The Troy Davis Effect: Does Information on Wrongful Convictions Affect Death Penalty Opinions?

This article was downloaded by: [Texas A & M International University], [Ray Garza]On: 29 January 2015, At: 08:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal JusticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wecj20

The Troy Davis Effect: Does Informationon Wrongful Convictions Affect DeathPenalty Opinions?Stephanie Diaza & Ray Garzaa

a Department of Psychology and Communications, Texas A&MInternational University, Laredo, Texas, USAAccepted author version posted online: 14 Nov 2014.Publishedonline: 27 Jan 2015.

To cite this article: Stephanie Diaz & Ray Garza (2014): The Troy Davis Effect: Does Information onWrongful Convictions Affect Death Penalty Opinions?, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, DOI:10.1080/15377938.2014.936643

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2014.936643

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015

Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 00:1–20, 2015Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1537-7938 print / 1537-7946 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15377938.2014.936643

The Troy Davis Effect: Does Informationon Wrongful Convictions Affect Death

Penalty Opinions?

STEPHANIE DIAZ and RAY GARZADepartment of Psychology and Communications, Texas A&M International University,

Laredo, Texas, USA

Following the Supreme Court’s use of social science research inFurman v. Georgia, numerous studies have examined the factorsaffecting support for the death penalty. Although it is known that thedeath penalty continues to have strong support in the United States,it remains unclear how the rise in media coverage of wrongfulconvictions and the increasing number of Hispanics in the UnitedStates will affect opinions of and support for the death penalty.Using a sample of students at a predominantly Hispanic university,this study explores the effect of exposure to information on wrongfulconvictions on opinions about the death penalty.

KEYTERMS Wrongful convictions, death penalty, opinions, TroyDavis

Since the late 1980s, new advances in the study of DNA have led tomore than 300 postconviction exonerations. There have also been hundredsof exonerations based on non-DNA evidence (Gross et al., 2005; InnocenceProject, n.d.). The notion of wrongful convictions has successfully penetratedthe public consciousness through television news stories, documentaries, andnewspaper and magazine articles that have brought to light convictions ofinnocent individuals. The topic of wrongful convictions has also garnered theattention of lawyers, activists, policymakers, and academics. As Baumgartner,De Boef, and Boydstun (2008) illustrated, discussion of the death penaltyhas been reframed to generate public doubt over death sentences. With

Submitted August 2013; resubmitted January 2014; accepted January 2014.Address correspondence to Ray Garza, Department of Psychology and Communications,

Texas A&M International University, 5201 University Boulevard, Laredo, TX 78045. E-mail:[email protected]

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015

2 S. Diaz and R. Garza

the advent of 24-hr news channels, there is now more media coverage ofexonerations and more humanization of defendants on trial for capital crimes.Therefore, researchers must study how knowledge of wrongful convictionsaffects death penalty attitudes. The work of lawyers, journalists, and so onhas illustrated the factors that lead to wrongful convictions. However, thisdoes not reveal how wrongful convictions affect public perception of thedeath penalty. This study explores the effect of exposure to information onwrongful convictions on opinions about the death penalty.

It is important to study the opinion of Hispanics of the death penalty asit is underreported compared to Anglo public opinion. More research is es-sential because Hispanics will make up 25% of the total American populationby 2050 and will soon constitute the majority demographic group in severalstates (U.S. Census Bureau, Population Projection Division, 2012). Uhlanerand Garcia (2002) found that Latinos tend to support the death penalty athigher rates than Whites or African Americans. Yet Sanchez (2006) foundthat Latinos born in the United States opposed the death penalty more thanforeign-born Latinos. Sanchez also found that men, Democrats, and Catholicswere more likely to oppose the death penalty (p. 439). Given the differentresults reported, it is important to take a closer look at how Hispanics viewthe death penalty.

More information on the public’s perception of wrongful convictionsand how it affects attitudes toward the death penalty is essential for fivemajor reasons. First, legislators who are elected by their constituents will notvoice disapproval of the death penalty if their voters continue to supportthe death penalty. Second, prosecutors may seek the death penalty in casesin which they would not otherwise seek the death penalty if strong publicsupport is present in their area. Third, judges might be more inclined to im-pose the death sentence and appellate judges would be more motivated touphold death sentences if strong public support were present. Fourth, gover-nors would be more hesitant to grant pardons or commute death sentencesto life imprisonment and be more inclined to favor death penalty legislationif strong public support existed in their state. Fifth, the U.S. Supreme Courtwill use public opinion as an indicator of “evolving standards of decency”and will not see the death penalty as a violation of the Eighth Amendment’sprohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (Cochran & Chamlin, 2005,pp. 573–574). For example, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall statedin Furman v. Georgia (1972) that the Court uses public opinion in weigh-ing the constitutionality of capital punishment (p. 574). In fact, as Flanagan,Gasdow, and Cohen (1992) suggested, “Capital punishment may be a bell-wether issue that reveals the ideological content of criminal control policyin America” (p. 38).

“Evolving standards of decency” have been an important issue in deathpenalty jurisprudence since they were first cited in 1958 in Trop v. Dulles.The Warren Court established that the Constitution is a living document and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015

The Troy Davis Effect 3

that therefore decisions evolve to mark the “progress of a maturing society”(Trop v. Dulles, 1958). As Chief Justice William Rehnquist (1986) stated,

I think it would be very wrong to say that judges are not influencedby public opinion. Indeed, I think it is all but impossible to conceiveof judges who are in any respect normal human beings who are notinfluenced by public opinion (p. 752).

If the majority of citizens in the United States continue to support the deathpenalty, lawmakers and Supreme Court justices will view the death penaltyas constitutional and consistent with the Eighth Amendment.

The development of the study of wrongful convictions stems from threeprimary concerns that are stated in Ramsey and Frank (2007). The first con-cern is for individual justice (p. 437). It is the belief of many U.S. citizensthat law-abiding citizens should be “free of oppression from the criminaljustice system” and that the thought of wrongful convictions is unaccept-able (p. 437). The second concern is for public safety. For every individualwrongfully convicted of a crime, a guilty person can continue to commitcrimes. As Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer (2000) noted, “All wrongfully con-victed individuals take the lash of punishment for someone else’s crime . . .Far too often, they are surrogates for serial criminals and killers” (p. 244).Studies have estimated that the frequency of wrongful convictions rangesfrom as little as 0.5% to as high as 20% (Huff, Rattner, and Sagarin, 1986; Mc-Closkey, 1989; Proveda, 2001). Any percentage is high considering that theJustice Department reported in 2011 that there are more than 1,500,000 indi-viduals currently incarcerated (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of JusticeStatistics, 2012). The third concern is the decline in support for the criminaljustice system. Every news story of exoneration shakes the public’s faith innot only the criminal justice system but the professionals themselves thatpeople entrust to ensure justice is done in all crimes. It is to these concernsthat the study of the public’s perception of wrongful convictions is directed.

The study of wrongful convictions started in 1932 by Edwin Borchard inorder to prove to a district attorney that wrongful convictions do occur afterthe district attorney stated to him that “innocent men are never convicted . . .It is a physical impossibility” (Borchard, 1932, p. 5). Borchard conducted aqualitative study that looked at 65 cases in which an innocent person wasconvicted of a crime. He published his findings in his book Convicting theInnocent and was soon followed by a myriad of studies probing the samequestion. It was not until the late 1980s that the focus of research regardingwrongful convictions shifted to the question of what causes wrongful con-victions to occur. Bedau and Radelet’s (1987) “Miscarriages of Justice in Po-tentially Capital Cases” increased academic interest in the “extent and causesof wrongful convictions” (Ramsey & Frank, 2007, p. 439). Bedau and Radelet(1987) identified 350 cases of wrongful convictions in potentially capital cases

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


between 1900 and 1985. Of the 350 cases, 90% were identified by officialdeclarations of innocence. After Bedau and Radelet’s articles, journalists andlawyers have explained quite extensively the causes of wrongful convictions.Barry Scheck et al. (2000) cited many cases in which serious miscarriagesof justice occurred in their book Actual Innocence. Scheck et al. found eye-witness identification, jailhouse snitches, false confessions/admissions, gov-ernment misconduct, improper forensic science, and bad lawyering all to becauses of wrongful convictions (Innocence Project, n.d.). Radelet and Bedau(1998) further stated that innocent persons are placed on death row becauseof “politically ambitious prosecutors, angry juries, and incompetent defensecounsel” (p. 111). As Baumgartner et al. (2008) illustrated, with increasedmedia coverage of exonerations, the focus of argumentation regarding cap-ital punishment has moved from a “moral and constitutional issue to oneemphasizing the fairness of the systems and claims of innocent people ondeath row” (p. 9; see also Clawson, 2009, p. 1605).

In a similar vein, criminologists and social scientists opposed to thedeath penalty have increasingly based their arguments on Justice ThurgoodMarshall’s argument regarding capital punishment in his 1972 opinion inFurman v. Georgia. Marshall argued that continued public support for cap-ital punishment is largely due to a lack of knowledge or information aboutit. According to Marshall, if the public were “fully informed, the great massof citizens would conclude . . . that the death penalty is immoral and un-constitutional” (Furman v. Georgia, 1972, at 363). Marshall identified oneexception to his hypothesis: Those who support the death penalty on retribu-tive grounds will continue to support it regardless of newfound knowledge(Furman v. Georgia, 1972, at 363).

A total of 23 studies have looked at one or all of Marshall’s hypotheses(Bohm, 1989, 1990; Bohm, Clark, & Aveni, 1990, 1991; Bohm & Vogel, 1991,1994, 2002; Bohm, Vogel, & Maisto, 1993; Clarke, Lambert, & Whitt, 2001;Cochran & Chamlin, 2005; Cochran, Sanders, & Chamlin, 2006; Ellsworth& Ross, 1983; Lambert & Clarke, 2001; Longmire, 1996; Lord, Ross, & Lep-per, 1979; Michel & Cochran, 2011; Patenaude, 2001; Sandys, 1995; Sarat &Vidmar, 1976; Vidmar & Dittenhoffer, 1981; Weinstock & Schwartz, 1998;Wright, Bohm, & Jamieson, 1995; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989). Most of these stud-ies used the same methodology: a pretest and posttest survey to determineknowledge of and support for the death penalty before and after exposureto information regarding capital punishment in a college course on the deathpenalty. These courses covered many topics related to capital punishment,from the history of the death penalty to “arbitrariness and discrimination inthe administration of the death penalty” (Bohm and Vogel, 1991, p. 73), withone class dedicated to studying the “execution of innocent human beings”(Bohm and Vogel, 1991, p. 73). These studies, in the words of Bohm andVogel (1991), sought to “isolate the specific stimuli that produce changesin death penalty opinions when such changes occur” (p. 70). However, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


amount and kind of data about wrongful convictions were at the instructor’sdiscretion and quite variable. Moreover, the data provided were often quitepreliminary.

In these studies, the question about support for the death penalty wasusually asked in an abstract way. For example, Bohm et al. (1993) asked,“Which of the following statements best describes your position toward thedeath penalty for [some] people convicted of first-degree murder?” (p. 32)and “Which of the following statements best describes your position toward[all] people convicted of first-degree murder?” (p. 32). Bohm et al. (1993)did, however, include questions to “tap aspects of personal involvement”by asking “If you served on a jury in a trial where the defendant, if foundguilty, would automatically be sentenced to death, could you convict thedefendant?” and “If asked to do it, could you pull the level that would resultin the death of an individual convicted of first-degree murder?” (p. 32). Bothquestions “tap aspects of personal involvement” to a certain extent, but whenno background is provided regarding the defendant or the crime committedthe participants cannot adequately “tap aspects of personal involvement”(p. 32). Cochran and Chamlin (2005) also used an abstract question—“Whichof the following statements best describes your position toward the deathpenalty for all persons convicted of first-degree murder?” (pp. 576–577)—todetermine their participants’ level of support for the death penalty.

Vollum, Longmire, and Buffington-Vollum (2004) believed that the re-lationship between death penalty support and the “public confidence in itsapplication and administration” is too complex to determine with one ortwo questions (p. 526). Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan (1994) agreed, statingthat “when people are confronted with the particulars of crimes and defen-dants, with responsibility for its application, and with information about therealities of capital punishment” (p. 144), support for the death penalty willweaken. The present study fills this gap in the literature by gauging the levelof support for the death penalty in both an abstract and a concrete wayby asking “Which of the following best characterizes your opinion on thedeath penalty for those convicted of violent crimes?” and presenting casevignettes of crimes eligible for the death penalty to see whether participantscould support the death penalty in each case. Furthermore, as Baumgartneret al. (2008) illustrated, the average number of exonerations per year has in-creased over time (p. 1605). This rise in exonerations presents another reasonfor revisiting the issue. Thus, this study attempts to determine whether infor-mation about wrongful convictions will influence a participant’s support forand opinion of the death penalty in five case vignettes. Level of knowledgeabout capital punishment is also used to determine whether Marshall’s hy-pothesis about the relationship between level of knowledge and support forthe death penalty is correct. Information about wrongful convictions comesfrom an interview with Barry Scheck, a video featuring Jennifer Thompson,and a chapter from the book Actual Innocence (Scheck et al., 2000). This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


study hypothesizes that more knowledge about capital punishment will re-sult in greater opposition to the death penalty and support Marshall’s beliefthat an informed population will be more likely to oppose the death penalty.It also hypothesizes that knowledge gained from the excerpt from Actual In-nocence will be particularly relevant in shaping attitudes toward the deathpenalty in cases in which the presence or absence of DNA is a relevant issue.

METHOD

Research Design

A between-measures design was used in determining whether knowledgeof wrongful convictions affects attitudes toward the application of the deathpenalty in each case. Two surveys were used in this design. The first survey’sindependent variable was the level of support for the death penalty, whichwas measured prior to the treatment. There was one independent variablein the second part: the treatments. These had four conditions: a controlgroup with no treatment, a video interview with Barry Scheck, a YouTubevideo featuring Jennifer Thompson, and an excerpt from Actual Innocence(Scheck et al., 2000). Participants took part in one of the four conditionsof the experiment. The dependent variable of this study was the level ofsupport for the death penalty, which was included in the second survey.

Participants

The participants were all undergraduate students at a predominantly Hispanicuniversity in South Texas and were enrolled in a criminal justice, psychology,or sociology course. There were a total of 481 respondents to the first survey.Participants were asked to choose one of four dates to attend the secondsession. The experimental group was a subsample of 135 participants out ofthe 481 original respondents. Of the 135, males constituted 39.3% (n = 53)and females 60.7% (n = 82). The median age was between 21 and 22. A totalof 90.4% of participants were of Hispanic ethnicity (n = 122), whereas 9.6%(n = 13) of the participants were non-Hispanic Whites, African Americans, ormultiracial individuals. Before they received any of the treatment conditions,a majority of this population supported the death penalty (n = 89, 65.9%),and 45.2% (n = 61) of the population believed wrongful convictions occur“occasionally.”

Survey Instrument

The information was obtained using two separate questionnaires. Thefirst survey collected basic demographic information. Also included in thissurvey was a question measuring the participant’s level of support for the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


death penalty, which asked, “Which of the following best characterizes youropinion on the death penalty for those convicted of violent crimes?” Responsecategories ranged from strongly oppose (1) to strongly support (5) and in-cluded don’t know (3) on a 5-point Likert-type scale to determine thestrength of the opinion. The last question asked how often the participantbelieved wrongful convictions occur. In particular, it asked, “How often doyou think people are wrongly convicted of death penalty offenses in theState of Texas?” Response categories ranged from never (1) to a great dealof the time (5) and included don’t know (3) on a 5-point Likert-type scaleto determine the respondent’s level of certainty on the matter. Includedwith the first survey was a series of 10 statements representing truths andmyths regarding capital punishment to gauge the participant’s knowledgeabout the death penalty. Participants were asked to indicate whether eachstatement was true or false or to answer “don’t know.” Seven of the 10statements were drawn from Cochran and Chamlin (2005) and one wasdrawn from Cochran et al. (2006; see Appendix A).

The second survey was given to participants after they watched or readone of the conditions of the treatment. The survey consisted of five casevignettes. Respondents were asked to assume that they were on a jury andhad before them the following convicted offenders whose sentences theyhad to determine. For each case, respondents were asked to (a) indicatewhether they would vote for the death penalty in that case and (b) give abrief rationale for their choice (see Appendix B). The second survey alsoincluded a crime matrix, which asked participants to indicate their level ofsupport for the death penalty for eight crimes.

Procedure

Participants were assured that their participation would be anonymous. Pro-vided with the survey were four dates and times for the second part ofthe study. Participants checked which date best suited them for their par-ticipation. Prior to the second dates, the treatments were written on smallpieces of paper, closed, placed in a bowl, and then picked to ensure randomassignment.

The treatments used were as follows:

1. No treatment used for control purposes.2. A 20-min 2009 YouTube video interview with Barry Scheck conducted

by Penn State University. In the interview, Scheck speaks about the caseof Marion Coakley and how this case led to the creation of the Inno-cence Project. Scheck further discusses the factors that lead to wrongfulconvictions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


3. A 20-min YouTube video featuring Jennifer Thompson. This video pro-vided participants with a real-life example of how eyewitness testimony,in this case from the victim herself, can result in the wrongful incarcerationof an innocent man. Thompson was a perfect eyewitness insofar as herrapist did not conceal his face or inhibit her from viewing his face andspoke to her during the sexual assault. Thompson further describes howshe chose Ronald Cotton as her rapist out of a lineup and was adamantfor 12 years that he was her rapist. Ronald Cotton was later exoneratedafter he demanded that the DNA collected from the rape kit be tested.This video was chosen because it emphasized the need for greater DNAevidence to ensure eyewitness testimony is not the sole evidence againsta defendant.

4. The last chapter from the book Actual Innocence (Scheck et al., 2000).The chapter’s title is “Reckonings: An Update,” and it discusses severalcases in which DNA testing led to an innocent man’s exoneration. Ourreason for using a book excerpt was that a book is usually associatedwith factual information based on research. Actual Innocence providedparticipants with several examples of true cases of wrongful convictions.The chapter demonstrates the need for greater reliance on DNA testing byending with the following statement: “In the end, D.N.A. does not holdall the answers: it only shows us the right questions. The time has cometo ask them” (Scheck et al., 2000, p. 349).

After participants were exposed to the treatments, they were given the sec-ond survey and asked to assume that they were on a jury and had beforethem the following convicted offenders whose sentences they had to deter-mine. For each case, respondents were asked to (a) indicate whether theywould vote for the death penalty in the case and (b) give a brief rationalefor their choice. Participants were then asked to check off their respectivelevels of support for capital punishment with regard to eight crimes.

RESULTS

Members of the initial sample of participants surveyed (N = 481) expressedthe belief that people in Texas are occasionally wrongly convicted of crimesinvolving the death penalty (M = 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.94,2.40]). In addition to being asked how often they believed that people whoare given the death penalty are wrongfully convicted, participants were askedwhether they supported the death penalty. There was a moderate level ofsupport for the death penalty in the population surveyed (M = 2.07, 95% CI[1.98, 2.15]). We also examined whether there was a relationship betweenhow often people believed individuals are wrongfully convicted and theirsupport for the death penalty. There was a weak significant relationship

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


between belief as to how often people are wrongly convicted and overallsupport for the death penalty (r = .10, p < .01). The initial survey alsoexamined the overall knowledge that individuals had of the death penalty inTexas. Ten true or false questions were used to assess whether individualsreally understood the prevalence of the death penalty and situations in whichindividuals are given the death penalty in Texas. On average individualsanswered half of the questions correctly (M = 5.15, 95% CI [4.93, 5.34]).

The second part of the study was used to determine whether the type oftreatment received (i.e., no treatment, Scheck video of using DNA to reversewrongful convictions, Jennifer Thompson’s video questioning the validity ofeyewitness testimony, and a selection from Actual Innocence) exerted anykind of influence on the decision as to whether the death penalty would bean appropriate punishment in each of the case studies. A Kruskal–Wallis test(see Table 1) revealed a significant effect between the different treatmentconditions only for the first case vignette that relied on DNA evidence (χ2 =11.13, p < .01). There were no significant effects for the eyewitness casestudy (χ2 = 5.87, p = .11), the confession case study (χ2 = 3.82, p = .28),the jailhouse snitch case study (χ2 = 6.34, p = .10), or the legally blonde casestudy (χ2 = 2.45, p = .48). A post hoc analysis showed that there were signif-icant differences in the DNA case vignette between the Jennifer Thompsonvideo involving eyewitness testimony and the no treatment condition (χ2 =5.31, p < .05), the Actual Innocence excerpt and the no treatment condition(χ2 = 7.12, p < .01), and the Barry Scheck DNA exoneration video and theJennifer Thompson video (χ2 = 3.92, p < .05). This indicates that individu-als who were exposed to the Jennifer Thompson video or Actual Innocencewere more likely to choose the death penalty in the case vignette involvingDNA evidence.

In addition to being asked whether they would support the deathpenalty in a series of cases after they had been exposed to the treatment,participants were asked about their support for the death penalty in cases in-volving serious crimes such as rape and murder. Responses were rated from0 (very strongly oppose) to 5 (very strongly support). The following resultsare the averages and CIs for death penalty support in the following types ofcases: rape (M = 3.38, 95% 95% CI [3.06, 3.38]), murder (M = 3.95, 95% CI[3.64, 4.27]), serial murder (M = 4.74, 95% CI [4.43, 5.06]), multiple murder(M = 4.72, 95% CI [4.40, 5.04]), child murder (M = 4.76, 95% CI [3.96, 4.60]),child rape (M = 4.27, 95% CI [3.94, 4.60]), law enforcement murder (M =3.92, 95% CI [3.63, 4.22]), and heinous murder (M = 4.83, 95% CI [4.51, 5.14]).

A one-way analysis of variance was used to determine the effect of treat-ment condition on whether individuals would support the death penalty inthese types of cases (see Table 2). There was a significant effect for mur-der and multiple murder among the treatment conditions: murder, F(3, 131)= 1.58, p < .05; multiple murder, F(1, 131) = 3.04, p < .05. There wereno significant effects for rape, serial murder, child murder, child rape, law

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015

TA

BLE

1Cro

ss-T

abul

atio

nof

Sche

ckV

ideo

Usi

ngD

NA

and

Cho

osin

gth

eD

eath

Pena

lty

Sche

ckV

ideo

Usi

ngB

arry

Sche

ckY

ouTub

eJe

nnife

rTho

mpso

nEy

ewitn

ess

Boo

kEx

cerp

tD

NA

No

Tre

atm

ent

Inte

rvie

wTes

timon

yV

ideo

(Act

ual

Inn

ocen

ce)

χ2

"

No

2118

913

11.1

3∗∗.2

8Y

es13

1319

29

∗∗p

<.0

1.

10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


TABLE 2 Likelihood of Voting for the Death Penalty for Experimental Groups

Barry Scheck Jennifer Thompson Book ExcerptYouTube Eyewitness Testimony (Actual

Serious Crime No Treatment Interview Video Innocence) F

Rape 3.03 3.20 3.86 3.67 1.58Murder 3.76 3.29 4.39 4.36 3.41∗∗

Serial murder 4.65 4.13 4.93 5.12 1.95Multiple murder 4.35 4.10 5.07 5.22 3.04∗

Child murder 4.41 4.23 5.07 5.21 2.57Child rape 3.82 3.83 4.61 4.74 2.30Law enforcement

murder3.65 3.42 4.32 4.19 2.05

Heinous murder 4.62 4.39 5.00 5.26 1.67

∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01.

enforcement murder, or heinous murder: rape, F(1, 131) = 1.58, p = .19;serial murder, F(1, 131) = 1.95, p = .12; child murder, F(1, 131) = 2.56, p =.06; child rape, F(1, 131) = 2.29, p = .08; law enforcement murder, F(1, 131)= 2.05, p = .11; and heinous murder, F(1, 131) = 1.67, p = .18. A post hocTukey test showed that with regard to murder, the Jennifer Thompson videodiffered significantly from the Scheck DNA exoneration video (p < .05). Thisindicates that individuals who were exposed to the Jennifer Thompson videowere more likely to choose the death penalty in the case of murder. In ad-dition, the Actual Innocence excerpt differed significantly from the ScheckDNA exoneration video (p < .05), indicating a more favorable attitude towardthe death penalty in murder cases among those who read the Actual Inno-cence excerpt. For the case of multiple murders, the book excerpt differedsignificantly from the Scheck DNA exoneration video (p < .05), indicating amore favorable attitude toward the death penalty for this crime.

A major topic of interest in this study was whether individuals whohad previous knowledge of the death penalty would be less supportive ofit. As previously stated, there was a weak negative relationship betweenknowledge and support (r = −.10, p < .05). Individuals who had moreknowledge were generally more likely to oppose the death penalty. A linearregression analysis indicated that the more quiz questions individuals an-swered correctly, the less likely they were to support the death penalty (seeTable 3). However, when we considered the different crimes committed,

TABLE 3 Summary of Simple Regression Analysis Between Knowledge About the DeathPenalty and Overall Support

Variable B SE B β

Knowledge (quiz answers) −.040 .019 −.096∗

∗p < .05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


TABLE 4 Pearson’s Correlations for Knowledge About the Death Penalty and Support forSerious Crimes

Serious Crime Knowledge (Quiz Answers)

Rape −.13Murder −.23∗∗

Serial murder −.22∗

Multiple murder −.20∗

Child murder −.21∗

Child rape −.10Law enforcement murder −.19∗

Heinous murder −.13

∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01.

weak to moderate negative correlations were found between the amount ofknowledge people had of the death penalty and choosing the death penalty(see Table 4). This suggested that the more knowledge people had, theless likely they were to choose the death penalty. In particular, there weresignificant negative correlations between knowledge and murder (p < .01),serial murder (p < .05), multiple murder (p < .05), child murder (p < .05),law enforcement murder (p < .05), and heinous murder (p < .05). In orderto predict the outcome variable of choosing the death penalty in relation tothe knowledge that individuals had on capital punishment, we conducteda regression to determine the outcome likelihood of predicting the useof the death penalty by how many quiz questions individuals answeredcorrectly. Individuals were more likely to not choose the death penalty ifthey answered a majority of the quiz questions correctly, with the exceptionof the crimes of rape, child rape, and heinous crime (see Table 5). Lastly, it isimportant to note that individuals who showed strong support for the deathpenalty, regardless of prior knowledge of the death penalty or treatmenteffect, supported capital punishment in all of the crimes in the crime matrix(see Table 6).

TABLE 5 Summary of Simple Regression Analysis Between Knowledge About the DeathPenalty and Voting for the Death Penalty

Serious Crime B SE B β

Rape −.108 .071 −.131Murder −.180 .067 −.227∗∗

Serial murder −.175 .068 −.218∗∗

Multiple murder −.162 .070 −.197∗

Child murder −.180 .069 −.219∗∗

Child rape −.091 .074 −.106Law enforcement murder −.135 .065 −.178∗

Heinous murder −.104 .069 −.141

∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


TABLE 6 Summary of Simple Regression Analysis Between Overall Opinion and Voting forthe Death Penalty for Serious Crimes

Serious Crime B SE B β

Rape .49 .25 .27∗∗

Murder .59 .14 .35∗∗

Serial murder .50 .14 .29∗∗

Multiple murder .50 .15 .29∗∗

Child murder .51 .15 .29∗∗

Child rape .41 .16 .22∗∗

Law enforcement murder .47 .17 .29∗∗

Heinous murder .37 .15 .21∗∗

∗∗ p < .01.

DISCUSSION

Our first hypothesis in this study was that individuals with more knowl-edge about the death penalty would show less support for using capitalpunishment in a series of cases. Consistent with this expectation, the resultsindicated a weak correlation between knowledge and level of support forusing the death penalty. In addition, we also found that more knowledge-able individuals were less likely to support the death penalty across a rangeof different crimes (see Table 4). These results support Thurgood Marshall’sclaim that the more knowledge an individual has about capital punishment,the less likely he or she will be to support the death penalty (Bohm, 1989;Bohm et al., 1991; Sarat & Vidmar, 1976).

The second part of the study looked into which treatment(s) (JenniferThompson video, Scheck DNA exoneration video, and Actual Innocence[Scheck et al., 2000] excerpt) would affect support for the death penalty ina series of case vignettes. We found that individuals exposed to the ActualInnocence excerpt were more likely to choose the death penalty in casevignettes that utilized DNA testing. The response of “yes” in the DNA casealigns with the theme of the book, as it argues that reliable DNA evidencemust be used in death penalty cases to ensure that the true perpetrator iscaught. Therefore, we conclude that our second hypothesis in this study wasvalidated. However, the second most effective treatment condition was theJennifer Thompson video, which discussed eyewitness testimony. Individualswere also more likely to support the death penalty when exposed to theActual Innocence excerpt in the crime matrix. It is interesting that theseresults were only significant for the crimes of murder and multiple murders.Because the death penalty today is only applied in these types of cases,the results are relevant to the actual use of the death penalty. Once again,the second most effective treatment condition was the Jennifer Thompsonvideo in regard to attitudes toward the death penalty in cases of murder andmultiple murders.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


In examining the knowledge and method of delivery variables in thisstudy, we found that levels of support for the death penalty prior to treatmenthad a significant effect on choosing the death penalty in the crime matrix.Individuals who showed strong support for the death penalty were morelikely to favor it in answering the crime matrix (see Table 4). Thus, overallsupport may be a confounding variable when one is assessing the effectsof different levels of treatment and knowledge. Future studies may wantto separate overall support and look at whether knowledge in itself is apredictor of choosing the death penalty in a crime matrix.

There are several limitations present in the current study. First, the smallnumber of individuals who showed up for the second round of the studywas not expected. Initially there were 481 participants, a number that wasultimately reduced to 135. We would have liked to have obtained a highernumber to ensure a more accurate and reliable analysis of the data. Second,participants were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions. Individualswere able to choose which date they would like to return for the secondpart of the study. For future studies, the use of random assignment wouldbe preferable to ensure greater internal validity and reliability.

Another limitation had to do with our sample demographics. Thisstudy focused mainly on Hispanic individuals, but that had more to dowith convenience because a majority of the population of our samplewas Hispanic. Future studies could purposely select only Hispanics to seewhether death penalty opinions are considerably unique among people ofdifferent ethnicities.

One of our main implications for this study was based on the methodof delivery for information regarding the death penalty. There were threespecific methods of deliveries, and two were significantly important in in-fluencing public opinion on choosing the death penalty for a specific crimevignette and crimes. It is evident in this study that people exposed to writtenmaterial, such as the Actual Innocence excerpt, and Jennifer Thompson’svideo were more inclined to choose the death penalty as a method of cap-ital punishment. This may suggest that individuals need to be as certain aspossible to make a clear decision on using the death penalty due to thefact that individuals have been exonerated by the use of DNA testing and bywrongful eyewitness identification. If individuals felt that those specificationswere met in the case vignettes, then their decision favored the death penalty.However, it is important to note that in regard to using the death penalty in acase vignette and crime matrix, individuals who were exposed to the ActualInnocence excerpt were more likely to favor the death penalty. This suggeststhat written material may be more powerful than videos at influencing publicopinion. In reading Actual Innocence, individuals were probably more likelyto perceive the book as factual information backed by research. In contrast,those who watched the Barry Scheck video on Marion Coakley’s case, whichled to the creation of the Innocence Project, may have had the impression of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


it being a single case of wrongful conviction. Although Jennifer Thompson’svideo was also one example, it was more personal and may have impactedviewers more than the Barry Scheck video. This could be further analyzedin future studies wanting to examine the influence on public opinion of thedeath penalty of written information versus other methods of delivery.

Another limitation of this study involves the location where the studywas conducted. South Texas is a predominantly Hispanic area of the state,so results may not be generalizable to other parts of the state and country.However, it is important to note that Texas has the highest use of the deathpenalty, which might imply that perceptions of the use of capital punishmentmight be influenced by that fact. The results from this study suggest thatfavorable impressions of the death penalty might be predicted by the overallusage of capital punishment in the State of Texas. Therefore, utilizing otherHispanic populations in Texas that are not the majority ethnicity could furtherclarify whether there are differences of opinions regarding the death penalty.In addition, focusing on other states that do not implement the death penaltycould also be a direction that researchers may want to consider in examiningthis issue.

The use of a predominantly Hispanic sample enrolled in a universityprovides much insight into how knowledge of wrongful convictions affectsparticipants’ rationale by tapping into their personal involvement by report-ing true cases of wrongful convictions. Further research must be conductedwhen the first posthumously exonerated person is determined to be un-questionably innocent. It is essential to continue research on this growingpopulation, for Hispanics will make up 25% of the total American populationby 2050 and will soon constitute the majority demographic group in severalstates (U.S. Census Bureau, Population Projection Division, 2012). Further-more, it would be interesting to replicate this study in a population locatedin a state where the death penalty is not used as much as in Texas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors of this study would like to thank Dr. John Kilburn, Dr. Kelly L.Frailing, and Dr. Amy L. Poland for their helpful remarks and comments.

REFERENCES

Baumgartner, F. R., De Boef, S. L., & Boydstun, A. E. (2008). The decline of the deathpenalty and the discovery of innocence. New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bedau, H. A., & Radelet, M. L. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in potentially capitalcases. Stanford Law Review, 40, 21–179.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


Bohm, R. M. (1989). The effects of classroom instruction and discussion on deathpenalty opinions: A teaching note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, 123–131.

Bohm, R. M. (1990). Death penalty opinions: Effects of a classroom experience andpublic commitment. Sociological Inquiry, 60, 285–297.

Bohm, R. M., Clark, L., & Aveni, A. F. (1990). The influence of knowledge for deathpenalty opinions: An experimental test. Justice Quarterly, 7, 175–188.

Bohm, R. M., Clark, L., & Aveni, A. F. (1991). Knowledge and death penalty opinion:A test of the Marshall hypotheses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-quency, 28, 360–387.

Bohm, R. M., & Vogel, R. E. (1991). Educational experiences and death penaltyopinions: Stimuli that produce changes. Journal of Criminal Justice Education,2, 69–80.

Bohm, R. M., & Vogel, R. E. (1994). A comparison of factors associated with unin-formed and informed death penalty opinions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22,125–143.

Bohm, R. M., & Vogel, R. E. (2002, March). More than ten years after: The long-termstability of informed death penalty opinion. Paper presented at the 39th AnnualMeeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Anaheim, CA.

Bohm, R. M., Vogel, R. E., & Maisto, A. A. (1993). Knowledge and death penaltyopinion: A panel study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 29–45.

Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Sixty-five actual errors of criminaljustice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bowers, W. J., Vandiver, M., & Dugan, P. H. (1994). A new look at public opinionon capital punishment: What citizens and legislators prefer. American Journalof Criminal Law, 22, 77–150.

Clarke, A. W., Lambert, E., & Whitt, L. A. (2000–2001). Executing the innocent:The next step in the Marshall hypotheses. Review of Law & Social Change, 26,309–345.

Clawson, R. A. (2009). The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of inno-cence [Book review]. Journal of Politics, 71, 1604–1606.

Cochran, J. K., & Chamlin, M. B. (2005). Can information change public opinion?Another test of the Marshall hypothesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 573–584.

Cochran, J. K., Sanders, B., & Chamlin, M. B. (2006). Profiles in change: An alternativelook at the Marshall hypotheses. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 17(2),205–226.

Ellsworth, P., & Ross, L. (1983). Public opinion and capital punishment: A closeexamination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime and Delin-quency, 29, 116–169.

Flanagan, T. J., Gasdow, P., & Cohen, D. (1992). Conservatism and capital punish-ment in the state capital: Lawmakers and the death penalty. The Prison Journal,72, 37–56.

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D.J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exon-

erations in the United States 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law andCriminology, 95(2), 523–560.

Huff, C. R., Rattner A., & Sagarin, E. (1986). Guilty until proven innocent: Wrongfulconviction and public policy. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 518–544.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


Lambert, E., & Clarke, A. (2001). The impact of information on an individual’s supportof the death penalty: A test of the Marshall hypothesis among college studentsat a Michigan university. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12(3), 215–234.

Longmire, D. R. (1996). Americans’ attitudes about the ultimate weapon: Capitalpunishment. In T. J. Flanagan & D. R. Longmire (Eds.), Americans view crimeand justice: A national public opinion survey (pp. 93–108). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude po-larization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.

McCloskey, J. (1989). Convicting the innocent. Criminal Justice Ethics, 8, 2–12.Michel, C., & Cochran, J. K. (2011). The effects of information on change in death

penalty support: Race-and gender-specific extensions of the Marshall hypothe-ses. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 9, 291–313.

Patenaude, A. L. (2001). May God have mercy on your soul! Exploring and teaching acourse on the death penalty. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12, 405–425.

Proveda, T. G. (2001). Estimating wrongful convictions. Justice Quarterly, 18,689–708.

Radelet, M. L., & Bedau, H. A. (1998) The Execution of the Innocent. Law andContemporary Problems, 61, 105–124.

Ramsey, R. J., & Frank, J. (2007). Perceptions of Criminal Justice Professionals Re-garding the Frequency of Wrongful Conviction and the Extent of System Error.Crime and Delinquency, 53(2), 436–470.

Rehnquist, W. H. (1986). Constitutional law and public opinion. Suffolk UniversityLaw Review, 20, 751–769.

Sanchez, G. R. (2006). The role of group consciousness in Latino public opinion.Political Research Quarterly, 59, 435–446.

Sandys, M. (1995). Attitudinal change among students in a capital punishment class:It may be possible. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 37–55.

Sarat, A., & Vidmar, N. (1976). Public opinion, the death penalty, and the EighthAmendment: Testing the Marshall hypothesis. Wisconsin Law Review, 17,171–206.

Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: When justice goeswrong and how to make it right. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

The Innocence Project. (n.d). Non-DNA exonerations. Retrieved March 12, 2013 fromhttp://www.innocenceproject.org/.

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).Uhlaner, C. J., & Garcia, C. F. (2002). Latino Public Opinion. In B. Norrander & C.

Wilcox (Eds.), Understanding Public Opinion (pp. 77–102). Washington, DC:CQ Press.

U.S. Census Bureau (2012). Population Projection Division: U.S. Census Bureauprojections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half centuryfrom now. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/2012.html.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2012). Prisoners in 2011(Report No. NCJ 239808). Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


Vidmar, N., & Dittenhoffer, T. (1981). Informed public opinion and death penaltyattitudes. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 23, 43–56.

Vollum, S., Longmire, D. R., & Buffington-Vollum, J. (2004). Confidence in the deathpenalty and support for its use: Exploring the value-expressive dimension ofdeath penalty attitudes. Justice Quarterly, 21, 521–545.

Weinstock, D., & Schwartz, G. (1998). Executing the innocent: Preventing the ulti-mate injustice. Criminal Law Bulletin, 34, 328–347.

Wright, H., Bohm, R., & Jamieson, K. (1995). A comparison of uniformed and in-formed death penalty opinions: A replication and expansion. American Journalof Criminal Justice, 20, 57–87.

Zeisel, H., & Gallup, A. M. 1989. Death penalty sentiment in the United States.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5, 285–96.

CONTRIBUTORS

Stephanie Diaz is a graduate student at the University of Cincinnati. Herprimary interests are on public opinion on the death penalty and the use ofsocial media technology in courtroom reporting. This work reflects part ofan honor thesis completed by Stephanie Diaz at Texas A&M InternationalUniversity.

Ray Garza is an Instructor of Psychology at Texas A&M International Uni-versity. He has been a full-time instructor since January 2011. He primarilyteaches courses in Psychology in addition to Statistics in Psychology andCriminal Justice. His primary interests are in Evolutionary Psychology, buthas worked in Criminal Justice research in public opinion on the deathpenalty and social media technology in courtroom reporting.

APPENDIX A

Knowledge Statements

Note: All response categories were the same: true, false, and don’t know.Answers were coded 0 for wrong and 1 for right.

1. [Know1] Similar offenders convicted of murder often receive dissimilarsentences; that is, some are sentenced to death while others are sen-tenced to an alternative less than death. Correct Answer: True

2. [Know2] Capital punishment reduces violent crime. Correct Answer: False3. [Know3] Poor people who commit murder are more likely to be sen-

tenced to death than rich people. Correct Answer: True

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


4. [Know4] Capital punishment is less expensive than life imprisonmentwithout parole. Correct Answer: False

5. [Know5] A Black person is more likely to receive the death penalty thana White person for the same crime. Correct Answer: True

6. [Know6] Those who murder White victims are more likely to receive thedeath penalty than those who murder Blacks. Correct Answer: True

7. [Know7] The murder rate is lower in states with the death penalty. CorrectAnswer: False

8. [Know8] The death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment with-out possibility of parole in protecting society from murder and otherviolent crimes. Correct Answer: False

9. [Know9] A juvenile offender in the State of Texas may be sentenced todeath for especially violent crimes. Correct Answer: False

10. [Know10] The murder rate usually drops in the weeks following a well-publicized execution. Correct Answer: False

APPENDIX B

Case Vignettes

Note: All response categories were the same: yes and no and a blank spacefor the participant’s rationale. Answers were coded 0 for no and 1 for yes.

1. DNA: A White male in his late 20s was caught in the scene of a heinousmurder with his DNA on the victim and on the murder weapon.

2. Eyewitness Identification: A White female was raped and shot to deathduring a party. Several partygoers witnessed the perpetrator fleeing thescene. Eyewitnesses on the scene described a Black male in early 20swearing a local high school letterman jacket. A Black male in his early20s was apprehended 15 miles away from the crime scene wearing saidjacket. Eyewitnesses from the scene picked him in a lineup. Suspect sayshe was at his home with parents during the alleged murder/rape and bothparents verify his whereabouts. No DNA was found on the victim and nomurder weapon was retrieved.

3. False Confession: A female was raped, tortured, and murdered in herapartment. Detectives asked residents in the apartment for any informationabout the victim. Detectives stated in their notes that a mentally impairedmale was acting suspiciously and took him in for questioning. After 8 hoursof questioning, the male submitted a signed confession. During trial, themale revealed the detectives used physical and mental coercion to get himto confess. They repeatedly offered him information about the crime and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015


told him what to write on the confession. DNA evidence on victim did notmatch suspect.

4. Jailhouse Snitch: A male suspect, while waiting for a court appearance fora murder and sexual assault of a child, sat in the local jail and engaged in aconversation with another inmate. The inmate, who was there for batteryand theft charges, told prosecutors that the alleged suspect confessedto him about the murder and provided him with details that only the“murderer” would know. The prosecutors offered the inmate a reducedsentence and no probation if he testified at the trial about the conversation.

5. Legally Blonde: A rich, influential man in the upper 70s was shot to deathin his own home. His 29-year-old daughter stated she saw her stepmother,a 25-year-old, standing over his body covered with his blood. The step-mother and father married 2 months prior with no prenuptial agreement.The stepmother stated she was exercising at the time of the murder andcame home to find the husband dead. No recording can be found of thestepmother at the gym and no witnesses can verify her whereabouts. Nomurder weapon was recovered and no fingerprints were found at thescene.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [T

exas

A &

M In

tern

atio

nal U

nive

rsity

], [R

ay G

arza

] at 0

8:39

29

Janu

ary

2015

The Troy Davis Effect: Does Information on Wrongful Convictions Affect Death Penalty Opinions?

Documents

Transcript of The Troy Davis Effect: Does Information on Wrongful Convictions Affect Death Penalty Opinions?