Effective October 21, 2026
Unjustly Accused publishes reporting and analysis about wrongful convictions, disputed evidence, and accountability in the criminal justice system. These standards set the requirements for our editorial work and provide a basis for readers to question or challenge it.
Who is responsible for our work?
Articles carrying the byline “Unjustly Accused” are published under the publication’s name. Contributors use this organizational byline to protect their safety and personal identities. Unjustly Accused accepts editorial responsibility for the material it publishes. An anonymous byline does not remove the obligation to support factual claims, disclose limitations, and correct errors.
The byline does not imply that every contributor is an attorney, scientist, or investigator. Relevant professional qualifications are stated only when they can be substantiated. We do not invent author identities, credentials, interviews, or expert reviews.
Evidence and attribution
- Material factual claims should be traceable to identified sources. Relevant court decisions, filings, scientific publications, official statements, and original records should be linked when publicly available.
- When relying on another outlet’s reporting, identify that outlet and link to the report. Reading a secondary report is not the same as independently examining the underlying record.
- Explain what a source establishes and what remains uncertain. A filing contains a party’s allegations unless a court has made the relevant finding.
- Direct quotations require an identifiable published source or a retained record of the interview or communication. Paraphrases must not be presented as quotations.
- Images require appropriate permission or a license. Captions should identify their source and clarify when an image is illustrative.
Anonymous sources and confidential information
Anonymous authorship and anonymous sourcing are different. A contributor’s protected identity does not justify publishing an unsupported claim. When a source requests anonymity, editorial review should establish the source’s basis of knowledge, assess corroboration and risks, and explain the reason for anonymity when doing so is safe. Confidential records should not be published simply to prove that a source exists.
Our ordinary website form is not a secure whistleblower submission system. Do not send unredacted identifying records, sealed material, passwords, or information that could endanger someone through it. Start with a short description and any confidentiality concerns. See our Privacy Policy.
Fairness and legal status
Coverage must distinguish an accusation, arrest, charge, conviction, reversal, dismissal, and exoneration. A person charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. A conviction being overturned does not, by itself, establish every claim made about the case.
Serious allegations should be attributed and supported. Relevant responses, denials, and competing evidence should be represented fairly. If a response has been requested, report the request and outcome accurately. Do not imply that someone declined to comment when no request was made.
Reporting, analysis, and opinion
Analysis explains what evidence may mean; opinion expresses a position. Both must remain distinguishable from established facts. Headlines and summaries must reflect the evidence in the article and avoid overstating what DNA, forensic testing, or a court ruling proves. Comparisons between cases do not establish that their facts or outcomes are the same.
Conflicts, advertising, and automation
Material personal, financial, or professional connections to a subject should be disclosed where relevant. Paid placements and sponsored material must be clearly labeled. Advertising must not be presented as independent reporting.
Any use of automated tools remains subject to human editorial responsibility. Generated text is not a source. Quotations, citations, case details, and claims of expertise must be verified before publication.
Updates and corrections
Substantive corrections should explain what changed and carry a date. An update about a later development should be identified separately from a correction of an earlier error. Original publication dates should not be changed merely to make an article appear new.
To challenge a factual assertion, provide additional evidence, or request a correction, follow our Corrections Policy or use the editorial contact form.