Why wrongful convictions are so hard to undo once prosecutors commit
October 5, 2026 · 14 min read
Josh Dubin's account of the Ohio 4, a former prosecutor's explanation of why his colleagues cannot admit mistakes, and Harvey Silverglate's criticism of the FBI and political prosecutions all describe a system with few incentives to correct itself. The pattern matters because a person's freedom can depend less on the evidence than on whether an official is willing to reverse course.
The rules, numbers and steps worth keeping in front of you.
- Convictions persist because no one with power gains by undoing them.
- Dubin: four men were convicted on one paid witness, with no forensic evidence.
- The witness recanted more than once; the convictions still stand.
- A federal court found a credible claim of innocence for one man.
- Courts view recantations with deep suspicion.
- A recanting witness faces perjury either way, so he stays silent in court.
- Tomlinson, the former prosecutor, found no evidence of guilt in the record.
- His successor withdrew support for new trials on his second day.
- Tomlinson: prosecutors want to win; those he overturned turned on him.
- Tomlinson says most convictions are probably good; he reviewed only two cases.
- Dubin: prosecutors have immunity even for withholding evidence.
- Silverglate: agents pick the person first and then build the case.
- Publicity is one of the few levers that works.
- Not legal advice; anyone facing charges or seeking review needs a lawyer.
This is the short form. The full insight has every expert's reasoning, their own words and the sources.