Take a look at a Forensics in Focus from 2013. None of the major forensics and criminal justice issues have changed. Dentists still testify in death penalty cases as if they were DNA experts. Prosecutors keep hiring them.
In the world of 2014 forensic news, this story should endup in the top 10. A book writer’s chief science consultant to the claim ole Jack was the immigrant Kominski just took a hit from a number of scientific notables and online scientific sleuths. A common allele with a marker not suitable for identification was mis-labeled. “Jack the Ripper: Scientist who claims to have identified notorious killer have ‘made serious DNA error’ .” The book’s publisher now claims the “DNA” gaff isn’t that important. Reports say the writer spent $700K for a scarf from a Ripper victim. See how wrongful convictions occur. Improper use of statistics appears to be the biggest problem with DNA tech.
Read about over 1,400 exonerations at this terrific site. Written by Puliltzer winner Maurice Possley. The National Registry of Exonerations . Many have the odd component of DNA science debunking other forensic methods. Other aspects are faulty eyewitness testimony and prosecutorial misconduct.
Prosecutorial misconduct: Judge vacates convictions in Akron quadruple homicide; DA whines about it later.
Forensic experts get sued. David Camm to seek $30M for wrongful conviction http://cjky.it/1kQtytZ This is a leading topic of expert liability that seems to have been missed by ‘elite’ forensic orgs like the Amer Acad of Forensic Sciences.
Some of these cases have ended up in civil court after innocence has been proven. List of erroneous convictions from bitemarks: in “Forensic Science Testimony.”
Current case being litigated by Bennie Starks against two esteemed AAFS bitemark experts. “Victim of junk science caused 23 year incarceration sues 2 experts in bitemark identification.”
Forensics expert ‘had been on medication’ in the witness box.
When a DA and a judge obstruct DNA testing, it doesn’t matter if you are innocent, you stay in prison.
Forensic experts under major UK scrutiny. Are juries being blinded by science? | Joshua Rozenberg
The face of truth in a very recent exoneration. McCallumPressConference: via YouTube
Buy your junk-science bitemark kit for the kids. Encourage the budding charlatan in your life with this junk-science kit
After grand jury rebuff, Lawyer for child hurt in SWAT raid takes issue to U.S. attorney via sharethis
Dont look at anyone while in NYC public restrooms.
The bitemark experts once AGAIN, promise that they will do better. Read the following recent website posting from their head honcho. As usual, nothing about where all his newly found reliability comes from. Maybe its his below-mentioned “Tree” system? All the “good” cases sums his defense which is: “The ABFO has excluded far more people than they ever included.” Of course, the ones they included in 24 cases were innocent and the ones excluded never knew how close they came to their doom. This self-serving ratio of Loomis’ “risk vs benefit” statement is off-the cuff. His determination of “positive outcomes” is his opinion. The NAS report on bitemarks couldn’t find any. His audience is small. and growing smaller.
===============================================
The New York Times printed an article on 9/16/2014 (LINK ADDED) faulting “bite-mark forensics.” It highlights an appeal recently filed by the Mississippi Innocence Project with the Mississippi Supreme Court, of 22 year old case in which bite mark testimony was provided by Dr. Michael West. Like every news article, there are misstatements and some erroneous information is given. In particular, the author parrots the flawed Innocence Project publicity that 17 people previously convicted based on “expert bite matches” have been exonerated by DNA evidence. The IP often uses the number of 24 so it least the number is down a bit, but in actuality the number is 10, and of these, five of the opinions were not “match” as the article mentions but a lesser opinion. While any number of wrongful convictions is unacceptable and we are all cognizant of the fact that some terrible mistakes have been made in the past, we cannot ignore the fact that hundreds of positive outcomes have occurred throughout the country wherein bite mark evidence played a crucial role in the judicial process to assist the triers of fact. The ABFO continues to make changes to ensure accuracy of expert opinions. The ABFO has developed the Bitemark Analysis and Comparison Decision Tree, is continuing to develop a bitemark proficiency examination, has significantly raised the bitemark and other requirements for examination eligibility for new candidates, requires recertifying diplomates to take a recertification examination and has revised the standards, guidelines and terminology for bitemark analysis.
Peter W. Loomis, DDS, D-ABFO
President – American Board of Forensic Odontology
The bitemark experts once AGAIN, promise that they will do better. Read the following recent website posting from their head honcho. As usual, nothing about how where all this new reliability comes from. All his “good” cases sums his defense. “The ABFO has excluded far more people than they ever included.” Of course, the ones they included in 24 cases were innocent and the ones excluded never knew how close they came to their doom. This self-serving ratio of Loomis’ “risk vs benefit” statement is off-the cuff. His audience is small. and growing smaller.
===============================================
The New York Times printed an article on 9/16/2014 faulting “bite-mark forensics.” It highlights an appeal recently filed by the Mississippi Innocence Project with the Mississippi Supreme Court, of 22 year old case in which bite mark testimony was provided by Dr. Michael West. Like every news article, there are misstatements and some erroneous information is given. In particular, the author parrots the flawed Innocence Project publicity that 17 people previously convicted based on “expert bite matches” have been exonerated by DNA evidence. The IP often uses the number of 24 so it least the number is down a bit, but in actuality the number is 10, and of these, five of the opinions were not “match” as the article mentions but a lesser opinion. While any number of wrongful convictions is unacceptable and we are all cognizant of the fact that some terrible mistakes have been made in the past, we cannot ignore the fact that hundreds of positive outcomes have occurred throughout the country wherein bite mark evidence played a crucial role in the judicial process to assist the triers of fact. The ABFO continues to make changes to ensure accuracy of expert opinions. The ABFO has developed the Bitemark Analysis and Comparison Decision Tree, is continuing to develop a bitemark proficiency examination, has significantly raised the bitemark and other requirements for examination eligibility for new candidates, requires recertifying diplomates to take a recertification examination and has revised the standards, guidelines and terminology for bitemark analysis.Peter W. Loomis, DDS, D-ABFO
President – American Board of Forensic Odontology
Today’s subject is a brief look back at how pattern evidence from bruised human skin got into the case law of every state in the US. Its not a pretty process, as I describe below.
Scientists learn from their past studies which includes unsuccessful experimentation. The recognition and use old data to construct new theories and experimental hypotheses is part of scientific progress. But scientific tenets don’t seem to apply to dentists who deal in bitemark IDs. They liken themselves as still being relevant for courts. One caveat: these days they disappear when DNA is available
Assumptions of personal rather than fact of empirically proven nature were and still are acceptable by judges and rules of evidence. One past AAFS/ABFO president (among other forensic types) said, after the 2009 NAS Report on bitemarks laid out all its “scientific” mumbo-jumbo”, that hard scientific proofs (meaning testing that allows repeatability…
View original post 580 more words
After decades of legal and more recent research on doubtful eyewitness testimony has led to this Report from the NRC/NAS.
The best reads on this type of “evidence” used by prosecutors are:
1) Professor Brandon Garrett’s “Convicting the Innocent.”
2) The NY Innocence Project’s persistent articles about cases tainted by witnesses’ faulty/false testimony.
In California, another bill involving a valiant attempt to prevent the strong correlation of prosecutorial misconduct (in over 800 cases, only less than a 2 handfusl have led to Bar sanctions against state prosecutors) and wrongful convictions was vetoed this week by Gov Brown. He has said that pros misc was unacceptable, but got cold feet when law enforcement agencies did their lobbying. Some DAs supporte the bill. He pawned his negative decision with oft-used legalistic phrase from the judicial toolbox. “Overbroad”
Gov Brown vetoes bills on better prosecution misconduct control. The gov wants to protect the DAs from tougher rules. http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/09/29/brown-vetoes-bills-on-prosecution-misconduct-drones-oks-lower-crack-sentences/ …
Another Op-Ed on this subject:
CA: Jerry Brown Fails his Test http://bit.ly/10kKjYH
and
CA Assemblyman ‘angry’ as Brown vetoes prosecutor misconduct bill | SF Politics http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/09/29/ammiano-angry-brown-vetoes-prosecutor-misconduct-bill#.VCs5d926LGI.twitter …
and
Radley Balko, on his WashPost blog, THE WATCH, sums up all of this.
The Houston Crime lab seems to have a dual personality problem:
Apr 2014 More trouble for problem plagued Houston crime lab? – FOX 26 News | MyFoxHouston http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/25126650/more-trouble-for-problem-plagued-houston-crime-lab#.VCrHcU4OGWE.twitter …
then this just shows up.
Sept 30 2014 Houston Forensic Science Center awarded $1.26 million grant. Everyone’s happy. http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/deer_park/news/houston-forensic-science-center-awarded-million-grant/article_6aad7023-209b-5460-9790-4614c8ba2f7d.html#.VCrHjq71uvQ.twitter … via @ScoopHouston
Other topics.
Brilliantly coordinated teamwork between police and the CSIs. Delayed crime lab testing = identification of dried spaghetti-os on spoon. Woman spent 47 days in jail claiming innocence http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/ashley-huff/ … and this.
No accountability http://wapo.st/1vq6IPG This includes stonewallers’ denials of culpability in #Forensics aided wrongful convictions.
A man wrongfully convicted and imprisoned attempting a civil suit for $$ reparations in Illinois gets the shaft from a trio of appellate judges. “In civil suit against cops + DA, 7th Circuit badgers Plantiff’s atty, did not ask def attorney a single difficult question.” http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/09/29/71906.htm … via
Can a dog be a forensic expert witness? Arson trial testimony on accelerant-sniffing dog. Rover got it “right” one out of three times at fire scenes. http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20140929/new-haven-arson-trial-begins-with-testimony-on-accelerant-sniffing-dog …
A DA’s affair and Brady = dismissal of murder charges in 1989 cold case killing http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_26634185/san-jose-affair-spurs-dismissal-murder-charges-1989 …
Another bad bitemark case, RICHARDSON, leads to new DNA bill in NJ. Targets access iimprovements to cop DNA databases in order to catch the real perps. One-half of all DNA exons have uncovered the true criminal. http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/09/nj_must_end_the_absurd_bureaucracy_around_dna_testing.html#incart_river …
California Governor Jerry Brown just signed into law SB 1058 bill. The law permits habeas corpus petitioners (i.e. after a conviction) the ability to contest expert testimony that was presented against them at trial. In other words, experts who either repudiate their past testimony or used forensic “science” that is later deemed faulty by legitimate research are subject to later proceedings reversing a conviction. Personal liabilities of those experts are NOT affected by this amendment to the California Penal Code.
The implications of this advance in criminal justice sidesteps prosecutors’ and judges’ habit of using old case law as an excuse for ignoring habeas corpus appeals expressing new forensic research and attitudes.
Foundation for this legislation
This bill is a direct response to criminal proceedings involving Williams Richards’ 1997 murder conviction based on bite mark opinions of two ABFO dentists. Both later repudiated their trial testimony in 2008. There are…
View original post 33 more words
If the American Academy of Forensic Sciences continues to ignore these issues of junk forensic testimony, then every state in the Union will have to do this job for them. California is only the being. The forensic science community is overloaded with “stonewallers” in certain disciplines within this organization of self-proclaimed “elite” scientists.
California Governor Jerry Brown just signed into law SB 1058 bill. The law permits habeas corpus petitioners (i.e. after a conviction) the ability to contest expert testimony that was presented against them at trial. In other words, experts who either repudiate their past testimony or used forensic “science” that is later deemed faulty by legitimate research are subject to later proceedings reversing a conviction. Personal liabilities of those experts are NOT affected by this amendment to the California Penal Code.
The implications of this advance in criminal justice sidesteps prosecutors’ and judges’ habit of using old case law as an excuse for ignoring habeas corpus appeals expressing new forensic research and attitudes.
Foundation for this legislation
This bill is a direct response to criminal proceedings involving Williams Richards’ 1997 murder conviction based on bite mark opinions of two ABFO dentists. Both later repudiated their trial testimony in 2008. There are previous postings on Richards on this blog which reveal events leading up to this new law here, here, and here,
The new 2014 law amending Penal Code 1473 is here.
FORENSICS and LAW in FOCUS @ CSIDDS | News and Trends 