UK Forensics : Innocence Project is putting a stop to wrongful convictions across the world

Donate to the Innocent Project

California Innocence Project: Mississippi IP  New York IP 

=======================================

“There is no question there are wrongful convictions all over the world. There’s no country that is free from wrongful convictions and no country that would not benefit from making its criminal justice system more reliable and more just. It’s a worldwide issue,” says American civil rights lawyer Peter Neufeld. “We are trying to identify the primary causes of wrongful convictions and begin to address them throughout the world.”

In 1992, Neufeld co-founded the Innocence Project with lawyer Barry Scheck in New York. The project is based at the Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, where Scheck is a professor.

The project uses DNA technology to free innocent people, over 300 so far in the US, and it is now an international organisation.

“It started as a small project in New York. We now have over 40 in the United States. In addition to the one in Ireland, there are 14 projects in other countries, and it’s expanding. Now there are Innocence Projects in Asia, Africa, Europe, North and South America and Australia,” says Neufeld.

“As we move increasingly towards globalisation, countries want to become more guided by the rule of law in order to advance themselves internationally. One way to do that is to demonstrate that your criminal justice system is fair and just. Having innocence projects, like the one in Ireland, advances that considerably.”

Causes of convictions Neufeld says one of the primary causes of wrongful convictions worldwide is false confession, and fewer than half of the states in the US record police interrogations.

“That’s a big problem. The way you deal with the confession issue is to require that all interrogations are videotaped from beginning to end, to have a neutral and objective record of who said what to whom,” he said.

“It’s not just about civil rights and human rights for the wrongfully convicted. We’re also about improving the system of investigation to improve public safety, to make sure police don’t go down the wrong road and get an innocent guy” rather than the real perpetrator.

Neufeld and Scheck met in the 1970s when they were both working as public defenders in the Bronx.

“Then we continued to work together on a variety of cases, many of which involved the intersection of science and law,” says Neufeld. They saw the advent of DNA profiling as an opportunity to re-examine old convictions where biological material collected at the crime scene was still available.

“We knew from the beginning that this science was going to expose that the criminal justice system was riddled with errors for a whole host of reasons,” says Scheck who, along with Neufeld, famously served as co-counsel on OJ Simpson’s defence team.

Neufeld says that, while DNA evidence is reliable, other types of forensic science are not as robust. “When we look at the US, we find that 50 per cent of the wrongful convictions involve a misapplication of forensic science.”

This includes the forensic science used to convict the Birmingham Six (who were wrongfully convicted of the IRA pub bombings in Birmingham in the 1970s).

“Initially the prosecution was predicated on the notion that you could swab someone’s hands and see if they had certain chemicals consistent with explosives. Subsequent research showed that you could also test positive if you had unwrapped a pack of cigarettes or playing cards,” said Neufeld.

Wrongful convictions can also be caused by eyewitness misidentification, ineffective assistance of counsel, jailhouse snitches and police and prosecutorial misconduct.

“When you put them all together, you see the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It’s a whole system that has to be transformed. We’re doing it through science, but all of these institutions have to be reconstructed and reimagined,” says Scheck. Irish Innocence Project “There’s always been enormous interest [in the Innocence Project] in Ireland. The Irish have a natural affinity for those who fight the state and who fight arbitrary miscarriages of justice, which makes sense in light of Irish history,” says Scheck.

The movement reached Ireland in 2009, when the Irish Innocence Project (IIP) was launched at Griffith College by its Dean of Law, David Langwallner.

It made headlines earlier this year for its work in the Harry Gleeson case. Gleeson became the first recipient of a posthumous pardon from the State, almost 75 years after he was executed for a murder he did not commit.

The IIP investigates and seeks to overturn cases by finding new or newly discovered evidence proving there has been a miscarriage of justice.

The IIP only helps people who claim factual innocence and does not work to overturn convictions based on legal technicalities.

Currently, 21 students from Griffith College, Trinity College and Dublin City Universityare working on 30 cases under the supervision of nine pro-bono lawyers. Conference and Film Festival Scheck and Neufeld will speak at the IIP’s first International Wrongful Conviction and Human Rights Conference on Friday June 26th at Griffith College. Speakers will include former president Mary McAleese and Gareth Peirce, who successfully worked to overturn the convictions of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six.

On June 27th, also at Griffith, the first-ever Wrongful Conviction Film Festival will feature nine films, Q&A sessions with directors and exonerees and will end with a special screening of In the Name of the Father with director Jim Sheridan.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/innocence-project-is-putting-a-stop-to-wrongful-convictions-across-the-world-1.2247384

Read about the Innocence Project in Europe.

Posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bite Marks, costs of wrongful convictions, criminal justice, criminal justice reform, CSI, death penalty, DNA profiling, exoneration, Exoneration costs, forensic testimony, junk forensic science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Support The Innocence Project – Oppose #Junk #Forensic #Science in Court -See the Cases

THE SOLUTION COMES FIRST

Support the Innocence Project efforts to educate US law enforcement, trial and appellate judiciary about the danger of junk bitemark forensic evidence. There are at least 3 university-based affiliates of the Innocence Project Network that are actively litigating cases including clients on death row. Donate to:

California Innocence Project: @CA_Innocence represents William Richards. The Mississippi IP represents Eddie Lee Howard, and the New York IP is representing and assisting numerous cases.

THE PROBLEM

“When we look at the US, we find that 50 per cent of the wrongful convictions involve a misapplication of forensic science.” – Peter Neufeld, Innocence Project Co-founder

In reality, [not like CSI ] bitemark testimony is little more than junk.

This excerpt from a recent The Marshall Project article says it all regarding why “bite readers” cannot agree among themselves in court…..

““The skin is convenient,” says Innocence Project attorney Chris Fabricant, who has fought the validity of bite mark forensics in dozens of cases. “You can really point to anything and say, ‘it’s this way because of the elasticity of skin. Or it’s not.’ There’s no underlying research to support either conclusion.” Full article.

Research supporting this statement

Here is published empirical bitemark case research (2008), via a Powerpoint presentation, that supports Fabricant’s [and a host of other legal scholars’ ] opinion that any use of bitemark patterns for ‘biter’ identification continues to be unvalidated and therefore prejudicial in any court of law.

BMSS copy

Expert Disagreement in Bitemark Casework

Disagreement copy

The Opposition

The ‘elite’ of the ABFO, either refuse, prevaricate or are incapable of such analytical review. They rely on statements such as: a) defaming legitimate peer reviewed research, b) mimicry of what’s being said at the NIJ/NIST convocation of forensic science people, c) PR blast for its shrinking membership. (All from the June 2015 Journal of the California Dental Association. pp. 37 to 40). JCDA_06-2015

A. “As useful as this research has been, [………………………} bites can be manipulated to produce distorted or nondistorted patterned injuries. Depending on what results the researchers want to end up with determines how the bites are made.”  SEE BELOW ***

B. “The forensic experts have a unified goal — to improve their respective fields by conforming to the rules of scientific investigation and to minimize bias from the subjective elements inherent in the process.”

C. “Not surprisingly, the IP dislikes all forensic odontologists who engage in bite-mark analysis, and especially those who have rigorously achieved board-certified status from the most respected credentialing organization that exists, the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABOF)” [sic]. 

****

Research copy

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Forensics : Learn a bit about DNA and Criminal Justice : Its not what you may think. [cliche’]

Today

Gerald Richardson talks about his six months of freedom after a bitemark aided conviction.  DNA exonerated him.

How DNA Profiling Works – The Naked Scientist – [don’t worry its PG rated]

PCR-DNA testing: Animated for educational ease.

This next one is from the  NewScientist and is titled “Forensic Failure.” It shows revealing survey results from anonymized forensic science workers on the topic of the challenges they face [someone in the US should copy this idea.]

Questions and answers are specifically about the UK where the Queen’s government canned its nationalized Forensic Science Services a couple years ago. The new strategy adopted outsourcing forensic services to centralized labs and private vendors and put alot of people out of work. Here are the fss_survey_results. There is still alot of flack about this economizing in the UK media. Some patter in the US suggests the US system becoming nationalized. Won’t happen.

=========================================================

Thurs

I call this “we don’t next no stinkin’ Rules of Evidence.

Here’s a real time example of what’s going on in US courts on what’s “standard” DNA report writing. As usual, the opposing attorneys take diametrically opposed positions on some very important DNA evidence. We all know lawyers were poli-sci majors in college.

A multiple murder case with varying degrees of pros vs defense battling about “who matches what” regarding multiple “hits. There’s a bit about Brady violation occurring about whether an “uninterpretable” [“unable to explain”] Florida crime lab result was hidden. The labber says “not” in court her court testimony. Something said about “science” rather than the rules of the legal system being controlling regarding discovery compliance. Very weird statement. Ive never heard that explanation used before.

Here’s a short quote.

“FDLE’s Tallahassee-based Chief of Forensic Services Karen Martin testified today. She denied hiding the DNA results and testified they were ruled “uninterpretable” [ not able to be explained ] because they did not meet FDLE’s minimum standards for comparison.

Martin said the decision not to turn over the FBI’s findings to TPD and the state was a decision based on science, not investigative aspects.

“The state contends the convicted drug trafficker named as a potential match by the FBI wasn’t even in the country at the time of the murders. The defense disputes that too.”

Article

=================================================

Wednesday

It’s not only pattern analysis that can be fallible – how about DNA? Its mostly about DNA mixtures, stat protocols and inconsistency of multiple analysts. via @ForensicOdont

Read more.

A commercial lab’s technical paper has more on this. “Mixture interpretation. Why is it sometimes so hard?

And the politicians use it to promote their own agendas. The latest on the Washington DC now-police managed crime lab. Head DC prosecutor signs long-term contract with girl-friend’s DNA company. 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Forensics : DNA inconsistencies slowly are rising into public view

Well well. Here’s a real time example of what’s going on in courts about the battle about what’s “standard” DNA report writing. as usual, the opposing attorneys take diametrically opposed positions on some very important DNA evidence.

A multiple murder case with varying degrees of pros vs defense battling about “who matches what” regarding multiple “hits. There’s a bit about Brady violation occurring about whether an “uninterpretable” [“unable to explain”] Florida crime lab result was hidden. The labber says “not” in court her court testimony. Something said about “science” rather than the rules of the legal system being controlling regarding discovery compliance. Very weird statement. Ive never heard that explanation used before.

Here’s a short quote.

“FDLE’s Tallahassee-based Chief of Forensic Services Karen Martin testified today. She denied hiding the DNA results and testified they were ruled “uninterpretable” [ not able to be explained ] because they did not meet FDLE’s minimum standards for comparison.

Martin said the decision not to turn over the FBI’s findings to TPD and the state was a decision based on science, not investigative aspects.

“The state contends the convicted drug trafficker named as a potential match by the FBI wasn’t even in the country at the time of the murders. The defense disputes that too.”

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/DNA-Dispute-Could-it-Postpone-Quadruple-Murder-Trial-307719801.html

csidds's avatarFORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends

It’s not only pattern analysis that can be fallible – how about DNA? Its mostly about DNA mixtures, stat protocols and inconsistency of multiple analysts. via @ForensicOdont

Read more.

A commercial lab’s technical paper has more on this. “Mixture interpretation. Why is it sometimes so hard?

And the politicians use it to promote their own agendas. The latest on the Washington DC now-police managed crime lab. Head DC prosecutor signs long-term contract with girl-friend’s DNA company. 

View original post

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Forensics : DNA inconsistencies slowly are rising into public view

It’s not only pattern analysis that can be fallible – how about DNA? Its mostly about DNA mixtures, stat protocols and inconsistency of multiple analysts. via @ForensicOdont

Read more.

A commercial lab’s technical paper has more on this. “Mixture interpretation. Why is it sometimes so hard?

And the politicians use it to promote their own agendas. The latest on the Washington DC now-police managed crime lab. Head DC prosecutor signs long-term contract with girl-friend’s DNA company. 

 

 

Posted in criminal justice, criminal justice reform, CSI, DNA mixtures, DNA profiling, Forensic Science, Forensic Science Bias | 1 Comment

An exoneration lawyer plays by the book and gets handed an ethics complaint in NC

[Comment: Full disclosure by a notable and successful exoneration lawyer lands her in a mumbo-jumbo worded ethics complaint with her state Bar.

Questions to consider while reading the media article from Raleigh, NC: What’s the penalty for possessing a water bottle of another, and then testing it for DNA of the unsuspecting person who has just refused to voluntarily submit to giving a DNA sample? An invasion of privacy? Was there a “duty” to return it? Destroy it?

Police do this type of “evidence collection” all the time without a warrant. Intentionally.

The rules of legal ethics are nonspecific. So we and the NC State Bar have to improvise in a vacuum. Does she have an escape clause against censure based on her representing a client? It seems to me that her actions described below indicate that she offered up the information of these events in a timely matter to be honest and intentionally pursue a review by the legal system. On the basis of the scope of the Bar’s inquiry, what is its history on previous cases of possible lawyer misconduct? Such as…………..

I wonder how many prosecutors have been disbarred in NC for prosecutorial misconduct? Prosecutors generally say they were acting as vigorous advocates for justice and the victims of crime. That works almost every time for them in avoiding serious censure. Plus they never admit anything beforehand, unlike Christine Mumma ]

— A lawyer known for clearing men wrongly accused of murder said Tuesday that she didn’t violate professional ethics when working on a case, insisting that her actions were done solely in her client’s interest.

The North Carolina State Bar last month filed a complaint against Christine Mumma, the executive director of the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, alleging that she unethically obtained a DNA sample while investigating the case of Joseph Sledge.

Sledge, 70, spent nearly 40 years behind bars for the 1976 stabbing deaths of Josephine Davis, 74, and Ailene Davis, 53, in their Elizabethtown home. He was cleared of the killings in January after newly discovered evidence cast doubt on his involvement.

The State Bar’s complaint alleges that, in October 2013, Mumma visited the home of a woman whose brothers were considered possible suspects in the killings to obtain a DNA sample. Mumma believed the sample would strengthen Sledge’s claims of innocence, the complaint said.

The woman declined to provide a sample, but Mumma left the home with a half-empty water bottle that she knew may not have belonged to her, according to the complaint. After the family decided not to provide a DNA sample, Mumma had the water bottle tested, the complaint said.

In her answer to the complaint, Mumma said she didn’t know the water bottle wasn’t hers until she returned to her car after speaking to the woman and found she had left her water bottle there.

“When she realized, at the car, that the bottle was not hers, she began to think about the implications of having evidence that could support her client’s claim of actual innocence, and she believed she had a duty to her client to consider the options,” Mumma stated in her answer.

State authorities hadn’t collected any DNA from other possible suspects in the case and were pressing for a hearing that could end Sledge’s bid to have his conviction overturned. Mumma contends in her answer that, even though the family refused to provide a DNA sample, she hoped that testing the water bottle could lead to a court order for a sample or could exclude the brothers as suspects, which she said would be important to the investigation.

The North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission obtained a court order for a DNA sample a year later, after Mumma’s test already eliminated the brothers as suspects in the case.

Mumma also argues in the answer that she informed both the Innocence Commission and the local district attorney about her possession of the water bottle and having it tested – a move that ultimately resulted in the State Bar complaint against her.

“(Mumma’s) voluntary and open disclosure led to these charges and belies any claim that (she) acted either in secrecy or with an attempt to deceive,” the answer states.

The response contends that Mumma’s actions were necessary to clear the name of an innocent man and maintain public confidence in the justice system.

“Without Ms. Mumma’s zealous representation, Joseph Sledge would still be in prison,” it states. “These charges seek to publicly sanction her over a minor part of her decade-long effort to achieve justice and restore confidence in the criminal justice system in Mr. Sledge’s case.”

The State Bar had scheduled an Aug. 7 hearing before its disciplinary board, but that has been canceled.

A new date for the hearing hasn’t been set.
Read more

Back story on this case from the news post.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

DC DNA lab suspension ALL political

Now look at this.

Details arise leading to more questions with some answers about a political coup at the now “police/DA managed” DC crime lab.
US Prosecutor Now Sending DNA Testing In DC To Lab Run By His Girlfriend; Def attys discovery requests now delayed or ignored.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/14/us-prosecutor-now-sending-criminal-dna-testing-in-dc-to-lab-run-by-his-girlfriend/ … via @dailycallerk

Here is an April 25 letter from the DFS SAB committee asking the DC mayor to chill out awhile. They explain the unsettled issue about DNA mixture stats. She clearly ignored this group of 10 biologists and other ancillary specialties and the next day went with the District Attorney’s takeover plan instead.

http://dfs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dfs/page_content/attachments/SAB%20letter%20to%20Mayor%2004%2025%202015.pdf

csidds's avatarFORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends

Having already blogged on DC lab director Max Houck getting axed by a combination of a DA and the mayor, this open statement by Jay Seigel confirms the battle royale happening between this independent crime lab and local power brokers.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/27/dc-adviser-resigns-claiming-massive-foul-play-in-dna-lab-management-firings/

View original post

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The inane responses of dentists who describe themselves as “skin-reading” experts

This is a 2011 blog post from  David Averill’s http://www.bitemarks.org. In the realm of forensic dentistry, somethings just never change, in fact things from bitemark adherents just get more confusing and stridently defensive. As of 2015, we are still hearing the same promises from the experts of “skin patterns made by teeth” published in the June issue of the Journal of California Dental Association.”

daverill1's avatarForensic Odontology - Bitemark Evidence

This is a guest post by Dr. Michael Bowers

The non-scientific dental discipline known as bitemark analysis has only a few dogmatists left, who deny its well-known status as a forensic train wreck and cling to decades old assumptions that judicial admission of their baseless opinions is a substitute for validation and reliability proofs. The downward slide of forensic dentists who tout themselves as “readers” of skin injuries caused by human teeth has been occurring for the last ten years through criticism from legal academics (Saks 1999, Gianelli 2009, Beecher-Monas 2009, Deitch, 2010; and a small cadre of sagacious forensic dentists; Rothwell 1999; Sweet, Pretty 2001, Pretty 2010; Clements 2010. This slip from glory has also been assisted by a string (N>12) of DNA fueled exonerations overturning erroneous convictions originally helped by the opinions of highly credentialed members of the American Board of Forensic Odontology. Finally, within the last four…

View original post 1,029 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Internal personnel discipline in a state’s # Forensics crime lab is revealed with some names included.

A view into how a state’s DOJ crime lab disciplines itself. It seems appropriate considering the facts given in this article.

 

 

Posted in criminal justice reform, forensic science reform, police crime labs | Leave a comment

The Shifted Paradigm: Forensic Sciences’s Overdue Evolution from Magic to Law

A detailed and extensive look at why the US courts’ POV on the evolution of science must be reconstructed back to realities of scientific principles, not ‘res judicata” (i.e old cases). This attached legal treatise, THE SHIFTED PARADIGM: FORENSIC SCIENCE’S OVERDUE EVOLUTION FROM MAGIC TO LAW, is by Chris Fabricant & Tucker Carrington.

THE SHIFTED PARADIGM: FORENSIC SCIENCE’S OVERDUE EVOLUTION FROM MAGIC TO LAW, Chris Fabricant & Tucker Carrington

Here is a quote from the co-authors contained in the summary section of their work.

“The long-predicted and now manifest paradigm shift in forensic identification evidence is rooted in a systemic, century long failure by nearly all criminal justice stakeholders to comprehend, question, challenge and exclude as unreliable the false and misleading assertions made by forensic experts and exploited by advocates to persuade lay jurors.”

This “systemic” judicial problem was the topic of the last @csidds blog. “The US courts are not prepared for this: The conundrum of outdated forensic science and recanting experts in courts.” 

Mark Godsey's avatarWrongful Convictions Blog

Chris Fabricant and Tucker Carrington have posted the above-titled article on SSRN.  Download here.  The abstract states:

A decade ago a controversial article in Science Magazine predicted a coming “paradigm shift” that would push forensic sciences toward fundamental change as the result of “[l]egal and scientific forces . . . converging to drive an emerging skepticism about the claims of the traditional forensic individualization sciences.” This article argues that the predicted paradigm shift has occurred. We support our thesis through a deconstruction of the jurisprudence of two of the forensic disciplines implicated in numerous wrongful convictions – forensic odontology (bite mark analysis) and forensic hair microscopy – and an examination of a confluence of unprecedented events currently altering the landscape of forensic sciences. The empirical evidence and data gathered here demonstrates that traditional forensic identification techniques, as well as the doctrines supporting them, are ultimately no more than…

View original post 137 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment