejustice.org/exonerations.htm . (last viewed March 15, 2017)

25