A Legacy of Error: Examining the Relationship Between Capital Sentencing Volume, Reversals, and Exonerations

District attorneys have a uniquely powerful position in capital sentencing. They decide which cases to prosecute, which aggravating circumstances to file, and how to use the death penalty in plea agreements. This paper examines whether death sentencing volume– be it by county or individual– is associated with higher capital reversals and exonerations. This study investigates two questions: whether counties that impose more death sentences also experience higher reversals and whether district attorneys who sentence those to death at higher rates also have the same relationship with reversals. Building on previous work on prosecutorial influence and sentencing, this paper also analyzes the difference between groups of District Attorneys that are “High-impact,” "Aggressive," and “Progressive.” Using a database with all post-Furman death sentences and supplemental county-level historical data, a regression model evaluates the relationship between sentencing rates, reversals, and exonerations. The results suggest that there is no significant relationship between reversals, exonerations, and sentencing rates despite individual District attorneys’ strong relationship with sentencing rates. While there are specific District attorneys that qualitatively stick out as overzealous, the narrative that a significant portion of other District Attorneys also exhibit the same behavior is false. Understanding this relationship further emphasizes the pervasive level of error in capital prosecutions and how media narratives can shape perceptions of a policy's success.