By Matt Ford and Roger Grimshaw

This report presents the raw data from a set questions asked to representatives from institutions in a selection of European countries about how the COVID-19 pandemic in prisons in their respective jurisdictions was being managed. The questions were based on a checklist developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to help support policy-makers and prison administrators implement the WHO’s interim guidance on preparedness, prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other places of detention. The interim guidance contained measures recommended to prevent the virus entering prisons, to limit its spread in prisons, and to prevent transmission from within prisons to the outside community. It was published on 15 March 2020, and is based on the evidence about COVID-19 available at that time. Whilst prison services will use a variety of sources of guidance to develop their strategies to deal with COVID-19, we have assumed that the WHO guidance is the international standard and therefore is appropriate for international research such as this. The WHO do make clear that their checklist is not exhaustive. The WHO questions formed one module of a larger survey that the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (from here on in referred to as 'the Centre') circulated to members of the European Prison Observatory, an international coalition of non-governmental organisations and educational institutes, to complete. The survey also contained questions about the prison populations, prison healthcare arrangements, incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 infection in prisons, and emerging problems and responses in prisons as a result of COVID-19.

London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2020/ 39p.

By The Howard League for Penal Reform

Over the half-century that we have been involved in the law, custodial sentence lengths have approximately doubled and the same is true of prison numbers. The connection between the two is obvious. Over time, the growing prison population has outstripped safe and decent accommodation. As a consequence, prison overcrowding prevents the rehabilitation that should take place to reduce reoffending. There is nothing that justifies this doubling of sentence lengths. Government legislation relating to sentencing has consistently provided that imprisonment should only be imposed if there is no suitable alternative punishment, and that imprisonment should be for the minimum period commensurate with the crime. The law dictates this. The problem is that there is no objective measure for deciding what term of imprisonment is commensurate with a particular offence. Nor have governments always been content to leave it to the judges to decide the appropriate sentence. Instead they have intervened piecemeal, by securing legislation to impose minimum sentences where crimes, typically murder, are committed in specified circumstances that are seen as aggravating the offence. The result of such interventions has been to raise the level of sentences imposed across the board, as judges, with guidance from the Sentencing Council, seek to maintain a consistent scale of punishment. The only purposes of sentencing which are served by longer sentences are punishment and, in some instances, the protection of the public. But punishment does not stop reoffending and is expensive. It currently costs about £50,000 to imprison an adult for a year.

London: The Howard League for Penal Reform, 2024. 14p.

By Darrel Thompson and Ashley Burnside

Individuals with prior felony convictions, incarcerated or not, often face “collateral consequences,” which are significant barriers imposed in addition to their sentences that can range from being denied employment to losing voting rights. Some states subject people with a drug-related felony conviction to restrictions or complete bans on food assistance under SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamps), cash assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), or both. This practice began in 1996 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The act imposes a lifetime ban on SNAP and TANF for those with a previous drug felony conviction, whether they have completed their time in jail or prison or received a lighter sentence due to the nonviolent and/or low-level nature of the offense. States, however, can opt to remove or modify the ban. And all states and the District of Columbia except for one, South Carolina, have either modified or removed the ban for at least one program, recognizing that it is not an effective crime deterrent, fails to address substance use disorders, and impedes reconnecting formerly incarcerated people to their families and communities. Successful reentry into society from the criminal justice system requires being able to meet basic needs such as food, health care, and housing as well as access to employment and training services. Some individuals may also need child care and/or mental health and substance use disorder treatment. Denying access to basic needs programs makes it harder for people with convictions to get back on their feet. Such exclusions are racist: they are grounded in stereotypes about who receives public assistance, and they are especially punitive for Black and Latinx communities due to the War on Drugs’ uneven enforcement of drug laws and targeting of communities of color with low incomes. This has resulted in the conviction and incarceration of disproportionate numbers of Black and Latinx people, especially Black men.1 According to the Sentencing Project, one in three Black males born in 2001 will be imprisoned at some point in their lives, compared to one in six Latinx men and one in 17 white men.2 When considering educational attainment, young men of color without a high school diploma, especially Black men, are most at risk of incarceration. In 2010, for instance, nearly one-third of Black males ages 25 to 29 who dropped out of high school were incarcerated or institutionalized.3 For women, incarceration rates have risen exponentially in recent years. While fewer women than men are incarcerated, the total number of women who have been arrested has increased by 25 percent over the past 35 years, while decreasing by 33 percent for men.4 Women, moreover, are more likely than men to be convicted of a drug offense: 26 percent of incarcerated women were convicted of a drug offense in 2018, compared to 13 percent of men, according to the Sentencing Project.5

Washington DC: CLASP, 2022. 9p.

By Melissa Young, Clarence Okoh, and Jason Whyte

Now more than ever, Congress has a national imperative to advance comprehensive policy reforms that seek to remedy the harms caused by the criminal legal system, heal communities, and restore rights and access to opportunity. The federal Reentry Employment Opportunities (REO) Program has the potential to be a critical programmatic element of a comprehensive effort.

In this brief, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and the National Reentry Workforce Collaborative (NRWC) offer a set of recommendations to strengthen and modernize the REO program to ensure that a greater number of people impacted by the criminal legal system have access to quality jobs through effective, equitable, and culturally responsive practices.

Our recommendations are grounded in the perspectives of current REO programs, partners, and intermediaries across the country. Additionally, our recommendations build from two recent proposals to codify the REO program from Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) through the Reentry Employment Opportunities Act of 2020 (Senate Bill 4387) and the House-passed Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2022 (House Bill 7309).

Washington, DC: CLASP, 2022. 6p.

By Deanie Anyangwe & Alycia Hardy

According to a 2010 Pew Charitable Trust report, more than 1.1 million men and 120,000 women incarcerated in jails and prisons in the United States have children under the age of 17, and 2.7 million children nationwide have one or both parents incarcerated. As more attention has been paid to the negative consequences of incarceration on families in recent years, different localities have undertaken new efforts to mitigate the impact of the criminal legal systems. Most recently, there have been federal efforts to offer alternatives to incarceration to parents and caregivers. In 2021, the OJJDP began a new grant program titled the Family-Based Alternative Sentencing Program.

In this report, we analyze the landscape for family-based alternative sentencing programs to assess the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their program goals. We specifically focused our analysis on two programs funded by OJJDP’s Families Based Alternative Sentencing Program: Lehigh County, PA and Washtenaw County, MI. Additionally, we conducted an in-depth analysis of a state-funded program in Washington County, Oregon with more longevity to get a better sense of how these programs function over time. As we outline what we have learned from the field, we will be drawing particular attention to the challenges and barriers in planning and implementation, the equity and justice-related implications of these programs, and the nuances in how these programs are functioning. In highlighting the challenges with facilitating these programs, we hope to demonstrate the need for alternatives to incarceration that address immediate needs for caregivers and children, minimize the power of the police state, and support program improvements that increase accessibility and utilization by those targeted for criminalization, all while pushing for a shift away from incarceration altogether and working toward keeping families and communities unified, safe, and well. We offer policymakers, practitioners, and advocates considerations and recommendations for non-coercive alternatives to incarceration that support the autonomy, well-being, and safety of children and families.

Washington DC: CLASP: 2023. 43p.

By Lulit Shewan

An exploitative labor economy exists within the confines of this nation’s prisons. This is a fundamental pillar of the criminal justice system, yet it is largely concealed from public view. In the United States, all state and federal prisons allow some form of involuntary labor as part of various correctional work programs. Even when prison labor is ostensibly voluntary, the combination of meager pay (often less than $1/hour) and the presence of harsh alternatives creates an inherently exploitative system that depends on the labor of those behind bars and perpetuates a cycle of exploitation and marginalization. Prison labor amplifies deep-seated issues within the criminal justice system and casts a stark light on the intersection of labor rights, social justice, and the ethics of incarceration

The Exploitative Prison Labor Economy

Incarcerated men and women toil in workshops, kitchens, and fields, producing goods and services that reach far beyond their confinement. From manufacturing furniture and processing food to fighting fires and working in call centers, their labor fuels supply chains, corporate profits, and consumer markets. Yet these workers remain invisible, their contributions often overlooked or dismissed. The commodification of their labor perpetuates a cycle of vulnerability, where meager wages and limited rights prevail. In the intricate tapestry of the prison industrial complex, we confront a profound challenge that transcends temporary reforms. The only holistic and ethical approach calls for a paradigm shift, a reimagining of justice itself. Within this context, we fiercely advocate for granting incarcerated individuals fundamental rights: the right to choose voluntary work and earn fair wages, and the freedom to join unions. These rights are not concessions; they are affirmations of human dignity and agency, and are necessary to improving the material conditions of incarcerated people.

Washington, DC: CLASP, 2024. 6p.

By Scartascini, Carlos; Cafferata, Fernando Gabriel; Gingerich, Daniel

Punitive anti-crime policies in the Americas have contributed to steadily increasing rates of incarceration. This creates prison overcrowding and can lead to recidivism. Harsh penalties are often demanded by citizens, making them politically attractive for politicians. Yet the contextual determinants of participation in crime are rarely understood by the public. In this paper, we employ a survey experiment conducted in Chile in order to examine how the provision of information about the prison population shapes tastes for punitive anti-crime policies. Respondents in the treatment group received information about the low educational attainment of prisoners. This information led to substantial changes in policy preferences. Tasked with allocating resources to anti-crime policies using a fixed budget, treated respondents assigned between 20% to 50% more to socially oriented anti-crime policies (relative to punitive policies) than respondents in the control group, and they reduced their support for “iron fist” policing. This indicates that providing information to citizens might change the policy equilibrium in the Americas.

Washington DC: IDB, 2020. 31p.

By Stella Botchway and Seena Fazel

In England and Wales, there has been considerable work over recent years to reduce the numbers of deaths in custody. Currently, there is no standard,internationally agreed definition of a death in custody, which limits compar-isons. In addition, rates of death in custody are often reported per country or region inhabitants, but it would be more useful to report per number of detainees. In this short communication, we present data on deaths in indivi-duals who have been detained in England and Wales between 2016 to 2019. Wealso present a method to calculate rates of death per custodial population in key settings using routine data, allowing for more consistent comparisons across time and different settings. Most deaths in custody between 2016–2019 occurred in prisons (56% of all deaths in custody over 2016–19; Table 1). However, when rates are considered, those detained under the Mental HealthAct had the highest rate of deaths, which ranged from 1103–1334/100,000 per-sons detained. Around one in five deaths were self-inflicted. The data presented highlights the need to maintain focus on improving the physical health and mental health of all those detained in custody, both whilst in detention and after release

THE JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY & PSYCHOLOGY2022, VOL. 33, NO. 1, 1–13

By  Benjamin W. Fisher; Catalina Valdez; Abigail J. Beneke

This document presents the research methodology, findings, and discusses implications of a research project that examined the potential impacts of removing school-based law enforcement (SLBE), and how that might shape outcomes related to criminal justice system contact or other racial and ethnic disparities. The research study drew on two secondary data sources: The School Survey on Crime Safety (SSOCS), which is a biennial nationally representative sample of school administrators; and the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), a biennial census of American public schools. Both data sources were used to construct a two-wave longitudinal dataset that identified schools that did or did not remove SBLE. The researchers used a difference-in-differences approach. The researchers compared changes between schools that did remove versus those that did not remove SBLE, in three measures of criminal justice contact: arrests; referrals to law enforcement; and crimes reported to police. The report presents the research findings, and notes that they were mostly consistent across school racial and ethnic composition. Results indicated that for schools to improve racial and ethnic equity in their use of law enforcement, they should use strategies beyond simply removing police from schools.

Madison, WI: Department of Civil Society and Community Studies School of Human Ecology University of Wisconsin-Madison 2024. 82p.

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code regulates their behavior and attitudes. We investigate whether prisons contribute to the spread of these norms to the general population using an exogenous shock of the Soviet amnesty of 1953, which released 1.2 million prisoners. We document the spread of prison norms in localities exposed to the released ex-prisoners. As inmates' code also ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals, in the long run, we find effects on anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes, homophobic slurs on social media, and discriminatory attitudes.

ZA DP No. 17138\ Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 

By Denis Ward

Purpose of the Study: The study evaluates theReconvictionPrediction Score (RPS), which predicts the likelihood of conviction within two years of a prisoner's discharge.

Findings: The RPS is generally accurate but can be improved by including factors like sentence length.

Recommendations: The RPS should continue in its present form but with potential future adjustments for better accuracy.

Data Sources: The study used data from the Parole Index and Offenders Index For males discharged between 1977-1979.

London:: Her Majesty’s stationery Office, 1987, 46 pages

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code often ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals. We use longitudinal data to investigate whether prison experience contributes to anti-gay beliefs. We find that prison experience prompts a higher level of anti-gay sentiments among males and their families, while no discernible difference exists before incarceration. We find no effect for female ex-prisoners. We confirm that the results are not driven by pre-incarceration trends, changes in trust and social capital, socioeconomic status, mental health, masculinity norms, and other potential alternative explanations. Our study sheds light on the overlooked role of prisons as a significant contributor to the propagation of anti-gay attitudes.

IZA DP No. 17137 Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 

By Jacob Schuman

Community supervision is a major form of criminal punishment and a major driver of mass incarceration.  Over 3.5 million people in the United States are serving terms of probation, parole, or supervised release, and revocations account for nearly half of all prison admissions.  Although supervision is intended to prevent crime and promote reentry, it can also interfere with the defendant’s reintegration by imposing onerous restrictions as well as punishment for non-criminal technical violations.  Probation officers also carry heavy caseloads, which forces them to spend more time on enforcing conditions and less on providing support.

Fortunately, the criminal justice system also includes a mechanism to solve these problems: early termination of community supervision.  From the beginning, the law has always provided a way for the government to cut short a defendant’s term of supervision if they could demonstrate that they had reformed themselves.  Recently, judges, correctional officials, and activists have called to increase rates of early termination in order to save resources, ease the reentry process, and encourage rehabilitation.  Yet despite all this attention from the field, there are no law-review articles on terminating supervision early.

In this Article, I provide the first comprehensive analysis of early termination of community supervision.  First, I recount the long history of early termination, from the invention of probation and parole in the 1800s to the Safer Supervision Act of 2023.  Next, I identify and critique recent legal changes that have made it harder for federal criminal defendants to win early termination of supervised release.  Finally, I propose the first empirically based sentencing guideline on terminating supervision early, which I recommend in most cases after 18 to 36 months.  If community supervision drives mass incarceration, then early termination offers a potential tool for criminal justice reform. American Criminal Law Review, Forthcoming,  2024.

By  Wendy Betts

This is a policy brief that outlines recommendations for how to hold perpetrators accountable for sexual violence in Ukraine. The recommendations include:

• Legal pathways: Outlining legal pathways for accountability

• Documentation: Best practices for documenting conflict-related sexual violence

• Coordination: How to coordinate cooperation between documenters, support services, and the Ukrainian government

• Qualified professionals: Expanding the number of qualified professionals who can conduct forensic medical evaluations

• Legislative reforms: Legislative reforms to empower survivors in the justice process

• Medico-legal documentation: Developing standardized medico-legal documentation tools

• Capacity-building: Implementing capacity-building initiatives to ensure trauma-informed, survivor-centered approaches 

• The brief also calls on Ukrainian officials to build on their progress and reform systems so that survivors can access care, support, and justice. 

  The international community must react swiftly and respond in a survivor-oriented way toward justice

Global Initiative for Justice, Truth and Reconciliations (GIJTR) 2024. 37p.

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code regulates their behavior and attitudes. We investigate whether prisons contribute to the spread of these norms to the general population using an exogenous shock of the Soviet amnesty of 1953, which released 1.2 million prisoners. We document the spread of prison norms in localities exposed to the released ex-prisoners. As inmates' code also ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals, in the long run, we find effects on anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes, homophobic slurs on social media, and discriminatory attitudes.

IZA DP No. 17138\ Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 

By Maxim Ananyev, Mikhail Poyker:

Inmates' informal code often ascribes low status to persons perceived as passive homosexuals. We use longitudinal data to investigate whether prison experience contributes to anti-gay beliefs. We find that prison experience prompts a higher level of anti-gay sentiments among males and their families, while no discernible difference exists before incarceration. We find no effect for female ex-prisoners. We confirm that the results are not driven by pre-incarceration trends, changes in trust and social capital, socioeconomic status, mental health, masculinity norms, and other potential alternative explanations. Our study sheds light on the overlooked role of prisons as a significant contributor to the propagation of anti-gay attitudes.

IZA DP No. 17137 Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics, 2024. 

By Julian V. Johnsen, Laura Khoury:

Peer actions play a key role in the criminal sector due to its secrecy and lack of formal institutions. A significant part of criminal peer exposure that happens in prison, is directly influenced by policymakers. This paper provides a broader understanding of how peer effects shape criminal behavior among prison inmates, focusing on co-inmate impacts on recidivism and criminal network formation. Using Norwegian register data on over 140,000 prison spells, we causally identify peer effects through within-prison variation in peers over time. Our analysis reveals several new insights. First, exposure to more experienced co-inmates increases recidivism. Second, exposure to "top criminals" (i.e. those with extreme levels of criminal experience) plays a distinctive role in shaping these recidivism patterns. Third, inmates form lasting criminal networks, as proxied by post-incarceration co-offending. Fourth, homophily intensifies these peer effects. These findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of peer influences in criminal activities and offer practical insights for reducing recidivism through strategic inmate grouping and prison management policies.

Bonn: Institute of Labor Economics - IZA, 2024.

By Howard League for Penal Reform

The prison system in England and Wales is running out of space, reaching record highs of more than 88,000 in recent months. Not only that but the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has been flagging the likelihood of this happening in its prison population projections since 2021 (MoJ, 2021). Billions of pounds are being spent on new prison places but this will not be enough to match supply to demand. It is time for a new government to address the capacity problem head-on and determine a more positive future for the prison system. The problem is not going away, with the latest prison population projections estimating an increase by more than 30% within the next four years (MoJ, 2024c). The new Labour government has recognised that tackling the crisis must be an urgent priority, with the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, commenting at his first Downing Street press conference that “we have too many prisoners” (BBC, 2024). During the election campaign the Prison Governors’ Association (PGA) took the unprecedented step of writing to all the main party leaders, warning that “it is a matter of days before prisons run out of space, and that the entire Criminal Justice System stands on the precipice of failure. Within a matter of weeks, it will put the public at risk” (PGA, 2024). The Police Federation has also expressed concerns that police officers are being asked to hold people unlawfully in police custody because prison cells are not available (Police Federation, 2024). It has been suggested that Operation Brinker, a ‘one-in-one-out’ system, would be deployed as prisons approach zero capacity (iNews, 2024). The main driver behind population growth is an increase in the determinate sentenced population due to greater levels of prosecutorial activity, the court backlog, and changes in sentencing policy. Examples include changes to the timing of release for those serving certain determinate sentences (from release at halfway to two-thirds of the sentence) and the introduction of mandatory starting points or whole-life orders for certain offences. Such reforms mean that more people will spend longer in prison. Legislative reforms such as Schedule 21 (introduced in 2003) and responses to single-issue campaigns have introduced mandatory minimum terms for custodial sentences for certain types of offences (and in some cases have resulted in the creation of new offences). These political interventions have distorted proportionality in sentencing and driven up sentence lengths.   

London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2024. 19p

By Dominique Moran, Jennifer Turner, Yvonne Jewkes and Matt Houlbrook

Over 20% of people in prison are currently housed in prisons with Victorian-era accommodation. This significant part of the prison estate is a legacy of Victorian policy and ambition, both in terms of construction, and in the creation of a new social institution, the modern prison. Both the physical infrastructure and the ideological foundations of the Victorian prison persist today. This once ‘visionary’ prison design has been widely regarded as an historical relic, a barrier to progress and innovation. These establishments can be characterised by poor-quality accommodation and a relative shortage of opportunities for purposeful activity. The Victorian estate can exhibit some of the worst conditions across the prison system, with HMIP frequently reporting dark, damp cells with poor ventilation and drainage. Despite these challenges, the Victorian prison remains a significant component of the urban prison estate, located close to courts and communities. Our research, conducted with those living and working in Victorian prisons, highlights some ways in which these challenging buildings may be reimagined and re-deployed. The persistence of the Victorian prison also has conceptual implications. This ‘modern’ prison was conceived in part to resolve a ‘penal crisis’ beginning in the 1770s, following the suspension of The challenges evident in the Victorian prison often bring it into the public eye. Today, the prison estate in England and Wales is experiencing acute pressure, with the population currently at its highest ever level, reaching a peak of 88,225 in October 2023 (and closely matched in March 2024). The Victorian prison estate arguably persists in part because these pressures prevent serious consideration of closure of establishments of any era. The prison system is already operating above the Ministry of Justice’s own measure of safe and decent accommodation and is set to reach capacity in summer 2024. Criminal justice stakeholders and oversight bodies have repeatedly raised concerns about the levels of crowding and the impact on safe, decent, and purposeful environments for those living and working in prisons. Prison population projections indicate that this is a long-term problem, with the prison population set to grow to up to 114,800 by March 2028. The Ministry of Justice have announced a raft of emergency measures aimed at increasing capacity, including the renting of police custody cells and cells abroad, and the construction of ‘rapid deployment cells’, prefabricated temporary accommodation with a 15-year lifespan. Draft legislation has proposed scrapping custodial sentences of 12 months or less, and the early release scheme continues to expand. Whilst efforts to reduce the prison population are welcome, short term measures are limited in their effectiveness in addressing longer-term challenges. These pressures tell us that the system requires a rethink, both in terms of its infrastructure and, more abstractly, its purpose. Tackling the challenges faced by the Victorian prison estate, and the system more broadly, will require ambition, a clear vision for the future of the whole prison system, and the foresight necessary to effectively deploy Victorian prisons to support rehabilitation and promote reintegration. 

London: Howard League for Prison Reform, 2024. 11p.

By Texas Defender Service

No one should be forced to serve a prison sentence—or face the death penalty and be executed—because they were convicted based on unreliable forensic evidence. But the reality is that scores of innocent people are serving prison terms, or even facing execution, simply because their juries trusted forensic evidence—from DNA to fingerprints to ballistics—that was later found to be untrustworthy. Yet for years, in both Texas and across the country, people who were convicted based on flawed forensic evidence had no legal recourse in the courts to be relieved of their convictions. Then, just over a decade ago, the Texas Legislature took a revolutionary step forward for people who were wrongfully convicted based on flawed forensics: it passed Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.073 (hereinafter 11.073). The first statute of its kind in the United States, 11.073 created a pathway for people whose convictions were based on false forensic evidence to show those faults and ultimately secure their freedom. Is Article 11.073 fulfilling its powerful initial vision: to grant relief to innocent people who are incarcerated on the basis of flawed scientific evidence? The answer is no. Texas Defender Service systematically examined the more than 70 cases raised under 11.073 between September 2013 and December 2023. We found that 11.073 is not working to provide relief to innocent people convicted based on false or unreliable forensic evidence. Due both to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s (CCA) interpretation of the statute and lack of guidance in the statute itself, 11.073 is not operating as the Texas Legislature intended: #1—The Statute Does Not Go Far Enough to Protect Innocent People Who Were Convicted Based on Junk Science: At the heart of 11.073 is the Texas Legislature’s recognition that an innocent person convicted based on flawed forensic evidence should be able to overturn their conviction if they can show (1) that the evidence was flawed and (2) that without this flawed evidence, the jury would have found them “not guilty.” This is the standard written in the statute itself, and it is designed to provide a pathway for innocent people who are serving sentences based on unreliable forensic evidence. However, in practice, the CCA does not apply this standard. Instead, it usually only grants relief if a person can show evidence strong enough to eliminate any rational basis for their conviction, such as exonerating DNA evidence or an alternate perpetrator. This is the legal “actual innocence” standard, and it is higher than the standard written in the 11.073 statute. The legal “actual innocence” standard also places an impossibly high burden on innocent people convicted based on flawed forensic evidence. For the vast majority of people who are actually innocent, meeting the high evidentiary burden of the legal “actual innocence” standard years—or decades—after their conviction is out of the question. 1 Innocent incarcerated people are al almost never in a position to do the intensive police work required to reconstruct a crime scene, uncover previously unknown eyewitnesses, or track down an alternate perpetrator. Moreover, original evidence may have gone stale, and eyewitnesses can be missing, deceased, or are no longer able to recall specific details. #2—The CCA Largely Restricts Relief to Cases Involving New DNA Evidence, Even Though Most Wrongful Convictions Are Based on Other Types of Flawed Forensic Evidence: The CCA primarily grants relief in cases involving DNA evidence, ignoring many other cases involving false forensic evidence. This is concerning because nationwide data shows that false DNA evidence is only involved in a relatively small number of wrongful convictions. #3—The CCA is Not Granting Relief to Death-Sentenced People Under 11.073: The CCA has never granted 11.073 relief to a person sentenced to death, as compared to granting relief to 31% of people who seek relief and are serving non-death sentences. Given the historically high rates of exonerations in capital cases, the total failure of the CCA to grant 11.073 claims for death-sentenced people—compared to nearly a third of all other people—is especially concerning. #4—People Without Counsel are Functionally Barred from Meaningfully Seeking Relief Under 11.073: People who represent themselves in their 11.073 applications are effectively denied access to relief under 11.073 due to their lack of legal counsel. Of the 74 applications filed and adjudicated between September 2013 and December 2023, 19 were filed by people without lawyers. Of those 19 people without lawyers, only one has ever been granted relief, a stark drop-off from the 25% of people with counsel who receive relief. #5—Procedural Bars Prevent Large Numbers of 11.073 Applications from Being Considered on the Merits: Despite having valid claims, many people who seek relief under 11.073 never receive consideration of their claims on the merits because of procedural issues. These barriers especially impact people sentenced to death and people without lawyers. Texas took an extraordinary step in enacting 11.073, but more must be done to ensure that the statute operates as the Texas Legislature intended. In this report, we recommend steps the Texas Legislature can take to ensure that 11.073 serves its intended function: creating a pathway to relief for innocent people who were convicted on the basis of false or unreliable forensic evidence. 

Austin: Texas Defender Service, 2024. 36p.