NIST (US government science and tech forensic researcher and funder) announces a new look into the physical world of properties’ “stick” and “strain.”
“the mechanical properties of four types of evidence: hair, documents, fingerprints and explosives.”
The Association of Firearm and Toolmarkers [AFTE] focus on defending ballistic matching via alluding “black-box” studies (one of PCAST’s references) are not representative of the entire group. They also point to in-house reliability testing as a substitute. Overall, this public statement is much more measured than what’s come out of the District Attorneys and US DOJ /FBI but is similar in its effect that all their research and foundational studies are sufficient. Here’s an interesting excuse about funding, which hardly moots what forensic issues which includes the unmentionable: wrongful convictions.
“It is true that the majority of past research has been conducted by AFTE members, because while DNA and fingerprints have applications outside of forensics (such as medicine and biometrics), firearm identification has few profit-making applications and does not garner research attention from the private sector.”
A law prof tries a simple way to explain what PCAST is concerned about. He also includes the following: [Brandon Garrett at Va. Law’s Faculty Q&A]
Few studies had been done examining how jurors appreciate some of the most commonly used forensics, including fingerprint evidence. [UVA Law professor] Greg Mitchell and I embarked several years ago on a series of studies, and what we discovered surprised me: I expected that we would find that when analysts gave conclusions exaggerating their certainty that prints came from a defendant, that jurors would place more weight on the evidence. Jurors were not overly affected by those over-statements. Instead it seemed as if just hearing the word “fingerprint” was enough to convince jurors that the defendant did it. In more hopeful news, though, we discovered in a second experiment that jurors were affected by hearing that there is a possibility of an error in fingerprinting. Still more promising, in a detailed follow-up experiment, we are exploring how jurors can be highly sensitive to information about the error rates, or the proficiency, of the particular fingerprint examiner. We plan to do more to explore these findings and make practical recommendations for testimony, reports and regulation of forensics in the courtroom.
‘I’m always frustrated with how long it takes us to do cases, in any event, but this is going to slow us down even more.’
A Newfoundland man who helps free the wrongfully convicted says his organization is struggling to find funding and could be in jeopardy.
Ronald Dalton was convicted of murdering his wife in 1989 and spent eight years in prison before he was found not guilty in 2000. Now, Dalton is the co-president of Innocence Canada.
He said with less money, the organization will struggle to review cases efficiently and help those who need it.
Full article from Newfoundland
The premise in ballistics is that all these casings might be considered “unique.”
This “new look” at ballistics from the Aaron Hernandez conviction is similar to the back and forth decades-long argument against the now debunked “hair matching” in four areas:
excerpt from the Boston Globe:
The scrutiny now includes the field of firearms analysis, often called ballistics, after a report last month by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology questioned whether the science of analyzing firearms is sound enough to support the standard of proof that is constitutionally required for a criminal conviction.
The report has already sent ripples throughout legal and law enforcement communities, including in Massachusetts, as lawyers in one of the state’s most high-profile cases – the Suffolk County murder trial of former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez – asked a judge earlier this month to toss expert testimony related to a firearm police have linked to the case.
A successful re-trial motion for a convicted murderer is getting a W.Va. DA to use his right of appeal. Making no inroads in the prosecutorial pantheon of notable literature, the DA says the original conviction was “finalized” in 1988. Full article from the Herald-Dispatch
Sidebar about W.Va.: http://www.theintelligencer.net/opinion/editorials/2016/09/reduce-rape-kit-testing-backlog/ ( the article covers hundreds of rape kits being untested by law enforcement authorities in the state.)
This West Virginia DA is using a popular metaphor we can translate as: “once convicted always guilty” despite the judge agreeing that flawed forensics brought by a long-discredited expert created an unfair result to the original trial. California’s Attorney General and the aspiring-to-Attorney-General DA Michael Ramos (campaigning pic above) used some similar legal boilerplate in appealing Bill Richard’s exoneration in 2009. His appeal questioned and argued against the Superior Court’s “jurisdiction” disallowing it to preside and rule on Richards’ habeas corpus motion. Ramos’ appeal brought a trip to the CA Supreme Court in 2012 where its ruling in favor of Ramos was considered “the worst opinion of the year.’
On to 2014 where the creation of a California forensic science “junk’ statute eventually brought Richards his freedom early this year. In 2016, a reconstituted SC agreed that a “grandfather of bitemark experts” recanting statement at the ’09 exoneration hearing was more than sufficient to vacate/reverse the 1997 conviction.
Through all this overriding Ramos’ manuevering, he continued sniping and public assertions of more vigorous prosecuting adventures against Richards.
The state of W.Va is using the same playbook as Ramos.
Full article from the Herald-Dispatch
Colleagues had doubts and concerns. The cops and supervisors loved her work. She admits to be a bit histrionic in and out of the job. The state’s AG has no concerns. Recently the governor and one judge pulled back from sugar-coating her “impression-matching” credibility. The gov took one inmate off death row 13 days before execution. Add a noted impression evidence guru using the dreaded “sub-standard” term.
Another example of how police controlled crime labs, medical examiners and police-shooting commissions need to be independent and properly vetted against undue influences. Serious disputes arise from LEOs at the mere suggestion. For example, independence didn’t work so well at the DC crime lab when politicians and law enforcement recently sucked it back up into their pockets. Then came: New DC Crime lab management, mayor and DA adopt measures their previously fired director were denied
Here is the latest on this BCI crime labber’s version of forensic “justice.”
So, is the PCAST forensics report still bunkum as stated by the National District Attorneys Association?
This story from FLA reveals many issues involving the fact that forensic autopsy’s are prone to mistakes and omissions. “New evidence” includes an ME’s health history, resignation, and a dead child’s disease-borne cause-of-death versus abuse by the convicted nanny.
Plus, the political issues are massive considering the lame-duck Floridian Attorney General Angela Corey being involved in retrying the defendant. She has received considerable bad press and got ousted from office this month. Here is something about people “dancing in the streets” over that.
A broader look at familial DNA use within criminal investigations. Some good, some bad. What appears in all examples, is that ‘presumptions’ of guilt can be incorrect and send prosecutors off in the wrong direction. What’s also apparent is that across the country there are many isolated LEO databases that don’t reflect consistent ‘likelihood ratios’ of match rates with a suspect ‘s DNA profile.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
