Much of the forensic evidence used in convictions has been found unreliable. Prosecutors want to use it anyway
Salon has compiled what’s I unkindly have called the LEO mind-set of being “Untouchable” when it comes to the using unsafe courtroom experts in order to gain convictions. Salon calls out all the players in the Criminal Justice prosecution hierarchy and quotes their self-serving, (as in their meme of “trust us we know what we know when we see it) and in some instances almost raging push-back against scientific common sense expectations from the President’s Council Advisors on Science and Technology.
When confrontation occurs, as is seen in the successful efforts of the Innocence Project Network’s growing list of exonerations (Exoneration | The Marshal Project), the DAs metric is to move on to “other compelling evidence” proclamations (Faulty science to be reviewed in three Arkansas cases).
From Salon:
“Although the research is clear, many in law enforcement seem terrified that keeping pseudoscience out of prosecutions will make them unwinnable. Attorney General Loretta Lynch declined to accept the report’s recommendations on the admissibility of evidence and the FBI accused the advisors of making “broad, unsupported assertions.” But the National District Attorneys Association, which represents roughly 2,5000 top prosecutors nationwide, went the furthest, taking it upon itself to, in its own words, “slam” the report.”
