“At some point, we have to acknowledge that precedent has to be overruled by scientific reality.”
Some of that science — analysis of bite marks, latent fingerprints, firearms identification, burn patterns in arson investigations, footwear patterns and tire treads — was once considered sound, but is now being denounced by some lawyers and scientists who say it has not been studied enough to prove its reliability and in some cases has led to wrongful convictions.
The new feature should be of particular interest to protesters or anyone else who would rather the police not read all their contacts and text messages.
” We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to hear the defend‐
ants’ appeals of the denial of qualified immunity because
those appeals fail to take the facts and reasonable inferences
from the record in the light most favorable to Stinson and
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on questions of fact.
As a consequence, Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) pre‐
cludes interlocutory review. We do have jurisdiction to con‐
sider the district court’s denial of absolute immunity to John‐
son and Rawson. That denial was correct because Stinson’s
claims focus on their conduct while the murder was being in‐
vestigated, not on their trial testimony or trial testimony prep‐
aration.” Stinson En_Banc Opinion
Backstory on Stinson’s WI case of wrongful conviction.
Stinson’s fight for compensation.
Paltry legislation for the wrongfully convicted. Loevy and Lovey blog.
Scientists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Michigan State University have published a new study on the development of an algorithm that can determine whether a fingerprint found at a crime scene contains enough information to be uploaded to AFIS (NIST.gov)
“DNA Experts Present First Exoneration Based on False Y-STR Inclusion”
(Forensic Magazine)
Related: FSI Genetics
“DNA collected at arrest often not removed from crime databases for those not convicted” (Cleveland.com)
Patrick Pursley, an Illinois man convicted in 1994 of murder (who has maintained his innocence), has been granted a new trial due to inaccurate ballistics/firearm science and exaggerated expert testimony used in his original trial (Forensic Magazine)
In the latest battle over surveillance and internet privacy, the Department of Justice has demanded internet hosting company Dreamhost hand over all its users’ data—including “’all records or other information’ pertaining to disruptj20.org, including log files showing who visited the website, when, from where, and what they looked at, and all emails related to the website”—in order to identify people who protested during the current president’s inauguration (NY Times)
“Police Body Camera Company, Axon, Is Vacuuming In Data, Stoking Privacy Concerns”
(International Business Times)
An article in the Marshall Project discusses a current Massachusetts Supreme Court case in which the justices used new evidentiary standards to overturn Victor Rosario’s conviction. The author argues that this standard would make it easier for wrongful convictions to be overturned, unlike the restrictive standards employed by most jurisdictions in the United States.
The article states that the new administration of the revamped crime lab reported this discrepancy and have safeguards in place regarding eliminating this type of error.
“Once you enter the system, you can never leave……”
By pushing forensics to its limits, a courageous scientist is attempting to identify the badly decomposed remains of 700 people who drowned in the Mediterranean Sea
Nearly unspeakable. 20,000 dead in 10 years. This anthropologist still shows up to possibly identify them. She receives too little acclaim.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giving-dead-migrants-a-name/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share
If you wonder how accurate criminal profiling actually is, just read this LA Times article about the myths surrounding it’s admission into criminal courts. Ole US DOJ has long “accepted” whatever these people come up with regarding perps. The next-gen of profiling will be database AI analysts “predicting” criminal behavior.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-profiler-wrongful-conviction-20170720-htmlstory.html
Try this for Dep AG Rosenstein painting forensics with a very broad brush.
This would never work in the health science community, but that’s obviously of no concern to the lawyers running forensics for the US Department of Justice.
He is speaking in front of a predominate police controlled and police validated forensic group that debunked the PCAST forensics report last November.
Add this case to the list of fundamental problems associated with crime lab related determinations of DNA profiling that, as in this case, are misinterpreted in favor of guilt. The alternatives were never brought forth by defense counsel.
A significant leader in the development of DNA’s use in the US criminal justice system describes details of these issues.
Links to other case and discussion about “touch DNA” dangers in police evidence collection and interpretation.
https://www.creators.com/read/michelle-malkin/01/17/forensic-nightmare-the-perils-of-touch-dna
https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2015/10/touch-dna-might-be-contaminating-crime-scene-evidence
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 