In the almost 25 years since post-conviction DNA evidence has been used to establish criminal innocence, public perception has been transformed by the realization that completely erroneous convictions are not uncommon, even in cases that land defendants on death row or in prison for life. A new exhaustive social science analysis of many of these exonerations since 1989 has identified ten primary factors that, together, have led to the convictions we now know were wrong.

The study by American University’s School of Public Affairs concludes that it is a confluence of circumstances – and the ultimate failure of prosecutors and/or defense attorneys to mitigate those circumstances – that makes the difference between a “near-miss” in which a person is indicted but never found guilty, and a wrongful conviction.

Some of the worst wrongful conviction cases have been linked to what is known as “tunnel vision,” in which a prosecutor who hones in one suspect has a tendency to reinforce beliefs of that suspect’s guilt, even when the evidence suggests otherwise. In fact, the American University study finds that, surprisingly, it is in cases with the weakest evidence that “tunnel vision” is most likely to be a problem. The scholars explain:

As more resources—money, time, and emotions—are placed into a narrative involving a suspect, the actors involved are less willing or able to process negative feedback that refutes their conclusions. Instead, actors want to devote additional resources in order to recoup their original investment. As a result, evidence that points away from a suspect is ignored or devalued, and latent errors are overlooked. At this point, the police are working to rule in rather than rule out the suspect, and prosecutors have moved from “inspection” mode to “selling” mode. Escalation of commitment contributes and facilitates system breakdown because it dismantles the rigorous testing of evidence that makes the adversarial process function effectively.

To a large extent, the panelists attributed tunnel vision in our cases to a police and prosecutorial culture in which questioning and independent thinking were not valued, procedures were not designed to probe already gathered evidence, and little or no concern was given to learning from past errors. Even if safeguards, such as those mentioned above, are in place, they cannot be used effectively when the officials in the system are blinded by tunnel vision.

The study points out that defense attorneys can also suffer from “tunnel vision” when they fail to question the prevailing narrative. The ten factors that may lead to “tunnel vision” and other iterations of what they call the “perfect storm” are: weak evidence by the prosecution, weak defense (including the use of family witnesses), the prosecution withholding exculpatory evidence, forensic error, inadvertent misidentification of a witness, lying by a non-witness, youth of a defendant, any criminal history by the defendant and the punitiveness of the state. This last factor is particularly noteworthy because it is not at all contingent on flaws in individual cases and thus probably the easiest to address through reform and public education. The study explains:

In a punitive legal culture, police and prosecutors may be more interested in obtaining a conviction at all costs (leading to greater Brady violations, etc.) and community pressure may encourage overly swift resolutions to cases involving serious crimes like rape and murder. Additionally, state punitiveness could contribute to more state actors assuming the defendant’s guilt. This culture eventually works against the defendant, as state agents overlook or under-value evidence that contradicts the assumption of guilt.

While the study, the result of three years of research, provides new social science data that focuses exclusively on what happens to an individual once indicted (a wrongful indictment can be caused by false confessions, eyewitness identifications and other factors), its conclusions and recommendations are not dissimilar from those of many wrongful conviction experts and commissions – that “tunnel vision” is a primary concern, and that formal “checklists,” along with a mechanism for routinely reviewing causes of wrongful convictions, are crucial for reform.

A new study by professors at the University of Chicago and Washington University in St. Louis shows that the strict voter ID laws being pushed by Republican state legislators around the country most impact young people, especially young minorities. And given that the people pushing those measures admitted they were intended to help GOP candidates win, the analysis would suggest that the efforts are having their intended effect.

Politico reported Tuesday that the study, co-authored by Cathy J. Cohen of the University of Chicago and Jon C. Rogowski of Washington University in St. Louis, found that even in states without photo ID laws, “65.5 percent of black youth were asked to show ID at the polls, compared with 55.3 percent of Latino youth and 42.8 percent of white youth.”

Worse, the study finds, many minority young voters — including 17.3 percent of young African Americans — did not even try to vote because they lacked the required identification.
The authors noted that their findings show the problem with these suppression laws — and show the continued need for the Voting Rights Act:

“The effort to protect the vote doesn’t make sense and it’s largely discriminatory, impacting we know, young people in particular, young people of color, the poor and the elderly,” Cohen said. … Rogowski said the study will help underscore the importance of keeping Section 5 fully in place. “It’s important that we still have the ability to keep a watchful eye on these kinds of states,” Rogowski said.

Last June, Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Mike Turzai boasted that the voter ID law he helped pass would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” In December, Republican strategist Scott Tranter acknowledged that “a lot of us are campaign professionals and we want to do everything we can to help our sides. Sometimes we think that’s voter ID, sometimes we think that’s longer lines, whatever it may be.”

Still smarting over last year’s ruling upholding Obamacare, freshman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) dismissed the idea that the Supreme Court decides whether or not laws are constitutional.

“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional,” Bridenstine said in a Daily Caller interview posted Sunday. After accusing Democrats of “stacking the courts in their favor” — five of the current nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents — Bridenstine dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court. “That’s not the case,” the Oklahoma congressman said.

The interviewer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas, didn’t have the heart to correct Bridenstine’s peculiar view of the Court’s role.

BRIDENSTINE: Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional. What that means is that that’s what they decided on that particular day given the makeup of the Court on that particular day. And the left in this country has done an extraordinary job of stacking the courts in their favor. So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, “look, just because the courts” – and I hear this all the time from Republicans – they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that’s the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That’s not the case. A perfect example if Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate.

Watch it:

There is certainly good reason to doubt the way this Supreme Court reads the Constitution — Citizens United alone proves that point. Our current court gave sweeping legal immunity to wealthy corporations. It took away Lilly Ledbetter’s right to equal pay for equal work. It shrinks reproductive freedom because women may “come to regret” the choices they make if they have control of their own bodies. And it appears poised to strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

But the idea that this particular Court distorted the Constitution to uphold Obamacare does not even pass the smell test. In the words of Judge Laurence Silberman, a leading conservative who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush, the case against the Affordable Care Act has no basis “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.”

After years of debate, the Utah legislature passed a bill Tuesday to remedy a glaring omission in the state’s domestic violence laws and allow protective orders for those attacked or threatened by a significant other, even if they are not married or living together. But while the Senate endorsed the bill by a 24-4 margin, three opponents objected to the bill on stunning grounds.

The Dating Violence Prevention Act, H.B. 50, was introduced by Rep. Jennifer M. Seelig (D) and Sen. Curtis S. Bramble (R). If Gov. Gary Herbert (R) signs the bill, it will provides “for the issuance, modification, and enforcement of protective orders between individuals who are, or have been, in a dating relationship,” in cases where there is abuse or danger of abuse.

During the floor debate, Sen. Scott Jenkins (R) objected to the bill, noting that new couples often roughhouse and shouldn’t need legal protections:

JENKINS: You make a lot of mistakes in your first original encounter and dates with this new partner. A lot of times you rough house. A lot of times you’re trying to determine limits and where your limit is and where her limit is and when you’ve gone too far and when you haven’t gone too far. And when it doesn’t work you, you walk away. Now there’s a new element in here—now, if you feel uncomfortable about something that happens, you go and you get a court order. And it’s like “how did this get introduced? I did something that I thought was in fun and jest and the next think you know, I’ve got a court order against me!”

Noting that the Gun Owners of America, far-right fringe group, opposes the bill, Sen. Margaret Dayton (R) announced that she would oppose the bill because it was a “slippery slope” that might offer protections for same-sex couples.

DAYTON: As I read this dating relationship explanation, it talks about two parties in a social relationship, whether or not they’ve had interpersonal bonding. Okay? And it doesn’t include any kind of gender issues, so the way I read it, it could be two girls and one of them thinks they’re just good girl friends and the other one thinks it’s a romantic relationship and they’re dating. When the first one finds out that they’re not dating, she thought it was girlfriends, all of a sudden, one can get angry and all kinds of concerns can get generated because this is such an ill-defined dating relationship.

Perhaps most stunningly, Sen. Mark Madsen (R) objected to the fact that potential victims need only show one threat to receive protection, rather than a pattern of abuse. “What I’ve asked and requested and has not been offered is –- at least require a pattern, at least two instances of verbal threat or verbal abuse.” Madsen lamented “I guess we’ve abandoned the old saying that sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me.”

Watch the video:

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), a candidate for Secretary of State John Kerry’s open U.S. Senate seat, launched his first campaign ad Tuesday — a direct attack on the gun lobby in general and the National Rifle Association in particular. After NRA-backed candidates failed miserably in the 2012 campaign, the organization’s support has become an albatross and candidates are actively running on their opposition to it.

A recent poll by Public Policy Polling, the firm that most closely predicted the 2012 elections, found that 39 percent of voters are less likely to back a candidate endorsed by the NRA, compared to just 26 percent who are more likely to support someone with the NRA’s support. Among independents, 41 percent said they were not likely to support a candidate backed by the organization.

Because of this — along with the NRA leadership’s remarkable intransigence in the face of the Newtown tragedy — more and more elected officials who were once NRA darlings have broken with the group and expressed a willingness to consider commonsense gun violence prevention measures. Like most gun owners, a growing number of Democrats and Republicans have embraced popular proposals like expanded background checks and bans of high-capacity magazine clips, despite the NRA leadership’s fervent opposition.

Now, Democratic candidates are recognizing that voters are fed up with the NRA’s perceived stranglehold on Congress. Markey’s ad features footage of the late NRA President Charlton Heston famous “from my cold, head hands” speech and notes that “long before tragedy struck” in at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Massachusetts Democrat who successfully pushed a ban on Chinese assault weapons imports. In the 30-second spot, Markey’s vows to support for tougher gun laws and to “keep standing up to the gun lobby.”

Watch the ad:

Rep. Stephen Lynch, Markey’s primary opponent in the Senate race, has also posted a video explaining his support for gun violence legislation.

In last month’s Democratic primary for an open U.S. House seat in Chicago, IL, gun violence emerged as the major issue. Robin Kelly, who won the primary by a wide margin, ran on a pledge to support bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines and efforts to close the gun show loophole. “I am proud of my ‘F’ rating from the NRA,” she noted, “and will always stand up to them in Congress.” Former Rep. Debbie Halvorson attempted to distance herself from her pro-NRA record, but lost by more than 30 points after being slammed for her NRA “A” rating.

President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality was an historic occasion, but he also qualified it somewhat by suggesting that states should continue to decide whether to discriminate against their citizens. In an interview released this morning with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, the president indicated that his views on marriage have evolved even further. He now says that he cannot imagine how a state’s decision to discriminate against same-sex couples could be constitutional:

“Well, I’ve gotta tell you that — in terms of practical politics, what I’ve seen is a healthy debate taking place state by state, and not every state has the exact same attitudes and cultural mores. And I — you know, my thinking was that this is traditionally a state issue and — that it will work itself out,” he said. “On the other hand — what I also believe is that the core principle that people don’t get discriminated against — that’s one of our core values. And it’s in our Constitution.”

Stephanopoulos then asked whether Obama could imagine a circumstance wherein a state’s gay marriage ban could pass constitutional muster.

“Well, I can’t, personally. I cannot,” Obama responded. “That’s part of the reason I said, ultimately, I think that, same-sex couples should be able to marry. That’s my personal position. And, frankly, that’s the position that’s reflected — in the briefs that we filed — in the Supreme Court.”

This latest statement is exactly right. Marriage discrimination is unconstitutional because the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment — which was ratified after the Civil War for the specific purpose of limiting the states’ ability to discriminate — provides that “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Constitution could not be more explicit that its protections against discrimination apply to state lawmakers.

Despite this clarity, the Obama Administration’s brief largely suggests a two phase process in order to achieve marriage equality for all. The brief argues that all states which currently provide civil unions or similar arrangement for same-sex couples should instead allow those couples to marry, while punting on the question of whether other states must come into compliance with the Constitution. At the same time, however, the brief also recommends a legal standard that would inevitably lead to marriage discrimination laws being struck down nationwide.

A disgruntled Justice Department attorney turned conservative blogger writes an unsubstantiated post, and suddenly taxpayers have to pay for a massive, two and a half year long investigation in order to placate Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA). At least, that’s one of the biggest takeaways from a more than 250 page report released by the Justice Department’s Inspector General yesterday. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent the Inspector General’s (IG) office on similar goose chases. Neither one of them achieved more than wasted time and money.

An entire chapter of the report stems from a blog post written by J. Christian Adams, a conservative activist hired to work in Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during the Bush Administration as part of efforts to stack the department with conservative hires. Adams left DOJ, and later went on to represent Tea Party Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

In his post, Adams claims that the division “provided preferential treatment when responding to records requests from civil rights groups or individuals alleged to support ‘liberal’ issues in comparison to requests from Republicans or individuals or organizations alleged to support ‘conservative’ issues,” and the IG spends nearly 30 pages investigating these allegations due to a request from Rep. Wolf. Their conclusion: “Our review did not find any substantiation of ideological favoritism or political interference” in responding to requests for information.

Wolf also joined with Rep. Smith to demand a second investigation into whether the Department behaved improperly in dismissing voter intimidation claims against members of the New Black Panthers Party (NBPP) — a common conspiracy theory touted by Fox News and others on the far right. Despite the fact that an investigation by DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility already concluded that Justice Department attorneys “acted appropriately[] in the exercise of their supervisory duties in connection with the dismissal of the three defendants in the NBPP case,” the IG’s report spends 28 pages reexamining this well-trodden ground. Its conclusion: “we did not find evidence to conclude that the political appointees approved the decision” to dismiss most of the allegations against the NBPP “for improper partisan or racial considerations.”

Sen. Grassley, for his part, demanded an investigation into whether Obama Administration officials engaged in politicized hiring, the IG concludes that hiring decisions were based on entirely appropriate considerations, such as “litigation experience involving voting rights” or “a high degree of academic and professional achievement.” By the end of the report — which also examines DOJ’s conduct during the Bush Administration and comes to far less benign conclusions — the reader is so sick of reading words like “did not find any substantiation” or “no evidence of” applied to allegations against the Obama Justice Department, that the whole report begins to blur together. A few reporters have jumped on a finding that Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez was unaware of who within the Department handled certain parts of the NBPP case when he testified before a Republican-led probe into that matter. But if that’s the worst thing the IG’s office can find during a more than two year long investigation, Perez must have been doing a pretty good job.

So the Civil Rights Division’s current leadership emerges from this investigation largely unscathed, and the three members of Congress that drove much of its content look like petty and credulous. But there is another, more important problem that emerges from this report.

A 250 page report examining years of Justice Department efforts is not something that can be produced overnight. Or over a month. Or over a few months. Literally thousands of hours of work must have gone into this investigation, much of it by attorneys and other professional staff who aren’t exactly cheap to hire — and that’s just counting the people in the IG’s office who conducted the report.

In the course of this investigation, the IG’s office “conducted more than 135 interviews with more than 80 individuals currently or previously employed by the Department,” including interviews with “Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, former Associate Deputy Attorney General (and current Solicitor General) Donald Verrilli, Counsel to the Attorney General Aaron Lewis, Deputy Associate Attorney General Samuel Hirsch, and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, and former Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King.” All of these well-compensated officials had to stop working on their real jobs in order to accommodate this investigation, not to mention the time they and their staffs spent preparing for those interviews, or the opportunity costs that resulted from this investigation. No administration is perfect and it is likely that there are legitimate concerns that the IG can and should have investigated these past two years, rather than getting bogged down in doubtful partisan allegations.

At a time when House Republicans claim we must slash food stamps and strip health care from millions of Americans in order to reduce the nation’s deficit, it is impossible to justify the expense of paying those officials of all of that work-time in order to accommodate this wild goose chase.