"IN PEOPLE V. PALATE (CT. APP. 1981) 174 CAL. RPT. 59, A MURDER CASE, ROBBINS TESTIFIED ABOUT "CINDERELLA ANALYSIS"--MATCHING THE INSOLES OF SHOES FOUND AT A CRIME SCENE WITH THE INSOLES OF THE ACCUSED'S SHOES. SHE TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS "HIGHLY IMPROBABLE" THAT ANYONE OTHER THAN PALATE COULD HAVE WORN THE GRAVEST SHOES; THE PROBABILITY OF ANOTHER PERSON WITH THE SAME FOOT FEATURES BEING AT THAT LOCATION AT THAT TIME WOULD BE "ASTRONOMICAL." TESTIFYING FOR THE DEFENSE, A PODIATRIST STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT'S FEET PATTERNS WERE "UNIQUE TO ABOUT 60 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION" AND THAT THE WEAR PATTERNS ON THE GRAVEST SHOES "WERE 'COMPLETELY DIFFERENT' FROM [THE] DEFENDANT'S SHOES." EVEN THOUGH ROBBINS HAD NEVER BEFORE QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT ON "CINDERELLA" ANALYSIS, NOR PUBLISHED ANY WORKS ON THE SUBJECT, HER TESTIMONY WAS ADMITTED AND THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED."
MICHAEL BURT: THE "CINDERELLA EXPERT":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Michael Burt, formerly of the San Francisco Public Defender Office, described Louise Robbins as "the Cinderella expert" in a paper called "Forensics as Mitigation" which he delivered to a death penalty conference in 2000;
Burt effectively he married the fantasy of the Cinderella legend with the fantasy of Robbin's testimony;
Here are some excerpts:
"The United States Supreme Court's latest prosecutorial immunity case, Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, (1993) 509 U.S. 259, 262 offers another illustration of the misuse of scientific evidence. In 1983, Buckley was indicted for a highly-publicized Illinois murder. The critical evidence was a bootprint left by the killer on the door of the eleven-year-old victim's home when he kicked it in. Experts from the county and state crime labs, as well as from the Kansas Bureau of Identification, were unable to identify Buckley's boot as the source of the print. Ignoring these government experts, prosecutors obtained, or shopped for, a "positive identification" from Dr. Louise Robbins.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins, an anthropology professor, had developed her own method of foot comparisons, including insole comparisons ("Cinderella Evidence"). Her method differed from traditional shoeprint or footprint comparisons. No one else could do what she claimed to be able to do. Indeed, William Bodziak, the FBI's top shoeprint expert, testified against her in several trials. In one capital murder case, State v. Johnston1986 WL 8799 at *9 (Ohio App. Aug. 6, 1986) (comparison of plaster cast and accused's boot), modified in part, rev'd in part, 529 N.E.2d 898 (Ohio 1988), reh'g denied, 534 N.E.2d 850 (Ohio 1988), later proceeding, 580 N.E.2d 1162 (Ohio App. 1990), Bodziak compared a plaster cast of a purported footprint found in a muddy riverbank with three boots seized from the defendant. He was unable to determine whether the print was made by a boot or a bare foot. In contrast, Robbins testified not only that it was a bootprint, but also that it matched one of the defendant's boots in several important details. Later, Bodziak commented: "There was no evidence whatsoever of any recognizable portion of a boot. It literally looked like they had poured plaster over a bunch of rocks." Mark Hansen, Believe It or Not, A.B.A. J., June 1993, at 64, 65 Johnston was sentenced to death.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In People v. Palate (Ct. App. 1981) 174 Cal. Rpt. 59, a murder case, Robbins testified about "Cinderella Analysis"--matching the insoles of shoes found at a crime scene with the insoles of the accused's shoes. She testified that it was "highly improbable" that anyone other than Palate could have worn the gravest shoes; the probability of another person with the same foot features being at that location at that time would be "astronomical." Testifying for the defense, a podiatrist stated that the defendant's feet patterns were "unique to about 60 percent of the population" and that the wear patterns on the gravest shoes "were 'completely different' from [the] defendant's shoes." Even though Robbins had never before qualified as an expert on "Cinderella" analysis, nor published any works on the subject, her testimony was admitted and the defendant was convicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In State v. Maccia (N.C. 1984) 316 S.E.2d 241 Robbins matched tennis shoes found at a crime scene with the defendant's footprint exemplars, even though the crime scene shoes were a size nine and the defendant wore a ten-and-a-half or eleven.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(EXPERTISE): Other experts have argued that Robbins' method lacked a scientific foundation. Her unsupported claims that her technique was more accurate than fingerprints, her lack of empirical testing, and her failure to publish her findings did not prevent her from testifying in numerous trials, including several capital cases. See e.g., People v. Knights 212 Cal. Rpt. 307, 312 (Cal. App. 1985) (matching defendant's footprint exemplar with photographs of bloody sockprints); People v. Barker (1981) 170 Cal. Rpt. 69 (matching defendant's shoes with plaster casts and photographs of shoeprints found at scene) In only one case, People v. Ferguson(Ill. App. 1988) 526 N.E.2d 525, appeal denied, 530 N.E.2d 254 (Ill. 1988) was her testimony rejected, because there was no evidence that "any one other than Robbins employed the theory used to make the identification in this case." At the retrial, the trial court entered a directed verdict of acquittal. In 1987, a panel of anthropologists and lawyers rejected her method as unreliable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAD SCIENCE: Robbins' testimony, in itself, raises serious questions. Nevertheless, she easily met the qualification standards for an expert witness: university appointment, doctorate in anthropology, and board certification in forensic anthropology by the American Board of Forensic Anthropology. In addition, none of her critics challenged her sincerity, although several reports mention exorbitant fees, such as nearly $9,000 in one case. Nevertheless, such testimony should never be admitted in a capital case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROSECUTION BIAS:In order to rely on Robbins' testimony, the prosecutors in Buckley ignored other experts. One detective, who resigned because he believed the wrong people had been charged, explained:
The first lab guy says it's not the boot. . . . We don't like that answer, so there's no paper [report]. We go to a second guy who used to do our lab. He says yes. So we write a report on Mr. Yes. Then Louise Robbins arrives. This is the boot, she says. That'll be $10,000. So now we have evidence; See Barry Siegel, Presumed Guilty: An Illinois Murder Case Became a Test of Conscience Inside the System, L.A. Times, Nov. 1, 1992 (Magazine), at 18, 20.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buckley's trial ended in a hung jury...his codefendants, however, were convicted. Although a convicted child-slayer, whose DNA matched that of the assailant, confessed to the crime several years ago, the codefendants have only recently been freed--again due to DNA tests--after spending a decade in prison....."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
