FORENSICS | Should We Rejoice? U.S. Departments of Justice and Commerce Name Experts to First-ever National Commission on Forensic Science

Here’s a  list of the commissioners appointed to this NIST forensic review group. I find no pro active or judicial/scientific empowerment allowed to their future findings and recommendations. This impotence is much like what happened to the National Academies of Science 2009 Report on “Strengthening Forensic Science in the U.S.” Criminal Justice activists hailed it as a hallmark of truth. State trial and appellate judges, Federal judges and prosecuting District Attorneys generally  ignore it as a “non-governmental” (meaning unenforceable) and uncompelling review. These responses are unprecedented in the history of the NAS.  In the worst case of cynicism, this “new” could be merely window dressing by the DOJ Feds and the Department of Commerce related NIST. Similar post 2009 Congressional and Executive branch (Senator Patrick Leahy’s Forensic Commission bill and the White House) fact-finding soirees have evaporated because of push back by the  forensic/law enforcement industrial complex and typical DC Beltway short-term memory loss. The wrongfully convicted have no lobbyists in that town.

Here’s the rub from the DOJ horse’s mouth: “Members of the commission will work to improve the practice of forensic science by developing guidance concerning the intersections between forensic science and the criminal justice system. Sounds tooth-less to me (and I’m a dentist).

The following is an excerpt showing some bureaucratic posturing and listing of all the folks picked out of 300 candidates. There are some well known legal policy innovators and commentators in this group. None have the credentials (i.e., fighting actual litigation cases of forensic disasters in 311 DNA exonerations)  of newly appointed Commissioner Peter Neufeld.

To the DOJ/NIST NEWS RELEASE

A Deputy Attorney General praises his committee members.

“I appreciate the commitment each of the commissioners has made and look forward to working with them to strengthen the validity and reliability of the forensic sciences and enhance quality assurance and quality control,” said Deputy Attorney General Cole.  “Scientifically valid and accurate forensic analysis supports all aspects of our justice system.”
The commission includes federal, state and local forensic science service providers; research scientists and academics; law enforcement officials; prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges; and other stakeholders from across the country.  This breadth of experience and expertise reflects the many different entities that contribute to forensic science practice in the U.S. and will ensure these broad perspectives are represented on the commission and in its work.
“This new commission represents an extremely broad range of expertise and skills,” said Under Secretary Gallagher.  “It will help ensure that forensic science is supported by the strongest possible science-based evidence gathering, analysis and measurement.
“This latest and most impressive collaboration between the Department of Justice and the National Institute of Standards and Technology will help ensure that the forensic sciences are supported by the most rigorous standards available—a foundational requirement in a nation built on the credo of ‘justice for all,’” said John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The following commissioners were chosen from a pool of more than 300 candidates:
Suzanne Bell, Ph.D. , Associate Professor, West Virginia University; Frederick Bieber, Ph.D., Medical Geneticist, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Associate Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School; Thomas Cech, Ph.D. , Distinguished Professor, University of Colorado, Boulder; Cecelia Crouse, Ph.D. , Director, Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office Crime Laboratory; Gregory Czarnopys , Deputy Assistant Director, Forensic Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; M. Bonner Denton, Ph.D. , Professor, University of Arizona; Vincent Di Maio, M.D., Consultant in Forensic Pathology; Troy Duster, Ph.D. , Chancellor’s Professor and Senior Fellow, Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley; Jules Epstein , Associate Professor of Law, Widener University; Stephen Fienberg, Ph.D. , Maurice Falk University Professor of Statistics and Social Science, Carnegie Mellon University; Andrea Ferreira-Gonzalez, Ph.D. , Professor of Pathology and Director Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, Virginia Commonwealth University;John Fudenberg , Assistant Coroner, Office of the Coroner/Medical Examiner, Clark County, Nevada; S. James Gates, Jr., Ph.D. , University System Regents Professor and John S. Toll Professor of Physics, University of Maryland; Dean Gialamas , Crime Laboratory Director, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Scientific Services Bureau; Paul Giannelli , Distinguished University Professor and Albert J Weatherhead III and Richard W. Weatherhead Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University; Hon. Barbara Hervey , Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; Susan Howley , Public Policy Director, National Center for Victims of Crime; Ted Hunt , Chief Trial Attorney, Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, Missouri; Linda Jackson , Director, Virginia Department of Forensic Science; John Kacavas , United States Attorney, District of New Hampshire; Pamela King, Assistant State Public Defender, Minnesota State Public Defender Office; Marc LeBeau, Ph.D. , Senior Forensic Scientist, Scientific Analysis Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Julia Leighton, General Counsel, Public Defender Service, District of Columbia; Hon. Bridget Mary McCormack , Justice, Michigan Supreme Court; Peter Neufeld , Co-Director, Innocence Project, Benjamin Cardozo School of Law; Phil Pulaski , Chief of Detectives, New York City Police Department; Hon. Jed Rakoff , Senior United States District Judge, Southern District of New York; Matthew Redle , Sheridan County and Prosecuting Attorney, Sheridan, Wyoming;Michael “Jeff” Salyards, Ph.D. , Executive Director, Defense Forensic Science Center, Department of the Army; and Ryant Washington , Sheriff, Fluvanna County Sherriff’s Office, Fluvanna, Virginia.

Posted in criminal justice, junk forensic science, William Richards Exoneration Case, wrongful convictions | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

FORENSICS | WHY FORENSIC ODONTOLOGY FAILS: AN ONGOING INNOCENCE PROJECT CASE

This blog  relays multiple tales of inferior forensic science that has taken a serious toll on the lives of innocent criminal defendants. Page 4, as mentioned below, has a persuasive story  about Gerald Richardson’s years long struggle to be freed from jail because of an erroneous bite mark analysis and opinion from a forensic dentist certified as a “Diplomate” of the AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC ODONTOLOGY, which is enabled in its sponsorship by the  AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCES .

The following excerpt information and bottom link are from the Innocence Project’s Winter 2013 Newsletter. Maddy DeLone, the IP Executive Director, starts it on page 3.

“A cornerstone of the Innocence Project’s work, DNA testing is a powerful forensic discipline that can determine innocence or guilt. Although commonly referred to as forensic sciences, DNA testing is the only forensic discipline that is used to match a defendant to a crime scene that has been scientifically validated. Tragically, unvalidated and improper forensics have contributed to half of the 311 wrongful convictions in this country overturned by DNA evidence. The case of Gerard Richardson (pictured on the cover) is a recent example. For 19 years, Gerard was locked away after being falsely convicted of murder. On October 28, a Somerset, New Jersey, judge vacated Gerard’s conviction based on new DNA testing. A major factor that contributed to his conviction was the testimony of a forensic dentist who claimed that Gerard’s teeth matched a bite mark on the victim, but DNA revealed that the bite was made by another man (see “Why Forensic Odontology Fails” on page 4). Although bite mark analysis has been shown to be highly questionable as an investigative tool, it and other unreliable forensic practices are still used in criminal prosecutions. The Innocence Project is working in Congress and in the courts to ensure that forensic techniques are rooted in empirical evidence and not simply guided by the subjective experience of forensic examiners.”

Page 4, begins,

“For more than 30 years in the United States, bite mark evidence has been routinely used to identify the perpetrators of violent crime by “matching” a suspect’s teeth to an impression on the victim’s skin. But bite mark analysis is not based on scientific research. The ongoing case of Gerard Richardson, who was recently released from prison in New Jersey, shows why bite mark analysis should not be used as evidence of guilt at a criminal trial. The dentists who specialize in bite mark identification — just one of the facets of forensic dentistry — are known as forensic odontologists. Their work includes comparing bite marks and dental casts from defendants to marks left on victims’ bodies. Since 2000, at least 24 innocent men whose convictions and/or arrests were based on evidence “matching” their teeth to impressions on human skin have been cleared.

There could be many more people who were wrongly convicted based on this evidence.” (italics added).  Go to the IP’s Winter 2013 Newsletter

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

FORENSICS | Richardson Bite Mark case exposes ABFO experts’ assurances as folly

Being “tough on crime” is a cliche used by some involved in politics, law enforcement, and used by certain forensic practitioners. I prefer the phrase “smart on crime.”  Both may sound similar, but the “smart” inference means that forensic developments, empirical research and vigorous study of legal outcomes in cases of questionable forensics are now in play. Almost 50% of 311 DNA based exoneration cases have questionable or inaccurate prosecution forensic expertise. These 311 individuals have been represented by the Innocent Project and the Innocence Network. Both are  national litigation and public policy organizations dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals by DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.

This brand new 1/2/2014 article in  THE VERGE focuses on the intersection between two diametrically opposite forensic methods. Its a very good read and details the most recent exoneration of Gerald Richardson via DNA  colliding  with the “elite” bite mark experts (the ABFO). Although its title is a little confusing ( “Is DNA Analysis Stuck in the Past?” ) the  article contains concerned opinion about modern DNA science and its interface with law enforcement crime labs (who appear “stuck” according Law Professor David A. Harris,  The Verge reporter’s named source). This piece also runs over the September 2013 THE VERGE piece where these bite experts (sorry for the following pun) bite back at critics. 

BTW, for decades, this US forensic dental group, the ABFO, has established a curriculum that poses as an advanced dental certification. The ADA does not’ recognize it. The AAFS give them carte blanche.

Here’s a snippet of Harris comments and opinions from the article:

About that: an ideal DNA swab has one clear contributor. The Gerard Richardson case is a perfect example: one unknown person bit into a known person’s flesh. Analysts needed only to determine whether Richardson’s DNA matched that of theunknown person. It didn’t, and so his charges were dropped.

But when the number of unknown contributors to a DNA sample goes above one — or when the sample is tarnished in some way, or determined to be too miniscule to be analyzed by a person — there’s not much than can be done under current standards. Complicated DNA samples are thus called “uninterpretable” and often ignored.

This is no secret, either. Even the quintessential document about forensic science written in the last decade — the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States, published in August, 2009 — laments that “DNA tests performed on a contaminated or otherwise compromised sample cannot be used reliably to identify or eliminate an individual as the perpetrator of a crime.”

Posted in AAFS, ABFO, Bitemarks, Forensic Science, wrongful convictions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

FORENSICS | 2013 Is record year for exonerations

Download annual report from……

http://www.innocencenetwork.org/resources/innocence-collateral/network-exoneration-reports/innocence-network-exoneration-report-2013/view

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

FORENSICS | COSTS OF WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS. Man imprisoned for faulty bite-mark wins $1,500,000.

The hurt keeps coming onto “board certified” dentists continuing to be members of  the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and are also members of  the AAFS  “recognized” American Board of Forensic Odontology.

Both of these  forensic organizations refuse to investigate members cases of bitemark forensics aiding wrongful convictions. They are interested in other things.

Details and cost of this bite mark misidentification. 

Description of Bite Mark Exonerations and Erroneous Arrests

See an earlier CSIDDS blog on a man factually innocent (via post conviction DNA and recanting bitemark experts) but still considered guilty by the California Supreme Court. This is not a case where other governors could not  tell the difference between an innocent man and a guilty one. The CA governor, Jerry Brown, has been presented with pleadings requesting pardons in this case and 11 other California Innocent Project clients.

Posted in Forensic Science, wrongful convictions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

See the faces and families of 12 Californians factually but not legally innocent

After years of litigation and post conviction investigation, 12 cases now end up on the CA governor’s desk requesting pardons. The court system won’t let them go.

Innocence March Returns to Sacramento to Ask Governor Brown for 12 Christmas Presents

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DNA vs bite mark believers. Guess which wins?

Add another exoneration to the list of 24 exons and wrongful incarcerations involving AAFS/ABFO/FSAB  forensically “certified” dental bite experts.

Read the Innocence Project’s news release. 

Read the case list and details of DNA versus bite marks in US criminal courts. This is where DNA has demolished opinions from the “elite” and “internationally recognized” members of the ABFO (with a couple exceptions, all are or were ABFO at the time of their testimony).

Posted in Bad Forensic Science, Bite Marks, Bitemarks, criminal justice, Forensic Science, wrongful convictions | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Forensics. The occasionally strange Top 2013 moments in Forensic Science according to the NFSTC

One is “fingerprint science comes to the kitchen.” All are undeniably positive. 

://www.nfhttpstc.org/top-10-forensic-science-stories-of-2013/

The NFSTC is a consortium of current and ex governmental employees and private parties that have a varied nexus with forensic science and law enforcement. Their affiliations within these areas are profound and deep and primarily police managed crime labs. They backup their mission statement via grant writing for USDOJ and NIJ monies targeting training. Their “about me” page reads, in part.

“In 1995, members of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) realized the need for an organization with a focus on elevating the quality and consistency of forensic services in our nation’s crime laboratories. Out of that realization was born the National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC), a nonprofit organization with one staff person, $1500 and a charge to ‘do good things’ for the industry. Offices for NFSTC were established at St. Petersburg College, in St. Petersburg, Florida. The early years were focused on laying the groundwork for future programs.”

But, as in many things forensics (both in practice and some of its organizations), there is a backstory and a side story that must be considered “compelling circumstantial evidence” of other “intentional acts” of the NSFTC.

Amy Driver of “bulletpath blog” fame, until sometime in 2012, had consistently been nagging at the heels (and sometimes on the nose) of this forensic facilitating organization. 

Founded in 1995 by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) with a mandate to “do good things”, the National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC) sounded like a good idea: develop quality services for all and deliver them for free or at low cost to public crime labs, all funded by the federal government. However, like other ASCLD endeavors, it quickly proved to be yet another opportunity for a few to hoard power and cash.

Some might argue that all that grant money had to go somewhere, and the NFSTC was just really good at networking.

But, as the recently-passed CJS Appropriations Bill pointed out, the money was supposed to go to crime labs to keep criminalists working to keep backlogs down. The money was not supposed to go to a special interest group of the crime lab managers to create a place for them to hoard money and power for themselves in a way that kept money out of their own crime labs.

And the NFSTC didn’t just become good at networking.

The NFSTC was allowed to put their own people in the National Institutes of Justice [NIJ] grant office where money was being sent back to the NFSTC. People who were still being paid by the NFSTC.

Amy had a knack for unerringly saying what she thinks. I wish her well.

Posted in criminal justice, Forensic Science, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

(CIP) California Innocence Project’s Accomplishments in 2013- DONATE!!

 

A Fight for Freedom in 2013
Dear CIP Supporters,

With your donations and support, 2013 proved to be a very busy year at CIP…

 

CIP client Uriah Courtney, who had served 8 years for a rape he did not commit, walked out of prison a free man after advancements in DNA technology and the cooperation of the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, made it possible to re-test the victim’s clothing. The testing revealed a male profile, not Uriah’s, on both the shirt and the skirt. That male profile was run through the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a national databank containing convicted offender profiles, and a match was obtained. The DNA matched a local man who lived a mere three miles from the crime scene and had a striking resemblance to Uriah.

 

Because of being a convicted sex offender, for 8 years Uriah was never able to have contact with his son. CIP attorneys were there to capture the first time the ten year old boy met his father. CLICK HERE

______________________________________

CIP attorneys Alissa Bjerkhoel, Mike Semanchik, and myself completed a 712 mile freedom march from San Diego to Sacramento to present the Governor 12 clemency petitions of innocent CIP clients. The march resulted in a personal meeting with the Governor’s legal staff where we presented the California 12’s cases of innocence.

We will rally again at the state’s capital  on December 20, 2013 to make a plea to the Governor for our client’s freedom.

PLEASE JOIN USCLICK HERE 

_______________________________________

We had a great win in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of our client, Danny Larsen, who was wrongfully convicted of possession of a concealed knife in 1998 ( a third strike). CIP uncovered a number of witnesses who explained another man, not Danny, had the knife. These witnesses, one of whom was a retired police chief, were never interviewed at the time of Danny’s trial.
Danny’s conviction was actually reversed by a United States District Court judge in 2010 after CIP brought forth all of the witnesses during a lengthy hearing, but the Attorney General’s office appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit. CIP Co-Director Jan Stiglitz argued the case in front of the 9th Circuit where he was victorious when they denied the state’s appeal. Danny remains a free man.

________________________________________

CIP Exoneree, Brian Banks, signed with the Atlanta Falcons and realized his dream of playing in the NFL in a pre-season game against the Bengals.

 

While Banks did not make the 53 man roster, he declared that he had already won.

I would like to thank all of our amazing supporters.  Without your donations we could not pursue our mission to free the innocent men and women in our prison system.

 

On behalf of CIP and our clients, I ask that you please remember us in your yearly giving campaign this month so that our success can continue into 2014.
Sincerely,

Director

 

SUPPORT THE PROJECT & DONATE TODAY!

 

A Message from CIP Exoneree
Brian Banks

 

CLICK HERE 

Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right.
 ~Oprah Winfrey

STAY IN TOUCH Like us on Facebook   Follow us on Twitter
CALIFORNIA INNOCENCE PROJECT
225 Cedar Street ~ San Diego, CA 92101  – 619.525.1485

 

Posted in Bad Forensic Science, criminal justice, wrongful convictions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Forensic Science. Law Profs Michael Saks and Barry Scheck discuss strategies for the #criminal #defense bar.

“Forensic science is largely a faith-based discipline whose experts testify first and worry about verification later,” according to a leading U.S. law and social science scholar, Professor Michael Saks. “There’s a lack of data but an enormous amount of faith in it.” Barry Scheck of the NY Innocence Project remarked,  “There’s now a “duty to correct” false presentations in the forensic scientists’ code of ethics.” Both speakers are well known for their high expectations for better scientific standards in US courts.

Full article is here

Michael Saks, right, addresses the topic of forensic science with fellow panellist Barry Scheck, left, and moderator Alan Gold at a conference marking the 20th anniversary of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted.	Photo: Peter Small
Michael Saks, right, addresses the topic of forensic science with fellow panelist Barry Scheck, left, and moderator Alan Gold at a conference marking the 20th anniversary of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. Photo: Peter Small
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment