People wrongfully convicted of crimes in the United States have received around $2.2 billion in compensation claims since 2019.
A new report by the National Registry of Exonerations said the amount nearly doubled in just five years.
Barbara O'Brien, editor of the registry, explained even if states saw fewer or no exonerations, it does not necessarily mean there are fewer wrongfully convicted people behind bars. She noted people in prison may not have access to the resources needed to prove their innocence.
"Since 1989, West Virginia's had 14 exonerations," O'Brien reported. "I always caution people not to read too much into the number of exonerations as some sort of indicator of how the systems are working."
Official misconduct is the reason for wrongful convictions in at least 77% of exoneration cases. West Virginia has a two-year time limit for filing compensation claims.
According to The Innocence Project, in 2020, the state changed the law to remove a clause requiring another person to be convicted of the same crime in order for the exonerated person to qualify for compensation.
Other factors leading to exonerations include perjury or false accusations, false or misleading forensic evidence, false confessions and mistaken witness identification. O'Brien pointed out it is not just taxpayers who end up footing the bill for bloated prisons and exoneration payments.
"Incarcerating people costs a lot of money," O'Brien outlined. "If we're incarcerating the wrong people, that's costing the taxpayers. And if it's a case where there is a real perpetrator out there who they didn't catch, they're committing more crimes."
She added cost cannot make up for lost time innocent people have spent behind bars. The report said exonerated individuals in 2023 lost more than 2,000 years collectively for crimes they did not commit, an average of around 15 years per person wrongfully imprisoned. Nearly 84% of exonerees last year were persons of color, and 61% were Black.
get more stories like this via email
By Alyssa Burr for the Michigan Independent.
Broadcast version by Chrystal Blair for Michigan News Connection reporting for the Michigan Independent-Public News Service Collaboration
Renee Chelian, founder and CEO of Northland Family Planning Center in Sterling Heights, has been an abortion provider for more than 50 years. During that time, she says, anti-abortion groups have harmed and harassed her, as well as her staff, patients and family, with constant threats of violence, including large blockades, arson attempts, and even death threats.
It wasn’t until the federal government enacted the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which sought to address the harm individuals obtaining and providing abortion care were facing, that she saw the violence lessen.
“Once the law went into effect, the violent blockade stopped immediately,” Chelian testified during a May 22 state Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee hearing. “We still had protesters, but they were not physically attacking our clinics, staff and patients.”
Three decades after the FACE Act took effect, Democrats in the Michigan Senate are working to create state-level safeguards that would protect Michigan abortion care providers and their patients in the event that the Republican-led Congress struck it from the books.
Republican-sponsored legislation to repeal the FACE Act is currently moving through the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump pardoned 23 individuals who had been convicted of violating the FACE Act on charges of harassing pregnant patients, physically blocking clinic entrances, and breaking into medical facilities. Four of the pardons were for individuals charged with blockading Chelian’s Sterling Heights clinic in 2020.
Recalling the day of that blockade in committee, Chelian said that patients were stuck in their cars, including three women who had come in for abortions following the detection of fatal fetal anomalies in their pregnancies.
“One woman was leaking amniotic fluid and blood and was scheduled for the second day of a two-day procedure, and she needed immediate medical care. She huddled with her mother and her husband, trapped in the parking lot while extremists plastered signs of fake fetuses on her car windows and shouted, ‘God loves you, God loves your baby,’” Chelian said.
She added that day was traumatic for herself, her staff and her patients, with some even seeking mental health treatment. After Trump pardoned those convicted of attacking her clinic, she said it left them reliving their trauma and “feeling abandoned by the government.”
In March, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a Royal Oak Democrat, introduced Senate Bills 154 and 155, which mirror the FACE Act. The bills would do three things: prohibit a person from threatening, intimidating or interfering with someone obtaining or providing an abortion; prohibit an individual from intentionally damaging a health care facility that provides abortions; and create penalties for those who violate the bill’s provisions.
The legislation does allow certain exemptions for picketing or other demonstrations protected under the First Amendment, and it also specifies that a parent wouldn’t face any penalties so long as their interference is only directed toward their minor child.
“We cannot rely on federal protections that are actively being dismantled and pardoned away,” McMorrow said during the May Senate committee hearing.
The committee hearing featured testimony from Chelian, as well as other Michigan abortion providers who fear that extremism from anti-abortion groups could severely escalate if the FACE Act is repealed.
Dr. Neha Thawani is completing her obstetrics and gynecology residency at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. Since beginning her medical training eight years ago, she said, she’s passed through dozens of medical facilities offering a wide range of services, but it wasn’t until she spent time providing abortions in an outpatient clinic that she was “exposed to emergency lockdown protocols, a daily gauntlet of protesters, or saw patients escorted through side doors for their safety.”
Shelly Miller, executive director of the Scotsdale Women’s Center, a clinic in Detroit, said abortion providers have to go further than other parents in teaching their children safety measures: “It is not safe to open the mailbox alone. Never open a package without your parents, and you should certainly never discuss your parents’ line of work.”
“I need you to know there is nothing peaceful about these groups,” Miller told the Senate panel. “These are not kind-hearted people praying outside. These people scream horrible things at our patients, their chaperones and our staff. They shove their bodies close to us and our building entrances with force. … They post photos on social media, send hateful mail to our homes and aggressively run up on people as they try to get out of their cars. They have made recordings and then edited those recordings to use against us. They have been responsible for fires and bombings and ultimately killings of clinic staff and doctors around the country.”
If it enacted the law, Michigan would join 14 states and Washington, D.C., in providing legal protections to abortion clinic staff and patients from harassment or physical harm, according to McMorrow.
Genevieve Marron, legislative director for Right to Life Michigan, an anti-abortion group, submitted written testimony to the committee in opposition to the bills. In her letter, she said that the legislation is a “solution in search of a problem” because the FACE Act already covers the same area of law and that it would limit the reach of “sidewalk counselors,” anti-abortion activists who stand outside clinics and try to convince patients not to have abortions.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending the federal right to an abortion, Michigan lawmakers have taken steps to preserve reproductive health care in the state, including enshrining abortion access in the state constitution.
Even though the current bills are unlikely to make it through the Republican-controlled Michigan House of Representatives, McMorrow said the issue isn’t about ideology or politics; rather, it’s about continuing to provide basic safety and access to medical care.
“When activists can physically block patients from entering clinics, when they can break into medical facilities, when they can harass vulnerable patients without consequence, we have failed in our duty to protect both patients and health care providers,” McMorrow said.
Alyssa Burr wrote this article for the Michigan Independent.
get more stories like this via email
Local law enforcement agencies, including in North Dakota, are decrying a move by the Trump administration to label some jurisdictions as "sanctuaries" over perceived differences related to immigration arrests.
The Department of Homeland Security last week released a list of jurisdictions, including cities and counties it said were "deliberately obstructing" enforcement of federal immigration laws. In response, some local departments said their city or county never adopted such a policy.
Steve Hunt, sheriff of Traill County and president of the North Dakota Sheriff's and Deputies Association, said none of the departments listed for his state should have been mentioned.
"I was extremely disappointed and frankly, angry," Hunt recounted. "On a much grander scale, it does have an effect."
Hunt said he is still willing to work with federal partners in detaining a person under deportation orders, but he said politics should not be mixed with the mission of upholding the law. The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to requests for comment but has taken down the list from its website after local pushback.
Some law enforcement observers wondered if there were clerical errors in creating the list but policy experts said the administration is applying more pressure to boost deportation numbers, and one way to do so is threatening to cut off federal funds for not complying.
Local departments said they were not told about compliance problems and Hunt stressed North Dakota offices were kept in the dark.
"We don't know what criteria was used or what substantiated being placed on that list," Hunt noted. "That's probably the most frustrating part."
Even if a local department backs the current administration, groups said what happened erodes trust with federal leadership. The "sanctuary city" movement is often aligned with left-leaning cities or counties limiting local involvement with federal immigration authorities. Supporters of the laws insist it does not block Immigration and Customs Enforcement from doing its work.
get more stories like this via email
More states are considering "clean state" laws, which establish a process to automatically seal records of most misdemeanor criminal charges.
Experts said West Virginia continues to rely on an antiquated record-keeping system for criminal records, and despite incremental steps to make expungement easier, most residents with a criminal history face difficult barriers getting their records cleaned.
Logan Seacrest, resident fellow for criminal justice and civil liberties at the center-right think tank R Street Institute, said most states rely on a petition-based system to expunge old criminal records, which is complex and expensive. He explained when people cannot clear their records, they are less likely to get a job or find safe housing.
"Most reasonable people would agree that a single error shouldn't permanently define one's future," Seacrest pointed out. "Yet the current system we have in most states, even a minor conviction, something like a DUI or a nonviolent drug offense, can have lifelong ramifications."
Earlier this year West Virginia lawmakers considered legislation which would have expanded eligibility for expungement to individuals who did complete successful rehabilitation programs or individuals enrolled in some type of diversionary program but the bill did not make it through the legislature.
Seacrest noted research shows one of the best ways to reduce recidivism is to help former offenders secure meaningful employment. He added there are economic benefits for some of the nation's largest employers.
"It's been hard for companies to hire good people," Seacrest observed. "Actually, people who get employment after a conviction, through a clean slate, are no less likely to quit early."
People out of prison continue to experience extreme rates of unemployment, around six of every 10 people being jobless from the time of release to four years after release, according to federal data.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
