shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Found the following article over on CLPEX

At least they investigate these matters

New Article on Forensics Problems in Courtroom
by L.J.Steele on Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:53 pm

Garrett & Neufeld, INVALID FORENSIC SCIENCE TESTIMONY AND WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS, 95 Virginia L. Rev. 1 (2009)

Brand-new article looking at the trial testimony in 137 DNA exoneration cases and finding instances of testimonial errors not caught by defense counsel. The authors discuss the mis-use of data (non-probative evidence presented as probative; exculpatory evidence discounted), testimony about statistics that don't have any empirical support, stating results more affirmatively than the science permitted (instead of "consistent with", terms like "highly likely" or "from the defendant"), and a variety of procedural errors. I'll be curious to hear your reactions.

"[A] total of 85 cases—or 63% of the 137 cases—involved either invalid testimony or withholding of exculpatory evidence. The testimony at these 137 exonerees’ criminal trials chiefly in-volved serological analysis (100 cases) and microscopic hair com-parison (65), because most of these cases involved sexual assaults for which such evidence was commonly available at the time. In-deed, in many cases, where both hair and semen were recovered from the crime scene, both disciplines were utilized. Some cases also involved testimony concerning: fingerprint comparison (13 cases), DNA analysis (11), forensic geology (soil comparison) (6), forensic odontology (bite mark comparison) (6), shoe print com-parison (4), fiber comparison (2), voice comparison (1), and fin-gernail comparison (1).
In the two main categories of evidence present in the study set, serology and hair comparison testimony, this study found the following: Of the 100 cases involving serology in which transcripts were located, 57 cases, or 57%, had invalid forensic science testimony. Of the 65 cases involving microscopic hair comparison in which transcripts were located, 25 cases, or 38%, had invalid foren-sic science testimony."
[They had 13 cases with fingerprint testimony, two with questionable fingerprint testimony (Stephen Cowans and Gene Bibbins (Louisianna) .]

One of the more interesting observations
"Unfortunately, our criminal system may not be well situated to prevent unscientific testimony. The adversarial system largely failed to police the invalid testimony during these trials. Defense counsel rarely cross-examined analysts concerning invalid testimony and rarely retained experts, since courts routinely deny funding for defense experts. Prosecutors, moreover, presented errone-\ous accounts of the forensic evidence during closing arguments. In a few cases in which the defense challenged invalid forensic science, judges seldom provided relief. Courts do not typically review testimony after finding the underlying methodology reliable and permitting the forensic analyst to take the stand. As the NAS Report explained, “the legal system is ill-equipped to correct the problems of the forensic science community.”

Expanded here:
"At least in criminal cases, having found that the underlying dis-cipline is satisfactory and the evidence admissible following the Frye—or now the Daubert—standard, courts do not typically ex-amine conclusions experts reach on the stand regarding whether statistical claims or other inferences drawn from the data are sup-ported by the evidence. There is no screening of the case specific inferences and opinions before the jury hears them. Yet it is precisely while the expert testifies that, as Simon Cole puts it, “the rubber meets the road,” and the jury hears claims about the actual evidence in the case. In the few cases where the exonerees’ de-fense counsel raised objections to invalid forensic testimony, judges rarely limited it. When appellate attorneys challenged faulty forensic testimony, courts rarely granted relief, often finding any error to be harmless.
Thus, if an expert overstates the evidence or presents it in a mis-leading fashion, cross-examination is relied upon to test the evi-dence. Yet in a criminal case, the defense is typically an unarmed adversary that lacks expert assistance. Also of crucial importance, the presentation of forensic science during criminal trials is usually one-sided, provided only by analysts testifying for the prosecution. Most states do not routinely fund the provision of forensic experts for indigent defendants, though there are strong arguments that under Ake v. Oklahoma defendants should be entitled to expert assistance as a matter of due process, at least in some types of cases. As a result, courts routinely deny indigent defendants the funds to hire their own forensic experts. Almost all of the analysts testifying in the 137 exonerees’ trials worked for police laboratories; only 19 exonerees retained experts. The fact-finders in most of these cases were jurors: non-experts who could be easily misled by invalid sci-entific testimony. Prosecutors not only elicited invalid forensic tes-timony, but sometimes further misrepresented the forensic science in their closing arguments, perhaps leading the jury to draw incorrect conclusions in cases where the analyst provided proper testimony."

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527

Junk science and old wives tales were at the very heart of the Kenny Richey conviction in Ohio. There was a whole panel of The Worlds top Arson Investigators ready to take the case on just prior to Kenny's conviction being overturned in 2005.

Tony Cafe told me what had happened with the evidence in this case was tantamount to being criminal.

I know the innocence projects in US now use this panel for Alleged Arson cases to help prove the junk science many are convicted on.

Hopefully now such panels will begin to exist in UK since many people accused of arson may not have had their cases investigated properly. Though I am hoping no one ever has as bad as an "investigation" as this case did.

See the affidavit which helped save Kenny's life

http://www.tcforensic.com.au/features/richey.html

Below is taken from an interview with Kenny's attorney in The Firm

http://www.thefirmmagazine.com/features/126/They_didn't_kill_Kenny.html You will need to copy and paste this url as I cannot get it to link on here.

“As we investigated, we found a myriad of mistakes. The prosecution planned to call a state expert who would say that gasoline and turpentine were used to start the fire. So who did Bill Kluge get as a rebuttal expert? A metallurgist who had taken two two-day courses in gas chromatographs – taught by the state’s expert.
“Kenny’s lawyer asked him what he though about the state evidence and he said, ‘These are the guys who taught my course. I can’t argue. They’re right.’
Mr Kluge gave up after that, said Parsigian.
“What did we eventually prove, years later? We had one of the of experts in the world examine wood from the floor where the fire started. He said there was no evidence of gas and turpentine, just naturally occurring substances in the wood.
“For years we wondered how the state’s expert came to his conclusion. Had he just misread something? Finally in federal court a couple of years ago we finally got a deposition. The state’s expert admitted he used his own method of testing that had never been peer-reviewed, his own idiosyncratic method that he thought better than the one all the experts use in the field.
“That’s not admissible evidence. But none of that came out at the trial. Kenny’s lawyer didn’t know enough to ask the questions. He didn’t hire an expert who could help him figure it out