COUNTDOWN TO WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS DAY: TWO DAYS;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GIST: "If you’ve been reading The Watch for a while, the headline above won’t surprise you. But a new law review article by Paul Giannelli, a professor emeritus at Case Western University Law School, shows just how terrible the courts have really been on the issue. Giannelli,
who served on President Barack Obama’s now-disbanded National
Commission on Forensic Science, looks at how six forensic fields for
which there is little to no supporting scientific research (or in some
cases, that scientific research has discredited) — bite-mark comparison,
arson, microscopic hair analysis, firearms and toolmark analysis,
fingerprint analysis, comparative bullet-lead analysis. These fields
vary in scientific credibility and probative value from little to
none (bite-mark comparison and bullet-lead analysis) to possibly
valuable, though the extent of which is still unproven (fingerprint
analysis). Giannelli’s article sums up the dearth of scientific
research in each of these fields, then comments on how the courts have
handled challenges to their use in criminal trials. We’ve discussed the
story of bite-mark evidence here on numerous occasions. It is
arguably the least scientifically credible field of forensics still
used, and yet to this day, not a single court in the United States has
upheld a challenge to keep it out of evidence. But the courts haven’t
done much better with the other fields"...(Read on dear reader for Giannell's analysis of the other tainted fields and Balko's views on the short-comings of judges when it comes to assessing the validity of expert testimony. Bravo Radley!) HL);
The entire commentary can be found at:
Read related Grits For Breakfast Post -The Case of the Sleeping Gatekeepers, or Bolstering Daubert
at the link below:Over the past several years - really since the lead-up to the National Academy of Sciences 2009 study of forensics - Grits has been giving increasing thought to the failure of judicial gatekeepers to adequately vet dubious evidence from forensic analysts. The NAS clarified for the lay public for the first time that many common forensic methods have no basis in science, relying instead on subjective analyses. But the full implications of their findings are only beginning to become apparent. The subject has been especially on my mind since we did a podcast segment in August discussing the lack of judicial gatekeeping when it comes to DNA mixture evidence. In the case we discussed, the trial court admitted two different analyses of the same DNA mixture that came to different conclusions, and told jurors to pick the one they preferred! The intermediate appellate court affirmed the conviction, but didn't evaluate the question of admissibility. That seemed to me like such an abrogation of the gate keeping function, it's hard to understand what if anything labeled "forensic" Texas judges wouldn't admit into evidence? (I mean, there's dog-scent lineups, but we had to shame them into stopping those.) Clearly I'm not the only one thinking about how to tighten up these lax gatekeeping mechanisms. In that vein, here are several new academic analyses approaching the question from different angles: Paul Giannelli, "Forensic Science: Daubert's Failure"; Brandon Garrett, Gregory Mitchell, "The Proficiency of Experts"; Edward Imwinkelried, "The Best Insurance Against Miscarriages of Justice Caused by Junk Science: An Admissibility Test That Is Scientifically and Legally Sound";
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.ca/2017/09/the-case-of-sleeping-gatekeepers-or.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
