Today's roundup is short on purpose. We only publish items we can trace to a real, datable report — so when the verified news is thin, you get fewer stories rather than filler. Here's what's actually on the record as of this morning.
1. Queens judge ordered removed from the bench over a "fake lawyer" arrangement
A New York court ethics panel has ordered the removal of a Queens Civil Court judge, Joseph Kasper, in a case involving a paralegal with a felony record who was allegedly used to practice law on the judge's behalf. The determination was reported locally on Aug. 7 and picked up more broadly within the last day (amNewYork; The City Reporter).
Why a housing-and-small-claims judge matters to a wrongful-conviction organization: judicial discipline is the thinnest layer of accountability in the whole system. Removal — the most severe sanction a state conduct commission can recommend — is rare. New York's Commission on Judicial Conduct posts its determinations publicly, and the pattern in 2026 alone shows how varied the misconduct is: in April, an upstate town judge was ordered removed amid findings involving dishonesty and improper assistance to landlords in eviction cases (ABA Journal), and the Commission issued a separate removal-related release in February (NYS CJC news page).
The lesson we keep relearning: judges who cut corners in civil court are often the same judges who cut corners on a suppression motion, a Brady dispute, or a jury instruction. Discipline files are public. Read them.
What you can do: Complaints against New York state judges go to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which accepts complaints from any member of the public — you do not need to be a party to the case. Forms, office locations, and instructions are at cjc.ny.gov. Every state has an equivalent body (for example, Kentucky's Judicial Conduct Commission); search your state's name plus "judicial conduct commission" and file in writing.
2. New York still can't reliably keep decertified officers out of policing
Two investigations published earlier this year deserve to stay in circulation, because nothing has changed. A June report traced a New York officer who was decertified after misconduct and was nonetheless hired again — and again — by other agencies (The NewsHouse). A companion piece examined why the state's system for barring officers from law enforcement work keeps failing (Central Current).
This is a wrongful-conviction issue, not just a labor issue. Officers with sustained findings for dishonesty write the reports, run the lineups, and take the confessions that become the evidentiary spine of a prosecution. Decertification exists precisely so that a fired officer can't reappear in a neighboring county and start generating testimony again. Researchers reviewing the evidence base have noted how uneven decertification regimes are across states (Council on Criminal Justice); Ohio's published decertification lists are a reminder that transparency is possible when a state chooses it (Prison Legal News).
What you can do: In New York City, misconduct complaints go to the Civilian Complaint Review Board — you can file online through the City's CCRB portal or by calling 311. Statewide, officer certification and decertification records run through the Division of Criminal Justice Services; ask your local district attorney whether their office maintains and discloses an adverse-credibility ("do not call") list, and whether defense counsel gets it. That question, asked in public at a county legislature meeting, has more effect than you'd think.
The base rates: how often this happens, and why
Context matters, so here's where to get real numbers rather than vibes:
- The National Registry of Exonerations (exonerationregistry.org) maintains the authoritative U.S. count of exonerations since 1989, case by case, with coded contributing factors — official misconduct, mistaken witness identification, false confession, perjury or false accusation, and false or misleading forensic evidence. Its running totals update continuously; check the live figure rather than quoting a stale one. The Registry also tracks the ugly aftermath: many exonerees receive no compensation at all, and eligibility rules vary wildly by state (Registry compensation page).
- The Innocence Project publishes its own outcomes data and case counts (innocenceproject.org/exonerations-data). Mistaken eyewitness identification has been a factor in a majority of the DNA-based exonerations the organization has worked on — which is why lineup procedure, blind administration, and recorded identification practices are not technicalities.
- Death Penalty Information Center tracks innocence in capital cases specifically (deathpenaltyinfo.org innocence), and the Equal Justice Initiative keeps an accessible overview of the structural drivers (eji.org).
- Academic reviews of this literature — causes, consequences, and reform proposals — are now substantial enough to have their own review-journal treatments (Annual Review of Criminology, 2026).
The recurring pattern across all of it: single-witness cases, incentivized informants, and unrecorded interrogations. When a conviction rests on one person's identification plus a jailhouse informant, it is structurally fragile — and when those people later recant, the system's instinct is to defend the verdict rather than reexamine it.
One case where the review already happened — and the file is just sitting there
That pattern is exactly what makes Richard Barge's case so frustrating. New Jersey's own Conviction Review Unit has recommended his exoneration. The sole eyewitness recanted. The informants recanted. New evidence points elsewhere. What's missing is not investigation — it's a signature.
If today's stories teach anything, it's that oversight bodies produce findings and then someone has to make those findings stick. Call the New Jersey Attorney General's Office at (609) 292-4925, reference Richard Barge's case, mention Jennifer Davenport, and then add your name to the petition.
Where to bring a case
If you or someone you love has a claim of innocence: the Innocence Project (innocenceproject.org), the Exoneration Project (exonerationproject.org), and the New York–focused Exoneration Initiative (exonerationinitiative.org) all publish intake criteria. Most require a conviction, a claim of actual innocence, and exhausted or near-exhausted direct appeals. Apply to more than one. Wait times are long, and silence is not rejection.
Corrections and tips: we publish them. If we got a date, a name, or a docket wrong, tell us and we'll fix it in tomorrow's edition.