Miscarriage of justice

A serious failure in the administration of justice, especially the wrongful conviction or punishment of an innocent person. It can also include a major procedural failure that undermines a just outcome.

False confession: A confession to a crime that the confessor did not commit or that did not occur. Coercion, exhaustion, or deceptive questioning can make an innocent person appear guilty.
Birmingham Six: Six Irish men wrongfully convicted in 1975 of pub bombings in Birmingham, England. Their convictions were overturned after disputed confessions and evidence came under scrutiny.
Wrongful conviction: A criminal conviction of a person who did not commit the offense or was not legally guilty of it. It is the most visible form of miscarriage of justice.
Innocence project: A legal organization that uses post-conviction investigation and DNA testing to challenge wrongful convictions. It has helped expose convictions based on mistaken identification, false testimony, and faulty forensic evidence.
Brady disclosure: The prosecution's constitutional duty in the United States to disclose material evidence favorable to the defense. Enforcement remains contested when favorable evidence is withheld or disclosed too late.
Eyewitness misidentification: An inaccurate identification of a person as someone a witness observed during an event. Mistaken identifications can steer investigations and persuade juries despite weak corroboration.
Guildford Four: Four people wrongly convicted of IRA bombings in Guildford, England, in 1975. Their case exposed unreliable confessions and serious investigative failures.
Exoneration: The official clearing of a person from blame or legal responsibility for an offense. Exonerations correct some wrongful convictions but cannot undo years of lost freedom.
DNA profiling: A method of identifying individuals by analyzing distinctive patterns in their DNA. Retained biological evidence can exclude a convicted person or identify another perpetrator.
Junk science: Scientific-sounding claims that lack reliable methods or adequate empirical support. Courts continue to debate how experts should be screened and how uncertainty should be communicated.

Linked from 1 page