Another case refuting idiots saying exoneration litigation is an “industry.” Criminal defense funding in the US is merely a fraction of what prosecutors and police get from asset forfeiture, local budgets, and federal grants. Take a look at who represented Lamarr Monson in his push for freedom. One salaried law professor and 2 law students.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5192
This is not the first massive review of forensic that has fallen into prosecutorial limbo. The FBI crime labs self-discredited Bullet Lead and Hair Matching debacle are still “hanging fire” in many states where the local police were taught by federal law enforcement. All this adds to the context that courts and prosecutors are equally ill-prepared and unmotivated to protect or later “fix” defendants from flawed and invalid forensics.
AMHERST — Even as prosecutors scramble to address state drug laboratory misconduct that could undermine upwards of 18,000 cases statewide, a judge has lambasted law enforcement officials for their handling of the case, going so far as to say some officials committed “a fraud upon the court.”
This should make death investigators sit up and pay attention.
“Matthew Eaton, an attorney for the Kerrigan and Dickens families, has filed complaints with the county seeking $3 million in damages. Such claims often precede lawsuits.”
Malware attacks on large scale forensic computer system is not a myth.
Police in house testing requires adherence to fundamental scientific procedures. In this case, it is about DUI (OUI) testing in Massachusetts. Police are all over advancing into police station DNA testing with “magic boxes.”
“He said he compared documents provided through a court order with others he obtained via a public records request. More than 400 checklists used to determine the reliability of the (alcohol breath) tests were withheld, Bernard said. Nearly every document that was withheld showed that the breath test failed to calibrate appropriately, he added.
“There are thousands and thousands of defendants who either pleaded guilty or went to trial because they didn’t have this information,” he said.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2017/08/thousands_of_ouis_may_blow_away
Inquiring minds should wonder if some judges understand their own rules of admissibility.
The Santa Cruz Sentinel is reporting the disturbing trend nationwide of judges continuing to allow evidence unsupported by science.
Examples of judges continuing to allow forensic science which is not been properly validated into the court room include a case in Connecticut, where a judge allowed 
prosecutors to present evidence about a footprint they felt was relevant. Testimony evidently involved representations of a forensic scientist that a specific shoe belonging to a man accused of the crime left of the relevant footprint. In Chicago, a federal court judge allowed experts to describe firearm and toolmark comparisons performed on bullets collected at crime scenes. In Pennsylvania, a judge ruled that prosecutors could elicit testimony about bite marks found on the body of a murder victim.
These rulings are troubling for several reasons. In Chicago, the federal court rationalized the testimony would be subject to cross examination by the defense attorneys. This…
View original post 305 more words
A prosecutor has his shorts in a bind over press coverage and an op-ed about his bitemark case. My guess is, by inference, the discussion of the continued prosecutorial use of junk forensics should be hidden from public view. The IP has compiled a case list of 29 convictions and incarcerations where bitemark experts have identified the innocent as criminals.
“DA Richard A. Consiglio said attorneys for the Innocence Project, M. Chris Fabricant and Dana Delger, were attempting “to try the case in public.” “
http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2017/08/da-blasts-defense-blog-in-ross-case/
From a recent Tech Dirt op-ed.
“We’ve discussed the junk science masquerading as forensic science in criminal cases. Coming in slightly ahead of chatting with psychics is “bite mark analysis.” According to these so-called experts, each bite mark is just as unique as a fingerprint. But if so, why have so many cases been overturned when actual science — usually DNA evidence — is examined? Bite mark analysts have no answers. Fortunately, there’s been less and less reliance on this highly-questionable evidence over the years.”
Here is what was used to convict one defendant as the “only person” who could have made this mark. The defendant has been in prison for decades.
then look at this “adjusted” image of the same image right after this message.
Just like a fingerprint, right? If you are confused about bitemark evidence, please read:
“Attack of the bite mark matchers.”
Pursuing non-violent drug use and funding the US incarceration industry takes a higher priority in Trump/Sessions’ forensic agenda than identifying unknown human remains and unidentified persons in the US.
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 