More Rules for those interested in how Ethics responsibilities appear in the US legal compendium. All the players are included.
Here (at the bottom) is the abstract of a future presentation by Mississippi Innocent Project’s founder and director, Tucker Carrington III (above), at the Innocence Networks’ annual meeting on March 24 and 25th, 2017, in San Diego, CA. Tucker has and is continuing to be instrumental in many of the exonerations in MS regarding junk forensic experts, post-conviction DNA testing and combating the good ole boy network of prosecutors and Attorney General Jim Hood have going in that Southern state. All the same issues are also seen in Northern states as well. But first…………..
BTW, Tucker is co-authoring, with Radley Balko and John Grisham (foreward), a true crime and criminal justice book titled: “Dr. Death and the Country Dentist. A True Story of Corruption an Injustice in the American South.” Here’s is the promo piece about it.
This is a tale of two tragedies.
At the heart of the first is Dr. Steven Hayne, a doctor the State of Mississippi employed as its de facto medical examiner for two decades. Beginning in the late 1980s, he performed anywhere from 1,200 to 1,800 autopsies per year, five times more than is recommended, performed at night in the basement of a local funeral home. Autopsy reports claimed organs had been observed and weighed when, in reality, they had been surgically removed from the body years before. But Hayne was the only game in town. He also often brought in local dentist and self-styled “bite mark specialist” Dr. Michael West, who would discover marks on victim’s bodies, at times invisible to the naked eye, and then match those marks—“indeed and without doubt”—to law enforcement’s lead suspect.
Innocence Network Proceedings: Carrington
Forensic Disciplines — Old and New — and Associated Professional Ethics
Very recently, there have been significant changes in and around traditional forensic disciplines. Likewise, there have been significant changes in rules of professional and ethical conduct that are implicated when an attorney— defense or prosecutor— or lab technician becomes involved with these disciplines in an adjudicative context. This roundtable discussion will consider several hypothetical practice-based scenarios and ask the participants to navigate them in the specific context of: Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(g) and (h); Defense Function Standard 4-9.4; the ABA’s Draft Resolution dated June 20, 2016; the National Code of Professional Responsibility for Forensic Scientists (The Code); and the DOJ Code of Professional Responsibility for the Practice of Forensic Science. (See links to the Rules below).
Defense Function Standard 4-9.4; the ABA’s Draft Resolution dated June 20, 2016;