Prevalence of junk forensic experts in US criminal courts

 

Image result for sneaking

The core phrase used is “junk experts sneaking” into the courts. Bitemarks as usual, lead the way. The current USDOJ thinking is that everything is AOK. All but two states (California and Texas) do not consider the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant being affected by junk experts. The current basis in 48 states for a post-conviction appeal must prove the expert was intentionally lying or being deceitful during trial. This creates huge obstacles for the exonerated to receive compensation for being falsely convicted.

Washington Post – Radley Balko

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/bad-science-puts-innocent-people-in-jail–and-keeps-them-there/2018/03/20/f1fffd08-263e-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?ct=t(DNA_Newsletter_144_28_2015)&utm_term=.91cd30e07620

Chicago Tribune – John Grisham

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-innocent-prisoners-innocence-project-death-row-dna-testing-prosecutors-0315-story.html

Washington Post – Police Field Drug testing – Radley Balko

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/03/13/why-are-police-departments-still-using-drug-field-tests/?ct=t(DNA_Newsletter_144_28_2015)&utm_term=.0ca4696b3287

About csidds

Dr. Michael Bowers is a long time forensic consultant in the US and international court systems.
This entry was posted in forensic science reform protecting the innocence and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s