Wrongful Convictions Research Paper
Are Current Eyewitness Identification Procedures Leading to Wrongful Convictions?
Research Proposal
The United States criminal justice system prides itself on being fair and just. Even if it is one of the best systems in existence, it is not flawless. Wrongful convictions continue to occur despite existing safeguards aimed at limiting wrongful convictions. According to the Global Registry of Claims of Innocence, approximately 15% of inmates claim to be innocent nationwide (2014). Based on exoneration rates, of the 15% claiming innocence between one and five percent of inmates are truly innocent (Global Registry of Claims of Innocence, 2014). Several factors prevent wrongfully convicted individuals from proving his or …show more content…
her innocence. Inaccurate eyewitness identification is the most common element in all-wrongful convictions. Consistent reform of eyewitness identification procedures nationwide would decrease wrongful conviction rates.
The cost for housing one inmate in a minimum-security federal prison is approximately $21,000 per year while the cost for housing one inmate in a maximum-security prison is approximately $33,000 per year. With incarceration rates, more than four times what they were in 1980, prisons are overcrowded, and the financial burdens fall on taxpayers (Klein & Soltas, 2013). Although these costs are high, they are not as high as the costs resulting from a wrongful conviction. In 2011, an investigation conducted by The Better Government Association determined that taxpayers in Illinois have paid approximately $214 million since 1976 because of 85 wrongful convictions (2014). Increased awareness of causes of wrongful convictions, as well as awareness of factors that prevent exonerations would reduce wrongful convictions.
The proposed research uses the following definitions for wrongful conviction and exonerate. “Wrongful conviction refers to a person accused of a crime which as a result of subsequent investigation proves erroneous” (Duhaime, 2014). According to US Legal, “exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent” (USLegal, 2014). For the purpose of this research study, exoneration will only refer to individuals that are fully relieved of all previous charges and will not include sentence reductions or individuals released as a result of a legal technicality. Eyewitness identification refers to a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court" (USLegal, 2014). The problem of wrongful convictions includes a wide range of factors, which may contribute to a person being wrongfully convicted; this research will only focus on eyewitness identification methods. Another limitation on this proposed research is that there will not be a person present to answer questions to ensure proper understanding of the questions to obtain the most accurate results. Additionally, the surveys allow for subjective responses, which can be difficult to trend without interpretation to the researchers.
To determine if consistent reformation of current eyewitness identification methods will decrease wrongful convictions rates, the research will include the use of qualitative and quantitative studies. The proposed method to collect data for this research includes archival research of existing data and studies in conjunction with online surveys completed by employees of the Innocence Project, questionnaires completed by exonerated individuals, and questionnaires completed by individuals currently incarcerated but claiming innocence. The information will provide quantitative data to analyze and reveal areas of opportunity within the criminal justice system. Additionally, information obtained from current employees of the Innocence Project will provide qualitative data that will assist in understanding some of the most common barriers that prevent convicted individuals from proving their claim of innocence. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data will provide factual data and opinions of individuals with a stake in this issue. This information will highlight the most beneficial areas to concentrate reformation efforts to reduce wrongful convictions.
Researchers will compile statistics on crime and exoneration rates from states with high rates of crime, as well as states that have low rates of crime. Information concerning eyewitness identification methods in each state will also be gathered so that it can be determined if different methods affect the results of convictions that are based on eyewitness identification alone. Questionnaires will be sent to all living individuals exonerated of all charges since 1989, provided by the National Registry of Exonerations. The questionnaires will seek specifics on initial charges, time served, evidence used to overturn the original charges, and hurdles that prevent inmates’ access to post-conviction motions. Some of the questions included on the questionnaire are: 1) what was the alleged crime and charge(s) of your conviction? 2) How much time did you serve before you were exonerated? 3) What was the evidence used to convict you? 4) What was the evidence used to overturn your conviction? 5) Was the same evidence presented during your trial? 6) What barriers, if any, prevent inmates from seeking justice sooner? The surveys administered to Innocence Project attorneys will seek to identify the most prevalent causes of wrongful convictions and barriers that prevent the pursuit of more wrongful convictions. Some of the survey questions include 1) how long have you been practicing law? 2) In your estimate, how many wrongful convictions occur every year? 3) What is the leading cause of wrongful convictions? 4) What are the other causes for wrongful convictions? 5) Is there anything that could have been done differently to avoid the wrongful conviction? Finally, researchers will send questionnaires to the list of inmates currently incarcerated but claiming innocence, provided by the Global Registry of Claims of Innocence. The questionnaires will include questions such as 1) what was the alleged crime and charge(s) of your conviction? 2) What was the evidence used to convict you? 3) How long have you been incarcerated? 4) What evidence is available to prove your innocence? 5) What are the barriers causing hurdles to prove your innocence?
Researchers will mail the questionnaires to all living individuals exonerated since 1989. There will be scheduled follow-ups with individuals to encourage timely responses, similar to those used for the online surveys sent to all Innocence Project attorneys. Because the study involves a relatively small population, a $500 incentive check will be mailed to respondents for their participation. Additionally, the team will send out reminders to all non-respondents, in an effort to obtain the highest return rates. The initial reminder will go to all non-respondents one week following the issuance of the link. A second follow-up message will be sent to the remaining non-respondents two weeks following the date of the initial reminder. Finally, six weeks from the date the survey link was sent to all Innocent Project employees, a final notice reminder will be sent to remaining non-respondents. Survey questions can be found in Appendix 1 of research proposal.
The states with the most exoneration’s and states with the highest number of incarcerated inmates claiming innocence will be compared to one another.
Results from the researchers questionnaire sent to exonerated individuals, Innocence Project attorneys, and incarcerated inmates claiming innocence will be analyzed thoroughly based off the information of the individual’s charges, sentence served, reasons they were wrongfully convicted, key evidence that reversed the initial charges, and reasons that made it difficult for inmates to have access to post-conviction procedures. Feedback from the Innocence Project attorneys and incarcerated but claiming innocent inmates will also be analyzed. These results will be compared and put together for an explanation regarding the reasons that lead to wrongful convictions. Results leading to inaccurate eyewitness identification as the top reason that leads toward wrongful conviction and poor development of eyewitness identification procedures would confirm the hypothesis. However, if results showed otherwise, with inaccurate eyewitness identification as not the most common element and statistics show eyewitness identification procedures are frequently developed and improved, this type of result will disconfirm the researchers …show more content…
hypothesis.
RESEARCH BUDGET
Wrongful convictions and eyewitness identification research project to be conducted. Project period 2/01/2014 to 7/30/2014
Agency
Senior Personnel Request
Principal Investigator Lindsey Felts 80,000
Co-Principal Investigator Renee Braunstein 75,000
Co- Principal Investigator Esmeralda Anallacastillo 75,000
Other Personnel
Ryan 50,000
Christopher 50,000
Total Personnel: 330,000
Fringe Benefits (PI, Co-PIs & Technician) 82,500
Equipment 9,500
Incentive pay for respondents 220,000
Travel 7,000
Consultant 10,000
Facilities and admin costs 10,000
Printing 10,500
Total Project Costs 676,500 (Budget justification can be found in Appendix 2 of research proposal.) If the hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study are significant because they will prompt states and police departments to implement reforms such as videotaping interrogations and simultaneous lineup with blind and sequential lineups. In a blind lineup, the officer does not know the identity of the suspect; therefore, eliminating police suggestion during the identification process. The officer may tell the witness that he is also unaware of the suspect 's identity. This "double blind" administration will eliminate a bias and habit of some witnesses to infer cues from the officer 's behavior and improve the accuracy of identification procedures (Thompson, 2014). Most witnesses have a hard time not selecting someone with the offender is not in the lineup. If the police have arrested the wrong offender simultaneous lineups raise the risk of convicting an innocent person. A sequential lineup shows the witness individual’s one person at a time. This process does not facilitate the habit of a witness to identify a person via comparison and elimination (Thompson, 2014). No person should serve time in prison for a crime they did not commit. Our criminal justice system is not perfect and must be changed, because one is too many.
Appendix
A-1, A-2
Research proposal survey (Innocence project companies lawyers)
What is an eyewitness?
The likelihood behind eyewitnesses coming forward to testify (Circle one) Very A Little Moderately Most Extremely Unlikely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely 1 2 3 4 5
How fearful are witnesses when they are asked to testify during a serious offense? (Circle one)
Extremely Mostly Somewhat Slightly Not at All Afraid Afraid Afraid Afraid Afraid 1 2 3 4 5
How often does you program receive threats/ bribes by outside entities to not pursue an exoneration case? (Circle one) Every About About Once or Twice Never Don’t Know Day Weekly Monthly year 1 2 3 4 5 6
How often individuals/clients have have been exonerated in your state due to your services? (Circle one) Extremely Mostly Somewhat Slightly Not at All Often often often often 1 2 3 4 5
(Circle the closest answer)
a. How likely do cases you take on involve police corruption?
Very A Little Moderately Most Never Unlikely Unlikely Likely Likely 1 2 3 4 5
b. How many times does your company render it services? Every About About Once or Twice Day Weekly Monthly yearly Never Don’t Know 1 2 3 4 5 6
Please answer the following with actual statistical data and/or sentence
format
What are the most common types of cases that are seen thru and exonerations have been the by-product?
How many people quarterly (3 Months) are exonerated due to eyewitness testimony?
What are some reasons behind potential eyewitnesses not coming forward to testify?
How does your company gather information in regards to actual investigations into possible exoneration cases?
How many people are still convicted even though there was an eyewitness or possible other evidence that would lead to their possible exoneration?
What are the success rates of exoneration in your company (yearly) due to eyewitness testimony?
What percent of people are exonerated due to lack of evidence?
How many people are exonerated due to mishandling of evidence?
This year, about how many cases were taken by your company and how often were you contacted for counsel?
How many people within your staff work on a single case and how much manpower is used during that process?
Where does your company get their funding?
Do you believe that you company is doing everything in their power to help innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted prove their innocence?
Team B
Research Proposal (Exonerated Individual)
What were you initially convicted for due to your incarceration?
Because of the conviction what negative effects did it have on your life?
How many months/years did you serve in Jail/prison before you were released?
Were you compensated for your time served in prison/jail?
Do you believe that most people who claimed they were innocent while you were incarcerated were actually innocent?
What is life like now that you are no longer incarcerated?
What if anything would you have done differently so that this wouldn’t have happened in the first place?
What barriers did you face during this process while you were incarcerated?
If you had to guess what percentage of the inmates that you spent time with do you believe were innocent and why?
Are you currently employed if not is this because of your conviction?
Do you believe that our justice system is exactly just when it comes to prisoner’s rights to prove their innocence?
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION Appendix 2
Senior Personnel
There is one primary investigator and two co-investigators:
Lindsey, will be the principle investigator leading the research her five months salary is $80,000., is a Co-PI and will assist in the project, her five months salary is $75,000.
Esmeralda, is a Co-PI and will assist in the project, her five months salary is $75,000.
Other Personnel
Chris will dedicate 75% of his time to this project ($ 50,000) to collect data under supervision of the PI and Co-PI 's data for analysis and record results.
Ryan will dedicate 75% of his time to this project ($ 50,000) to prepare data for analysis and record results.
Fringe Benefits
Fringe benefits are calculated at 25% of salary for the PI, Co-PI’s and Technician.
Equipment
Support is requested to purchase five laptops to be used exclusively on this project. The catalog price quoted by the manufacturer is $1,000 for each laptop. Quantitative data analysis software the price for four user licenses is $1,000. Office supplies (printer, paper, etc.) $500.
Travel
The PI and Co-PI 's will travel to three criminal justice conferences at an estimated cost of $ 1,000 per conference.
$ 4,000 is budgeted for the PI to travel to an international conference to present research results.
Incentive pay for respondents
$500 to encourage participants to respond to questionnaire and surveys. This will help us get a maximum return rate. Approximately 240 persons who have been exonerated and 200 staff from innocence projects.
Consultant Services
Nate Silver, statistician, will act as a consultant in the interpretation of data analysis results. He will provide specialized statistical analysis work in connection with final compilation of project data ($10,000).
Printing
Estimated at $8,000 for journal page charges and $2,500 for the production of 80 copies of a final report.
Facilities and Administrative Costs
Rental of office suite to work from. Office has 24-hour accesibility, state of the art telephone system, and telephone answering services, mail handling and sorting service, video conferencing access, and high-speed Internet access. Five months of rent at $5,000 per month ($10,000).
References
Berger, M. A. (2006, Summer). The impact of DNA exonerations on the criminal justice system. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(2), 320-7. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/223499631?accountid=458
BGA shining a light on government. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.bettergov.org/investigations/wrongful_convictions_1.aspx
Duhaime, L. (2014). Duhaime. Retrieved from http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/WrongfulConviction.aspx
Global registry of claims of innocence. (2014). How many inmates claim innocence and how many are innocent. Retrieved from http://registryofclaimsofinnocence.org/
Klein, E., & Soltas, E. (2013, August 13). 11 facts about America 's prison population. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/13/wonkbook-11-facts-about-americas-prison-population/
Thompson, S. (2014, February 13). What price justice? The importance of costs to eyewitness identification reform. Texas Tech Law Review, Vol. 41, 2008, U of Houston Law Center. Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=134704
The Innocence Project. (2013). Access to post conviction DNA testing. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Access_To_PostConviction_DNA_Testing.php
University of Michigan. (2013, Winter). The national registry of exonerations. Retrieved from http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exoneration-by-Year.aspx
USLegal. (2014). Exoneration law and legal definition. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/
Research Proposal
The United States criminal justice system prides itself on being fair and just. Even if it is one of the best systems in existence, it is not flawless. Wrongful convictions continue to occur despite existing safeguards aimed at limiting wrongful convictions. According to the Global Registry of Claims of Innocence, approximately 15% of inmates claim to be innocent nationwide (2014). Based on exoneration rates, of the 15% claiming innocence between one and five percent of inmates are truly innocent (Global Registry of Claims of Innocence, 2014). Several factors prevent wrongfully convicted individuals from proving his or …show more content…
her innocence. Inaccurate eyewitness identification is the most common element in all-wrongful convictions. Consistent reform of eyewitness identification procedures nationwide would decrease wrongful conviction rates.
The cost for housing one inmate in a minimum-security federal prison is approximately $21,000 per year while the cost for housing one inmate in a maximum-security prison is approximately $33,000 per year. With incarceration rates, more than four times what they were in 1980, prisons are overcrowded, and the financial burdens fall on taxpayers (Klein & Soltas, 2013). Although these costs are high, they are not as high as the costs resulting from a wrongful conviction. In 2011, an investigation conducted by The Better Government Association determined that taxpayers in Illinois have paid approximately $214 million since 1976 because of 85 wrongful convictions (2014). Increased awareness of causes of wrongful convictions, as well as awareness of factors that prevent exonerations would reduce wrongful convictions.
The proposed research uses the following definitions for wrongful conviction and exonerate. “Wrongful conviction refers to a person accused of a crime which as a result of subsequent investigation proves erroneous” (Duhaime, 2014). According to US Legal, “exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent” (USLegal, 2014). For the purpose of this research study, exoneration will only refer to individuals that are fully relieved of all previous charges and will not include sentence reductions or individuals released as a result of a legal technicality. Eyewitness identification refers to a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court" (USLegal, 2014). The problem of wrongful convictions includes a wide range of factors, which may contribute to a person being wrongfully convicted; this research will only focus on eyewitness identification methods. Another limitation on this proposed research is that there will not be a person present to answer questions to ensure proper understanding of the questions to obtain the most accurate results. Additionally, the surveys allow for subjective responses, which can be difficult to trend without interpretation to the researchers.
To determine if consistent reformation of current eyewitness identification methods will decrease wrongful convictions rates, the research will include the use of qualitative and quantitative studies. The proposed method to collect data for this research includes archival research of existing data and studies in conjunction with online surveys completed by employees of the Innocence Project, questionnaires completed by exonerated individuals, and questionnaires completed by individuals currently incarcerated but claiming innocence. The information will provide quantitative data to analyze and reveal areas of opportunity within the criminal justice system. Additionally, information obtained from current employees of the Innocence Project will provide qualitative data that will assist in understanding some of the most common barriers that prevent convicted individuals from proving their claim of innocence. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data will provide factual data and opinions of individuals with a stake in this issue. This information will highlight the most beneficial areas to concentrate reformation efforts to reduce wrongful convictions.
Researchers will compile statistics on crime and exoneration rates from states with high rates of crime, as well as states that have low rates of crime. Information concerning eyewitness identification methods in each state will also be gathered so that it can be determined if different methods affect the results of convictions that are based on eyewitness identification alone. Questionnaires will be sent to all living individuals exonerated of all charges since 1989, provided by the National Registry of Exonerations. The questionnaires will seek specifics on initial charges, time served, evidence used to overturn the original charges, and hurdles that prevent inmates’ access to post-conviction motions. Some of the questions included on the questionnaire are: 1) what was the alleged crime and charge(s) of your conviction? 2) How much time did you serve before you were exonerated? 3) What was the evidence used to convict you? 4) What was the evidence used to overturn your conviction? 5) Was the same evidence presented during your trial? 6) What barriers, if any, prevent inmates from seeking justice sooner? The surveys administered to Innocence Project attorneys will seek to identify the most prevalent causes of wrongful convictions and barriers that prevent the pursuit of more wrongful convictions. Some of the survey questions include 1) how long have you been practicing law? 2) In your estimate, how many wrongful convictions occur every year? 3) What is the leading cause of wrongful convictions? 4) What are the other causes for wrongful convictions? 5) Is there anything that could have been done differently to avoid the wrongful conviction? Finally, researchers will send questionnaires to the list of inmates currently incarcerated but claiming innocence, provided by the Global Registry of Claims of Innocence. The questionnaires will include questions such as 1) what was the alleged crime and charge(s) of your conviction? 2) What was the evidence used to convict you? 3) How long have you been incarcerated? 4) What evidence is available to prove your innocence? 5) What are the barriers causing hurdles to prove your innocence?
Researchers will mail the questionnaires to all living individuals exonerated since 1989. There will be scheduled follow-ups with individuals to encourage timely responses, similar to those used for the online surveys sent to all Innocence Project attorneys. Because the study involves a relatively small population, a $500 incentive check will be mailed to respondents for their participation. Additionally, the team will send out reminders to all non-respondents, in an effort to obtain the highest return rates. The initial reminder will go to all non-respondents one week following the issuance of the link. A second follow-up message will be sent to the remaining non-respondents two weeks following the date of the initial reminder. Finally, six weeks from the date the survey link was sent to all Innocent Project employees, a final notice reminder will be sent to remaining non-respondents. Survey questions can be found in Appendix 1 of research proposal.
The states with the most exoneration’s and states with the highest number of incarcerated inmates claiming innocence will be compared to one another.
Results from the researchers questionnaire sent to exonerated individuals, Innocence Project attorneys, and incarcerated inmates claiming innocence will be analyzed thoroughly based off the information of the individual’s charges, sentence served, reasons they were wrongfully convicted, key evidence that reversed the initial charges, and reasons that made it difficult for inmates to have access to post-conviction procedures. Feedback from the Innocence Project attorneys and incarcerated but claiming innocent inmates will also be analyzed. These results will be compared and put together for an explanation regarding the reasons that lead to wrongful convictions. Results leading to inaccurate eyewitness identification as the top reason that leads toward wrongful conviction and poor development of eyewitness identification procedures would confirm the hypothesis. However, if results showed otherwise, with inaccurate eyewitness identification as not the most common element and statistics show eyewitness identification procedures are frequently developed and improved, this type of result will disconfirm the researchers …show more content…
hypothesis.
RESEARCH BUDGET
Wrongful convictions and eyewitness identification research project to be conducted. Project period 2/01/2014 to 7/30/2014
Agency
Senior Personnel Request
Principal Investigator Lindsey Felts 80,000
Co-Principal Investigator Renee Braunstein 75,000
Co- Principal Investigator Esmeralda Anallacastillo 75,000
Other Personnel
Ryan 50,000
Christopher 50,000
Total Personnel: 330,000
Fringe Benefits (PI, Co-PIs & Technician) 82,500
Equipment 9,500
Incentive pay for respondents 220,000
Travel 7,000
Consultant 10,000
Facilities and admin costs 10,000
Printing 10,500
Total Project Costs 676,500 (Budget justification can be found in Appendix 2 of research proposal.) If the hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study are significant because they will prompt states and police departments to implement reforms such as videotaping interrogations and simultaneous lineup with blind and sequential lineups. In a blind lineup, the officer does not know the identity of the suspect; therefore, eliminating police suggestion during the identification process. The officer may tell the witness that he is also unaware of the suspect 's identity. This "double blind" administration will eliminate a bias and habit of some witnesses to infer cues from the officer 's behavior and improve the accuracy of identification procedures (Thompson, 2014). Most witnesses have a hard time not selecting someone with the offender is not in the lineup. If the police have arrested the wrong offender simultaneous lineups raise the risk of convicting an innocent person. A sequential lineup shows the witness individual’s one person at a time. This process does not facilitate the habit of a witness to identify a person via comparison and elimination (Thompson, 2014). No person should serve time in prison for a crime they did not commit. Our criminal justice system is not perfect and must be changed, because one is too many.
Appendix
A-1, A-2
Research proposal survey (Innocence project companies lawyers)
What is an eyewitness?
The likelihood behind eyewitnesses coming forward to testify (Circle one) Very A Little Moderately Most Extremely Unlikely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely 1 2 3 4 5
How fearful are witnesses when they are asked to testify during a serious offense? (Circle one)
Extremely Mostly Somewhat Slightly Not at All Afraid Afraid Afraid Afraid Afraid 1 2 3 4 5
How often does you program receive threats/ bribes by outside entities to not pursue an exoneration case? (Circle one) Every About About Once or Twice Never Don’t Know Day Weekly Monthly year 1 2 3 4 5 6
How often individuals/clients have have been exonerated in your state due to your services? (Circle one) Extremely Mostly Somewhat Slightly Not at All Often often often often 1 2 3 4 5
(Circle the closest answer)
a. How likely do cases you take on involve police corruption?
Very A Little Moderately Most Never Unlikely Unlikely Likely Likely 1 2 3 4 5
b. How many times does your company render it services? Every About About Once or Twice Day Weekly Monthly yearly Never Don’t Know 1 2 3 4 5 6
Please answer the following with actual statistical data and/or sentence
format
What are the most common types of cases that are seen thru and exonerations have been the by-product?
How many people quarterly (3 Months) are exonerated due to eyewitness testimony?
What are some reasons behind potential eyewitnesses not coming forward to testify?
How does your company gather information in regards to actual investigations into possible exoneration cases?
How many people are still convicted even though there was an eyewitness or possible other evidence that would lead to their possible exoneration?
What are the success rates of exoneration in your company (yearly) due to eyewitness testimony?
What percent of people are exonerated due to lack of evidence?
How many people are exonerated due to mishandling of evidence?
This year, about how many cases were taken by your company and how often were you contacted for counsel?
How many people within your staff work on a single case and how much manpower is used during that process?
Where does your company get their funding?
Do you believe that you company is doing everything in their power to help innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted prove their innocence?
Team B
Research Proposal (Exonerated Individual)
What were you initially convicted for due to your incarceration?
Because of the conviction what negative effects did it have on your life?
How many months/years did you serve in Jail/prison before you were released?
Were you compensated for your time served in prison/jail?
Do you believe that most people who claimed they were innocent while you were incarcerated were actually innocent?
What is life like now that you are no longer incarcerated?
What if anything would you have done differently so that this wouldn’t have happened in the first place?
What barriers did you face during this process while you were incarcerated?
If you had to guess what percentage of the inmates that you spent time with do you believe were innocent and why?
Are you currently employed if not is this because of your conviction?
Do you believe that our justice system is exactly just when it comes to prisoner’s rights to prove their innocence?
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION Appendix 2
Senior Personnel
There is one primary investigator and two co-investigators:
Lindsey, will be the principle investigator leading the research her five months salary is $80,000., is a Co-PI and will assist in the project, her five months salary is $75,000.
Esmeralda, is a Co-PI and will assist in the project, her five months salary is $75,000.
Other Personnel
Chris will dedicate 75% of his time to this project ($ 50,000) to collect data under supervision of the PI and Co-PI 's data for analysis and record results.
Ryan will dedicate 75% of his time to this project ($ 50,000) to prepare data for analysis and record results.
Fringe Benefits
Fringe benefits are calculated at 25% of salary for the PI, Co-PI’s and Technician.
Equipment
Support is requested to purchase five laptops to be used exclusively on this project. The catalog price quoted by the manufacturer is $1,000 for each laptop. Quantitative data analysis software the price for four user licenses is $1,000. Office supplies (printer, paper, etc.) $500.
Travel
The PI and Co-PI 's will travel to three criminal justice conferences at an estimated cost of $ 1,000 per conference.
$ 4,000 is budgeted for the PI to travel to an international conference to present research results.
Incentive pay for respondents
$500 to encourage participants to respond to questionnaire and surveys. This will help us get a maximum return rate. Approximately 240 persons who have been exonerated and 200 staff from innocence projects.
Consultant Services
Nate Silver, statistician, will act as a consultant in the interpretation of data analysis results. He will provide specialized statistical analysis work in connection with final compilation of project data ($10,000).
Printing
Estimated at $8,000 for journal page charges and $2,500 for the production of 80 copies of a final report.
Facilities and Administrative Costs
Rental of office suite to work from. Office has 24-hour accesibility, state of the art telephone system, and telephone answering services, mail handling and sorting service, video conferencing access, and high-speed Internet access. Five months of rent at $5,000 per month ($10,000).
References
Berger, M. A. (2006, Summer). The impact of DNA exonerations on the criminal justice system. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(2), 320-7. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/223499631?accountid=458
BGA shining a light on government. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.bettergov.org/investigations/wrongful_convictions_1.aspx
Duhaime, L. (2014). Duhaime. Retrieved from http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/WrongfulConviction.aspx
Global registry of claims of innocence. (2014). How many inmates claim innocence and how many are innocent. Retrieved from http://registryofclaimsofinnocence.org/
Klein, E., & Soltas, E. (2013, August 13). 11 facts about America 's prison population. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/13/wonkbook-11-facts-about-americas-prison-population/
Thompson, S. (2014, February 13). What price justice? The importance of costs to eyewitness identification reform. Texas Tech Law Review, Vol. 41, 2008, U of Houston Law Center. Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=134704
The Innocence Project. (2013). Access to post conviction DNA testing. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Access_To_PostConviction_DNA_Testing.php
University of Michigan. (2013, Winter). The national registry of exonerations. Retrieved from http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exoneration-by-Year.aspx
USLegal. (2014). Exoneration law and legal definition. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/