DNA

DOI:10.14111/j.cnki.zgfx.2012.01.014 * 1 2 3 2010 1998 2 15 1997 10 30 1 2 3 * 2010 2009 3-8 2001 12 2005 4 2006 11 2007 5 2008 157-160 159

2012 1 1999 5 8 5 9 5 10 6 18 9 DNA 2002 12 5 2003 2 13 2010 4 30 5 5 5 8 5 9 11 5 13 65 4 5 1 1894 9 26 1895 1 13 3 1896 3 1898 1 10 1899 6 1906 7 12 6 2 1896 12 16 4 5 6 16 2011 1-2 1985 165-257 1983 156-157 160

21 22 1897 5 5 7 1901 7 8 1904 4 15 3 1904 7 7 7 500 7 3 1920 4 15 5 5 0. 38 0. 32 32 0. 32 7 14 1923 10 1927 8 22 1977 7 20 8 2011 4 7 11 9 20 500 20 90 Innocence Center Innocence Project DNA 1989 2009 242 DNA 500 瑏瑠 7 8 9 瑏瑠 6 9-15 2008 24-26 2011 2011 Innocence Network Conference an International Exploration of Wrongful Conviction http / /www. innocenceproject. org 161

2012 1 2003 7 11 1895 1906 1897 1904 1927 1977 50 55 48 60 5 16 372 10 5 5 10 30 5 25 瑏瑡 2011 20 DNA 271 13 40% DNA 瑏瑢 Marvin Zalman 0. 5% 1% 100 40% 瑏瑣 1% 10000 4000 0. 5% 5000 2000 瑏瑤 1998 14 1998 2010 11 23 37 瑏瑡 瑏瑢 瑏瑣 瑏瑤 1 364-367 Donklephant 2011 6 28 Not Guilty Wrongful Conviction In The US By gregvoakes 2009 4 1990 829340 1994 872220 1998 927720 2002 1051000 2006 1132290 962514 Bureau of Justice Statistics December 2009 NCJ 226846 2010 12 Qualitatively Estimating the Incidence of Wrongful Convictions A Postscript 162

478 25000 37 1200 瑏瑥 100% 100% 1985 8 7 1986 10 2 10 2 25 瑏瑦 25 2011 DNA Criminal Cases Review Commission 瑏瑧 2 11 3 4 15 the Director of Public Prosecutions the Independent Police Complaints Commission 198 5 13 406 5 26 瑏瑨 瑏瑥 瑏瑦 瑏瑧 瑏瑨 Northwestern Law the Center on Wrongful Convictions 2009 180-192 1995 1997 80 9 BBC 163

2012 1 瑏瑩 DNA 20 DNA Inmate DNA Testing Law DNA 48 DNA DNA 2003 DNA 313 DNA 125 40% 117 38% 42 13% 29 9% 125 80 64% 45 36% 313 226 72% 53 17% 26 8% 8 3% 226 DNA 154 68% 72 32% 26 14 2 瑏瑩 2008 7 41 164

7 5 瑐瑠 1 1994 8 5 17 1995 3 15 15 4 25 瑐瑡 2005 3 1994 8 5 瑐瑢 10 瑐瑣 2 1996 4 9 6 10 18 2005 1996 2005 10 30 10 2006 11 4 9 1996 瑐瑤 6 瑐瑠 瑐瑡 瑐瑢 瑐瑣 瑐瑤 The Columbus Dispatch 2008 1 31 3 DNA Ohio DNA requests 2007 11 2 2009 11 11 2005 3 27 2007 2 14 10 165

2012 1 Mark Godsey DNA 50% DNA 瑐瑥 DNA 1 1990 4 25 10 32 Robert McClendon 5 21 1991 8 26 瑐瑥 Ohio Innocence Project 2010 2 2010 7 The standard varies state by state but it is usually whether the new evidence like a new DNA test result raises reasonable doubt. So far from requiring strong proof of innocence it only requires that the inmate develop new evidence that now raises reasonable doubt that didnt exist before. That is the stated standard in the law. In reality judges bend the facts to make it much tougher due to political realities. Even with evidence that raises reasonable doubt if it doesnt prove the inmate innocent by a preponderance of the evidence more than 50% chance innocent the judge will just say This doesnt raise reasonable doubt when it clearly does so the stated standard is different than reality. However if an inmate wins all it means is that he gets a new trial. If the evidence of innocence is strong like a conclusive DNA test the prosecutor will drop the charges and not retry him resulting in an exoneration. But if it is medium strength the prosecutor may try the person to a jury a second time. If he is acquitted then he is exonerated. If he is convicted a second time then he is not exonerated. 166

瑐瑦 15 2004 10 13 DNA 2008 DNA 7 16 DNA DNA 7 22 DNA 10 8 11 DNA 瑐瑧 52 17 瑐瑨 2 1991 5 2-16 13 Joseph Abbitt 1994 1995 6 - DNA 110 2005 DNA DNA 2009 9 2 14 瑐瑩 瑑瑠 2009 DNA 242 75% 瑑瑡 DNA 瑑瑢 瑐瑦 瑐瑧 瑐瑨 瑐瑩 瑑瑠 瑑瑡 瑑瑢 1991 2 4 DNA The Columbus Dispatch 2008 8 12 Hello freedom Innocence Project Know the Cases Thompson S. G. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Reconsidering uncorroborated eyewitness identification testimony UC Davis Law Review 41 1487-545 2008. Eyewitness Identification Reform 167

2012 1 DNA DNA DNA non - DNA cases DNA DNA 37 21 DNA DNA DNA DNA DNA 37 16 Coerced false confessions 瑑瑣 DNA 10 1997 10 13 2000 10 12 2002 3 65 Diane Fanning ABC Tommy Sells Through the Window Downstate Illinois Innocence Project 2003 10 24 the Prisoner Review Board 11 6 2004 6 24 瑑瑣 瑏瑥 168

75000 2006 7 26 瑑瑤 50% 110 瑑瑥 civil right claim common law tort claim 瑑瑦 瑑瑧 1990 1991 1992 1997 瑑瑨 2004 瑑瑩 瑑瑤 瑑瑥 瑑瑦 瑑瑧 瑑瑨 瑑瑩 University of Illinois at Springfield 44204 17 796000 1984 2008 35 1220 1976 26 2003 250 150 2008 8 12 A4 Inmate 2011 1979 25 2004 50 6 795 50% 2003 4 464-467 瑑瑧 459-461 2009 10 12 169

2012 1 Raymond McCartney Eamonn MacDermott 1977 1979 1982 9 15 17 53 Sinn Fein 2006 9 2007 2 瑒瑠 2008 2011 5 11 9 5 4 Lord Nicholas Phillips Andrew Adams 瑒瑡 1993 2007 14 瑒瑠 瑒瑡 BBC 2007 2 15 Murder convictions ruled unsafe 2011 5 11 UK court sets new standard on compensation for wrongful convictions The Associated Press May 11 2011. 2011 5 12 Tow men jailed for murder can seek compensation The Irish Times May 12 2011 170

瑒瑢 BBC Danny Shaw 2009 2010 37 Barry George 2000 2008 瑒瑣 Karl Peters 1904-1998 20 70 Fehlerquellen im Strafprozess Eine Untersuchung der Wiederaufnahmeverfahren in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1951 1964 1150 91 1059 瑒瑤 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 60% 瑒瑢 瑒瑣 瑒瑤 2011 5 11 Supreme Court allows miscarriage of justice appeals BBC NEWS May 11 2011. 瑒瑢 2010 171

2012 1 100% 60% in dubio pro reo 1997 4 29 Andrea Zacher 1994 Thomas Heim DNA 1998 1 16 11 1998 8 11 2001 4 5 2005 10 6 2006 10 16 2009 10 22 瑒瑥 瑒瑥 16 2011 240-269 172

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 162 204 205 11 173

2012 1 瑒瑦 204 瑒瑧 Abstract The happening of wrongful convictions has the nature of universality and latency and the recognition of wrongful convictions has the nature of vagueness and antagonism. The standards of proof for wrongful convictions therefore need to be clarified. Through case analyses of the standards in the USA UK and Germany we can see that the standards for wrongful convictions are different from the standards for convictions while the former are lower than the latter. We should restate the standards of proof for wrongful convictions in Chinese criminal proceedings and make distinctions among the standard for starting a retrial the standard for acknowledging a wrongful conviction and the standard for awarding a state compensation. 瑒瑦 瑒瑧 2010 360-363 17 3 174