Forensics : Lessons about Black Youth and Wrongful Convictions: Three Things You Should Know #InConf2015

By Edwin Grimsley, Innocence Project case analyst

Edwin, who has written before for the Innocence Blog, will be speaking on a panel, “Race and Wrongful Convictions,” on Saturday at the 2015 Innocence Network Conference in Orlando, Florida.

Every wrongful conviction draws our attention to a horrific experience, but when teenagers are falsely arrested and convicted, it’s exceptionally heart-wrenching. Sadly, but perhaps not so surprising, cases of wrongfully convicted minors overwhelmingly involve youth of color.

Innocence Project data show that 34 (10%) of the 329 DNA-based exonerees were arrested as minors. Thirty-two out of that 34 (94%) are people of color; specifically, 30 of them (88%) are black. Even though some were as young as 14 when the crime occurred, all were tried in adult court.

The disproportionate figures go deeper. Of the 83 DNA-based exonerees who were arrested when they were younger than 21, 70 (84%) are people of color; 62 (75%) are black. Studies by wrongful conviction experts Sam Gross (2003) and Joshua Tepfer (2010) have noted that blacks are the majority of all youth exonerees.

Why are youth of color drastically over represented? Three key overlapping patterns have emerged:

Full Article from the Innocence Blog

 

Posted in costs of wrongful convictions, death penalty, exoneration, Exoneration costs | 1 Comment

Another forensic disaster : secret forensic “science”experts allowed to coerce crime suspects into plea deals.

The ABFO bitemark group of thAAFS proclaim in court their “new methodology” is admissible. Some Judges believe them and are willing to risk their long history of inadequate empirical proofs. They also refuse to aid in investigating 40 years of bitemark cases where their “new” methods did not exist. The American Academy of Forensic Sciences doesn’t care either. This is despite the public finding the FBI scandal of flawed forensics “shocking” and “appalling.”

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

TrustForensicSci copy

I am rarely shocked about nefarious dealings or subterfuge in the ecosystem of forensic ‘science’ and the criminal justice arena. But I just read that a police department has a cadre of 3 “anonymous” dentists in Indianapolis, Indiana, who provide dental assistance to police authorities. That assistance, of itself is typical, as most larger jurisdictions and states have a practicing dentist available for dental identifications. NAMUS is a national group of mostly volunteer dentists who assist in missing and unknown person investigations and dental data collection for the federal government.

The shocking part is police use of certain dental findings in police interrogations of suspects from this same “anonymous”  group (or any other dental consultant). Points of my objection are, bitemark “matches” or comparisons. Lets jump past the unreliability aspects of this subject and just call it junk. Regardless of this, dentists have not become mum about their 60 years of…

View original post 417 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Another forensic disaster : secret forensic “science”experts allowed to coerce crime suspects into plea deals.

 

TrustForensicSci copy

I am rarely shocked about nefarious dealings or subterfuge in the ecosystem of forensic ‘science’ and the criminal justice arena. But I just read that a police department has a cadre of 3 “anonymous” dentists in Indianapolis, Indiana, who provide dental assistance to police authorities. That assistance, of itself is typical, as most larger jurisdictions and states have a practicing dentist available for dental identifications. NAMUS is a national group of mostly volunteer dentists who assist in missing and unknown person investigations and dental data collection for the federal government.

The shocking part is police use of certain dental findings in police interrogations of suspects from this same “anonymous”  group (or any other dental consultant). Points of my objection are, bitemark “matches” or comparisons. Lets jump past the unreliability aspects of this subject and just call it junk. Regardless of this, dentists have not become mum about their 60 years of their unbridled popularity in the criminal court system. Current cases prove this to be fact.

And here is another rub. This potential of interrogation coercion has been occurring for decades. Most dentists’ early days in forensics contain mentoring and listening to the superstars of bitemarks rationalizing that any plea deal bitemark case is “golden.”  This attitude is not any different than law enforcement or prosecutors. Just how many of these cases have occurred is subject to an ongoing  research project of national exoneration organizations. Those mentoring forensic dentists (I emphasize: over 60 years in the US) aren’t helping in the data collection. Such is the antithesis (and split personality) of the competent an much larger dental identification side of this group. Strange.

Most lawyers and some public know cops don’t necessarily tell  suspects all the truth all the time. This is even regularly read into most CSI network and police procedurals and crime novels. This flaw has evolved into one major aspect of the blockbuster “police reform” movement endorsing mandatory recording police of custodial conversations. The US Supreme Court has also given its sanction to this law enforcement tactic. The back story in the criminal justice system is that 95% of criminal cases are “closed” with plea deals.

The injustice implication of unrecorded interrogations is obvious. Ones which lead to plea deals aided by unknown and non-disclosed flawed forensics ( no recording and no trial transcript disables any future post conviction appeal litigation) is another forensic disaster.

Read about plea deals and wrongful convictions.

Innocence Project: An End to Plea Deals

How Prosecutors Force Plea Deals. Article from Phil Locke @wrongconvblog

Will they ever fix forensics? Another Article from Phil Locke.

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

SAME OLD FORENSICS STORY

42 days in jail after a rape victim ID from Facebook, innocent man released due to DNA, the prosecutor in this Florida case says, “it happens all the time.” Then the judge and prosecutor apologize. Combine that with the PC used to incarcerate (a photo off of Facebook) supports why eye wit ientification is at the top of the . factors leading to wrong convictions. Article.

TALKING POINTS: POLITICS

St. Louis Dispatch editorial about pending “eyewitness” reform bill. Created as a “protection against wrongful convictions.”

SUSPENDED DNA CRIME LAB NEWS

Embattled  DC Crime Lab director resigns. Will not be paid for the remainder of his contract. 

Continuing story from the Washington DC crime lab decertification for “incompetence.’ Outsourcing 182 actives cases to cost “over a million dollars.” Latest WashPost article is here.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Bitemarks, Civil rights, criminal justice, Identification DVI, junk forensic science | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Pediatricians suggest bitemarks only be used to establish whether adult, other child or animal cause of skin injuries

This piece, “AAP: Peds Serve as Primary Prevention for Child Abuse.”  comes from MedPage, a  respected online health resource, which is now briefing general physicians about the proper diagnosis of child abuse. They have just published a new report (updated from 2007) from the American Academy of Pediatrics that is announcing their current opinions on the signs and symptoms of child abuse. For starters, the report mentions age parameters of child victims “less than 4 months up to 4 years and then, among other things, uses a common sense approach to the general appearance and diagnostic value of bitemark injuries. They do not suggest that bitemarks can be used to ID a specific biter and only suggest determinations of human (adult or other child) or animal origin.

This flies in the face of what the bitemark believers and more than a few dental   journalists say regarding the availability of dental  expertise that confidently can identify (by “comparison”) to  just one possible person as being   “the biter.”  This is consistently used by ‘elite’ dentists who involve themselves in child abuse cases where authorities tell them only custodial parents or other caregivers had access an injured child. This is a disguise for their lack of ability to classify the occurrence of other “matches” within the at-large human species. Much like the FBI hair technicians have done, these dentists support themselves and their organization (ABFO)  via misleading training of unsuspecting and well-intentioned dental professionals. Most of these courses are promoted by this small bunch. . 

Here’s the AAP comment on bitemarks.

Bite marks are another sign of physical abuse, especially bite marks “characterized by ecchymoses, abrasions or lacerations that are found in an elliptical or ovoid pattern.” The authors recommended photographing any bite marks and employing dental professionals or forensic odontologists to determine if the bites were inflicted by an adult, other child, or animal.

The article also states more wisdom about the visual signs of child abuse that should be useful for physicians, law enforcement and other criminal justice persons. Here is their summary.

Bruises are the most common sign of physical abuse, and they may be the only sign of a deeper internal injury. While normal childhood bruising occurs on the knees, legs and forehead, bruising that is the result of physical abuse is likely to occur on the head and face, appear in clusters, or appear in the shape of an implement, such as a handprint or a mark of a cord. Any bruising on a nonmobile infant is cause for concern because, as the authors note, “those who don’t cruise rarely bruise.”

The report suggested “TEN 4” for identifying problematic areas of bruising:

  • T: torso
  • E: ear
  • N: neck
  • 4: Children less than 4 years of age or infants less than 4 months of age

 

Posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bite Marks, Bitemarks, junk forensic science, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI legacy. What a veteran FBI crime lab whistle blower says about the “science” in forensics

J. Edgar Hoover’s legacy of “we always get our man” has a dark side. Dr. Frederick Whitehurst explains in this piece that, gut feelings, amateur research, cultural expediency and arrogance has been in the FBI’s DNA for decades.

The Marshal Project by Andrew Cohen

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

More media about the FBI crime lab and associated forensic credibility no longer the “gold standard” in the public eye. Article.  Another about “lost confidence.” Article.

Local Indianapolis dentists helping “fight crime” ask to be anonymous, yet they are used to influence suspects to admit guilt and accept plea bargains. The police are appreciative. 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Civil rights, criminal justice, police crime labs, wrongful convictions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

FORENSIC SCIENCE CONTINUES TO GET HAMMERED IN THE MEDIA : Now its DNA in DC

I have been following this for a while. Things seems very unsettled at the new (2012) independent crime lab in the District of Columbia. After another audit, DNA lab work at DC crime lab is now suspended for 30 days to correct statistical methods of DNA mixture interpretation. Other forensic units are expected to undergo additional scrutiny due to the DC DA and mayor going all postal due to the general national collapse of forensic credibility in the public eye. There’s a slight twist to who is doing some of the audits. It shows up at the end of my synoposis. From the WashPost… 

The audit, which was published Friday, criticized the lab’s practices and said they were not in compliance with FBI standards. It ordered “at a minimum” the revalidation of test procedures, new interpretation guidelines for DNA mixture cases, additional training and competency testing of staff.

The DNA analysts at the District’s Department of Forensic Sciences, according to the audit, “were not competent and were using inadequate procedures.” The authors of the review gave the lab a minimum of 30 days to address their concerns.

In an interview Sunday, Max M. Houck, the lab’s director, said that his office is “working diligently” to respond to both audits and that officials there take the reviews “seriously.” Keith St. Clair, a spokesman for the lab, said that whatever processes need to be corrected “will be corrected.”

The D.C. lab was audited last fall by the same accreditation organization that the city used to perform the new review. Houck said his lab passed the previous audit by the group. The FBI also audited the lab last year, he said.

Now THAT LAST is rather ironic. Considering this “dog hair” case they misidentified as a defendant’s hair.  Its title includes “…..losing faith in forensic science.”

WaPo Full Article on the DC lab. 

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

More doubt and concern of forensic science’s credibility.

“Five Disturbing Things You Didn’t Know about Forensic ‘Science” From Jordan Smith  She leads with bitemark matching.  Plus……….

Elsevier SciTech  (@SciTechELS) about forensic science ethical standards under scrutiny.

“Forensics in Crisis” BBC television new series. 

“How many innocent people id NJ send to prison with junk science?” Editorial

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

Other media articles from the last 2 days.

Here, Here. Here. Here. Here. Here.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

A cure for Junk Science? US Forensic Sci Commission allows access to draft recommends. Wants public feedback by MAY 15

Please peruse the NCFS portal link where such things as “forensic reform” of forensic ethics, forensic testimony language, rules of forensic discovery, etc are available via links. This is a total data dump forcing public “stake-holders” to wade into this package without an organized paddle, such as a “read-me” or category TOCs.   Public Portal to drafts

Nevertheless, here is their draft for the model “National Code of Professional Responsibility for Forensic Science and Forensic Medicine.Service Providers.”

Remember, none of this is compulsory for anybody. It is a “wish-list.” Don’t expect all of these ethics and associated scientific requirements for data discovery and reporting to survive.

I will highlight in BOLD the ethical recommendations that will make bitemark and some other pattern matching groups impossible to provide.

THE CODE

The National Code of Professional Responsibility (“Code”) defines a framework for promoting integrity and respect for the scientific process and encouraging a research-based culture. To increase public confidence in the quality of forensic services, each forensic science and forensic medicine service provider must meet the requirements enumerated below:
1. Accurately represent his/her education, training, experience, and areas of expertise.
2. Pursue professional competency through training, proficiency testing, certification, and presentation and publication of research findings.
3. Commit to continuous learning in the forensic disciplines and stay abreast of new findings, equipment and techniques.
4. Promote validation and incorporation of new technologies, guarding against the use of non-valid methods in casework and the misapplication of validated methods.
5. Avoid tampering, adulteration, loss, or unnecessary consumption of evidentiary materials.
6. Avoid participation in any case where there are personal, financial, employment-related or other conflicts of interest.
7. Conduct full, fair and unbiased examinations, leading to independent, impartial, and objective opinions and conclusions.
8. Make and retain full, contemporaneous, clear and accurate written records of all examinations and tests conducted and conclusions drawn, in sufficient detail to allow meaningful review and assessment by an independent person competent in the field.
9. Base conclusions on generally-accepted procedures supported by sufficient data, standards and controls, not on political pressure or other outside influence.
10. Do not render conclusions that are outside one’s expertise.
11. Prepare reports in unambiguous terms, clearly distinguishing data from interpretations and opinions, and disclosing all known associated limitations that prevent invalid inferences or mislead the judge or jury.
12. Do not alter reports or other records, or withhold information from reports for strategic or tactical litigation advantage.
13. Present accurate and complete data in reports, oral and written presentations and testimony based on good scientific practices and validated methods.
14. Communicate honestly and fully, once a report is issued, with all parties (investigators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other expert witnesses), unless prohibited by law.
15. Document and notify management or quality assurance personnel of adverse events, such as an unintended mistake or a breach of ethical, legal, scientific standards, or questionable conduct.
16. Ensure reporting, through proper management channels, to all impacted scientific and legal parties of any adverse event that affects a previously issued report or testimony.

 

Recommendations for Implementation

 

The National Commission on Forensic Science recommends that all forensic science and forensic medicine service providers, associated certification and accrediting bodies, and professional societies adopt the Code, that the Code be annually reviewed and signed by all forensic science and forensic medicine service providers, and that steps be defined to enforce ethical violations. In addition, when an adverse event occurs (whether an unintended mistake or a breach of ethical, legal, or scientific standards), there must be a process in place for all forensic science and forensic medical service providers to manage the reporting of and the corrective action to remediate the adverse event

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Case highlights harmful impact of flawed FBI hair testimony

Forensic errors in over 90% of cases mistakes seem trivial when Prosecutors say “other evidence” proves guilt.” This happens even when witnesses and informants recant, DNA is exculpatory, alibis prove true, and new research says old forensic methods were junk. The DA blame game continues after exonerations as well. Nearly any excuse is thrown out to see “if it sticks.” This post digs into all of this. My last few blogs echoes what is presented below by the WrongConvBlog. Also, take a look at their previous blogs on the subject.

Martin Yant's avatarWrongful Convictions Blog

The Guardian has effectively put a human face here on the tragedy of the FBI’s admission this week that its agents presented flawed testimony in almost every trial in which they testified against criminal defendants for more than two decades before 2000.

The face is that of George Perrot, whose case was previously covered on the Wrongful Convictions Blog here and in which, it should be noted, this writer has played a small role.

Perrot was convicted as a teenager on rape charges in 1985 greatly on the testimony of FBI agent Wayne Oakes that a hair found on the victim’s bed was similar to a known sample of Perrot’s hair. It didn’t matter to the jury that the elderly victim said that the rape didn’t occur on the bed or that the long-haired, bearded Perrot didn’t resemble the short-haired, clean-shaven man who raped her. Oakes’ testimony was enough, an…

View original post 101 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Veteran DNA analyst’s editorial in the NYT about what brand of forensics are needed to prevent bogus forensic testimony

Eric Lander has been around a long time. His experience in criminal courts shows in this NYT letter. Article

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

More on hair experts from the FBI scandal and their students. Read how their testimony in multiple cases, saying things like “1 in a 1000″ have this type of hair.” Just like the bitemark experts, except they now say “The defendant is the biter.” Both types sound like the real ‘CSI’ thing is going on. Its all smoke and persuasion, rather than science. Article

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

Today, cases of “hair identification” are coming out from multiple states. Details on costs to taxpayers for new trials which will be monumental.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Wednesday’s Quick Clicks…

Posts on more bad forensic science in the UK, exonerations, compensation and 2 heroes of a different kind.

Mark Godsey's avatarWrongful Convictions Blog

  • State of Mississippi to make pay outs in more than a dozen wrongful conviction cases
  • Pennsylvania Innocence Project wins new trial for woman convicted 42 years ago on flawed arson science
  • Charges dropped against California Innocence Project client Michael Hanline, who is the longest serving wrongfully convicted Californian
  • Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson honored for courage by DOJ
  • Well-done video from British TV about Ohio Innocence Project’s recent new trial wins for Wheatt, Glover and Johnson based on flawed gun-shot residue evidence and Brady violations
  • New Yorker article on compensation for the wrongfully convicted
  • Exoneree Martin Tankleff mulls run for Congress

View original post

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment