Drawing on data from the Supreme Court case registry between 2007 and 2023, this study examines 63 cases of wrongful convictions in Chile. It aims to contribute to the global understanding of the factors leading to wrongful convictions while underscoring the importance of contextual differences. Our analysis reveals traditional factors such as mistaken eyewitness identification and official misconduct, alongside Chile-specific issues. Notably, identity theft, exacerbated by weak procedural safeguards, emerges as a predominant factor. We argue that Chile’s restrictive post-conviction review process needs reform, as it currently only identifies cases involving gross errors, thereby overlooking many wrongful convictions that might be recognized in other jurisdictions
AlbrightT.GarrettB. (2021). The law and science of eyewitness evidence. Boston University Law Review, 201, 511–629. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3675055
3.
BeltránV. (2021). Visión de túnel: notas sobre el impacto de sesgos cognitivos y otros factores en la toma de decisiones en la justicia criminal. Revista De Estudios De La Justicia, 34, 17–58. https://doi.org/10.5354/0718-4735.2021.60210
4.
BeltránV.DuceM. (2024). ¿Qué se ha investigado en América Latina sobre condenas e imputaciones erróneas? Una revisión sistemática de la literatura disponible en el período 2010-2023. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 10(1), e928. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v10i1.928
5.
BennerL. (2009). The presumption of guilt: Systemic factors that contribute to ineffective Assistance of Counsel in California. California Western Law Review, 45(2), 263–372.
6.
BerubeR.WilfordM.RedlichA.WangY. (2022). Identifying patterns across the six canonical factors underlying wrongful convictions. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, 3(3), 166–195. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr82
7.
BrantsC. (2013). Wrongful convictions and inquisitorial process: The case of the Netherlands. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80(4), 1069–1114.
8.
CampbellK. M. (2018). Miscarriages of justice in Canada: Causes, responses, remedies. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487514563
9.
CarbonellF.ValenzuelaJ. (2021) La prueba de la inocencia y las defensas probatorias: en el caso de la revisión. Revista Chilena de Derecho, 48(1), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.7764/r.481.3
10.
CastilloI. (2013). Enjuiciando al proceso penal chileno desde el inocentrismo (Algunos apuntes sobre la necesidad de tomarse en serio a los inocentes). Política Criminal, 8(15), 249–313. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-33992013000100007
11.
CatalánM. (2019). Aproximación empírica sobre la realización y valoración de la prueba del reconocimiento ocular en Chile. Ediciones Jurídicas de Santiago.
12.
CoveyR. (2013). Police misconduct as a cause of wrongful convictions. Washington University Law Review, 90(4), 1133–1189.
13.
CutlerB. (2013). Reform of eyewitness identification procedures. American Psychological Association.
14.
DuceM. (2013). ¿Debiéramos preocuparnos de la condena de inocentes en Chile? Antecedentes comparados y locales para el debate. Revista Ius et Praxis, 19(1), 77–138. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-00122013000100004
DuceM. (2017). Los reconocimientos oculares: una aproximación empírica a su funcionamiento y algunas recomendaciones para su mejora. Política Criminal, 12(23), 291–379. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-33992017000100009
17.
DuceM. (2019). Los procedimientos abreviados y simplificados y el riesgo de condenas erróneas en Chile: resultados de una investigación empírica. Revista de derecho (Coquimbo), 26, 12. https://doi.org/10.22199/issn.0718-9753-2019-0012
18.
DuceM. (2022). La corrección de condenas erróneas en Chile: la necesidad de discutir un nuevo equilibrio. Revista de derecho (Coquimbo), 29, 15. https://doi.org/10.22199/issn.0718-9753-4653
19.
DuceM. (2024). Plea bargaining and the risk of wrongful convictions: A comparative overview. In LangerM.McConvilleM.MarshL. (Eds.), Research handbook on plea bargaining and criminal justice (pp. 278–297). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802206678.00027
20.
DuceM.FindleyK. (2022). Wrongful convictions and prosecutions: an introductory overview. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 8(2), 523–566. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i2.746
21.
DuceM.FuentesC. (2023). Trials and jury trials in Latin America. In AmbosK.MartínezJ. (Eds.), Göttingen Handbook on Latin American Public Law and Criminal Justice (pp. 523–547). Nomos.
22.
DuceM.RiegoC. (2007). Proceso penal. Editorial Jurídica de Chile.
FindleyK.ScottM. (2006). The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 291–397.
25.
GarciandíaP. (2016). El proceso de revisión de las sentencias penales. Thomson Reuters Aranzadi.
26.
GarrettB. (2011). Convicting the Innocent. Harvard University Press.
27.
GarrettB. (2021). Autopsy of a crime lab: Exposing the flaws in forensics. University of California Press.
28.
GarridoM.CalvoC.BenítezL. (2023). Miscarriages of justice in Argentina. In RobinsJ. (Ed.). Murder, wrongful conviction and the law: An international comparative analysis (pp. 151–166). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003251484-10
29.
GilliéronG. (2013). Wrongful convictions in Switzerland: A problem of summary proceedings. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80(4), 1145–1165.
30.
GodseyM. (2017). Blind injustice. University of California Press
31.
GouldJ.LeoR. (2010). One hundred years later: Wrongful convictions after a century of research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 825–868.
HaddadH.PintoS. (2022). O panorama dos erros judiciários no Estado de Minas Gerais. Revista De Estudos Empíricos em Direito, 9, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v10.728
34.
HelmR. (2022). Wrongful conviction in England and Wales: An assessment of successful appeals and key contributors. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, 3(3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr79
35.
HenryJ. (2020). Smoke but not fire: Convicting the innocent of crimes that never happened. University of California Press.
36.
HodgsonJ. (2005). French criminal justice: A comparative account of the investigation and prosecution of crime in France. Hart Publishing.
HoyleC.SatoM. (2019). Reasons to doubt: Wrongful convictions and the criminal case review commission. Oxford University.
39.
HuffR.KilliasM. (2010). Wrongful conviction: International perspectives on miscarriages of justice. Temple University Press.
40.
HuffR.KilliasM. (2013). Wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice causes and remedies in North American and European criminal justice systems. Routledge.
41.
KassinS. M.DrizinS. A.GrissoT.GudjonssonG. H.LeoR. A.RedlichA. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
42.
KilliasM.GuilliéronG.DongoisN. (2007). A survey of exonerations in Switzerland over ten years. Swiss National Science Foundation.
43.
LangerM. (2007). Revolution in Latin American criminal procedure: Diffusion of ideas from the periphery. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 55, 4.
LangerM.SozzoM. (2023). Justicia penal y meca mismos de condena sin juicio: estudios sobre América Latina. Marcial Pons.
46.
LassiterG. D.MeissnerC. A. (Eds.). (2010). Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations. American Psychological Association.
47.
LeL. C.HoangY. H.BuiH. T.NguyenD. Q.MaiS. T.LuongH. T. (2023) Wrongful convictions in Asian countries: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 48, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2023.2188235
48.
LeoR. (2009). False confessions: Causes, consequences and implications. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(3), 332–343.
49.
LeuschnerF.RettenbergerM.DesseckerA. (2020). Imprisoned but innocent: Wrongful convictions and imprisonments in Germany, 1990-2016. Crime & Delinquency, 66(5), 687–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719833355
50.
LilloR. (2023). Condenas sin juicio en la justicia penal chilena. Resultados de un estudio empírico exploratorio en la jurisdicción de Santiago. In LangerM.SozzoM. (Eds.), Justicia penal y mecanismos de condena sin juicio en América Latina (pp. 227–270). Marcial Pons.
51.
LupáriaL.PittirutiM. (2020). Post-conviction remedies in the Italian criminal justice system. Erasmus Law Review, 4, 63–72.
52.
MañalichJ. P. (2020). Justicia, procedimiento y acción de revisión. El principio de culpabilidad frente a la cosa juzgada. Revista Ius et Praxis, 26(1), 28–56. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-00122020000100028
53.
MedwedD. (2012). Prosecution complex: America’s race to convict and its impact on the innocent. New York University Press.
54.
MerinoA.ReuseM. (2010). Testigos Presenciales y Reconocimiento de Imputados en Chile. Aproximación a los Procedimientos Utilizados y Propuestas para una Mejora de Prácticas. Revista de Derecho y Ciencias Penales, 15, 55–83.
55.
MeterkoV. (2016). Strengths and limitations of forensic science: What DNA exonerations have taught us and where to go from here. West Virginia Law Review, 119(2), 639–649.
56.
MorganJ. (2023). Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 68(3), 908–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15233
57.
NashC.Dioso-VillaR.PorterL. (2024). Factors contributing to guilty plea wrongful convictions: A quantitative analysis of Australian appellate court judgements. Crime & Delinquency, 70, 441–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211054723
58.
NatapoffA. (2012). Misdemeanors. Southern California Law Review, 101, 1313–1376.
59.
NatapoffA. (2018). Punishment without crime. Basic Books.
60.
National Registry of Exonerations. (2020). Government misconduct and convicting the innocent: The role of prosecutors, police and other law enforcement.
61.
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. The National Academy Press.
62.
National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. The National Academies Press.
63.
NorrisR.BonventreC.AckerJ. (2018). When justice fails: Causes and consequences of wrongful convictions. Carolina Academic Press.
64.
OliverG. (2021). Proceso penal chileno: algunos aspectos problemáticos. Tirant lo Blanch.
65.
OubiñaS. (2018). La revisión de condenas firmes del art. 384 CP: teoría y práctica. Tráfico y Seguridad Vial, 225, 1–18.
66.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2016). Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature- comparison methods.
67.
RadeletM.BedauH.PutnamC. (1992). In spite of innocence. erroneous convictions in capital cases. Northeastern University Press.
68.
RaederM. (2007). See no evil: Wrongful convictions and the prosecutorial ethics of offering testimony by jailhouse informants and dishonest experts. Ford-ham Law Review, 76, 1413–1452.
69.
RakoffJ. (2021). Why the innocent plead guilty and the guilty go free (and other paradoxes of our broken legal system). Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
70.
RoachK. (2010). Wrongful convictions: Adversarial and inquisitorial themes. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 35(2), 387–446.
71.
RoachK. (2023). Canada’s false guilty pleas: Lessons from the Canadian registry of wrongful convictions. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, 4(1), 16–47. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr92
72.
RobinsJ. (2023). Murder, wrongful conviction and the law: An international comparative analysis. Routledge.
73.
SánchezN.Blanco-VelascoG.GevenL.MasipJ.ManzaneroA. (2024). Wrongful convictions with prison sentences in Spain: Exoneree characteristics, crime types, and contributing factors. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, 5(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr115
74.
ScheckB.NeufeldD.DwyerJ. (2001). Actual innocence: When justice goes wrong and how to make it right. New American Library.
75.
SepúlvedaV. (2012). Identificación de Imputados. Condiciones de Legitimidad. Revista Razonamiento Penal, 1, 9–18.
76.
SimonD. (2012). In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process. Harvard University Press.
77.
ThomasG. C.LeoR. A. (2012). Confessions of guilt: From torture to Miranda and beyond. Oxford University Press.
78.
UgarteF. (2022). El recurso de revisión. Thomson Reuters.
79.
WellsG. L.KoveraM. B.DouglassA. B.BrewerN.MeissnerC. A.WixtedJ. T. (2020) Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359
80.
WilenmannJAristeguiJ. (2023). El delito de baja entidad y la estandarización de los acuerdos en el sistema penal chileno. In LangerM.SozzoM. (Eds.), Justicia penal y mecanismos de condena sin juicio en América Latina (pp. 271–297). Marcial Pons.
81.
Wilson Center for Science and Justice. (2022). New directions in eyewitness evidence research and practice: After the 2014 National Academy of Sciences Report.
82.
WordenA.BlaizeL.BrownE. (2014). Public defense in an age of innocence. In ZalmanM.CarranoJ. (Eds.), Wrongful conviction and criminal justice reform (pp. 209–225). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203066997
83.
ZagmuttV. (2019). Procedimiento abreviado y simplificado en la práctica de audiencias chilenas ¿Alguna vinculación con la condena de inocentes?Ediciones Jurídicas de Santiago.
