Manufacturing False Convictions: Lies and the Corrupt Use of Jailhouse Informants

Through the combined efforts of the innocence bar, conviction integrity units, and an expanding cohort of multidisciplinary scholars, new data about the mechanisms underlying wrongful convictions is rapidly accumulating. Jailhouse informants--jail inmates who testify against fellow prisoners in exchange for charge and sentence reductions and other rewards--have long been identified as significant contributors to false convictions. The new data demonstrates with fresh clarity the extent to which reliance on incentivized jailhouse (and other) witnesses poses severe hazards to the integrity of the criminal legal system. Indeed, the new data reveals overwhelming evidence of the link between the use of jailhouse informants and patterns of corruption and misconduct. This Study draws on recent exoneration data, taken from the National Registry of Exonerations (“NRE”), consisting of cases in which innocent individuals were wrongfully convicted based, in whole or in part, on false testimony from jailhouse informants. This Study examines these cases to identify commonalities and patterns. Its primary finding, and one confirming prior research, is that there is a powerful link between law enforcement misconduct and the use of jailhouse informants and other incentivized witnesses. The Study also provides further insight into the specific pathways by which this misconduct tends to manifest, revealing how false jailhouse informant testimony is induced, generated, and *132 insulated from close inspection or challenge. Another important finding of the Study is a significant correlation between the incidence of false confessions and false testimony from jailhouse informants. This correlation helps to further build the profile of what likely wrongful convictions look like, and can be used by concerned prosecutors, judges, and innocence lawyers to help identify cases that call for closer scrutiny. It also provides the basis for reform measures to further limit the damage done to the truth-seeking process through the use of jailhouse informants and other incentivized witnesses

Education - Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act of 2024

The Act primarily functions to require age verification and parental consent for social media usage by minors under the age of sixteen and to terminate the use of social medias in schools. The Act further empowers the Department of Education to create model programs in schools to teach digital citizenship and curtail cyberbullying. In addition, the Act allows parents to request information about their child’s social media use

Birthright Citizenship and the Dunning School of Unoriginal Meanings

This essay critically surveys the recent debate surrounding birthright citizenship in the United States, particularly in light of arguments presented by legal scholars Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman. Under the guise of “originalism,” Barnett, Wurman, and others propose an ahistorical, revisionist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. They suggest that the term “jurisdiction” should be understood as “allegiance,” seemingly to give the veneer of legitimacy to the Trump Administration’s view that the children of undocumented immigrants may not be American citizens. The essay argues that Barnett and Wurman’s approach, which attempts to radically redefine the historical understanding of citizenship, is methodologically flawed and undermines core principles of constitutional law. The critique exposes the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in their position and scrutinizes the scholarly merit of new theories of birthright citizenship that are wildly inconsistent with constitutional text, history, precedent, and unbroken tradition. The essay concludes by examining the professional responsibility of legal scholars to engage in rigorous, fact-based historical analysis rather than politically motivated reinterpretations that threaten to destabilize fundamental constitutional rights