SHOCKING RESEARCH PAPER BY NEUFIELD AND GARRETT: PART THREE; SUMMARY; THE MID-ATLANTIC PROJECT;

"IN THE CASE OF TIMOTHY DURHAM, WHO WAS WRONGLY CONVICTED OF RAPE AND ROBBERY, THE ANALYST SAID THAT THE SPECIFIC COLOR OF HAIR FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE BELONGED TO “ABOUT 5 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION” WHEN IN REALITY NO EMPIRICAL DATA EXISTS ON THE FREQUENCY OF HAIR COLOR."

THE MID-ATLANTIC PROJECT;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At a recent conference in Toronto which explored the nexus between "expert" forensic evidence and "wrongful convictions," Innocence Project co-founder Peter Neufeld referred to a research paper he had co-authored with Brandon L. Garrett called "Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions" published in the March, 2009, issue of the Virginia Law Review;

Neufeld explained that he and Garrett had made the disturbing finding that
in 82 cases or 60% of the trials, forensic analysts provided “invalid” testimony, meaning they had presented conclusions that either misstated empirical data or that were entirely unsupported by empirical data.

This invalid testimony did not come from a small group of analysts –not just the “bad apples”–but from 72 different analysts from 52 laboratories, practices, or hospitals in 25 states.

This disturbing finding should also be of concern to Canadians - as well as people in jurisdictions throughout the world - because the expert opinions provided by so-called forensic pathologists have been shielded from close scrutiny for so many years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In an article published in the March 2009 issue of the Virginia Law Review, Brandon L. Garrett and Peter J. Neufeld conclude that in the majority of trials of innocent people who were later exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing, forensic nalysts testifying for the prosecution provided invalid testimony at trial," the
summary, prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Project, begins;

"Garrett and Neufeld located and reviewed trial transcripts for 137 of the 156 DNA exonorees in whose trials forensic analysts had testified," the summary continues;

"They found that in 82 cases or 60% of the trials, forensic analysts provided “invalid” testimony, meaning they had presented conclusions that either misstated empirical data or that were entirely unsupported by empirical data. This invalid testimony did not come from a small group of analysts –not just the “bad pples”–but from 72 different analysts from 52 laboratories, practices, or hospitals in 25 states.

Garrett and Neufeld’s study revealed that the analysts’ invalid testimony fell into two basic categories. The first is “the misuse of empirical population data” by presenting non-probative evidence as inculpatory, by discounting exculpatory evidence, or by presenting inaccurate statistics. For example, in the case of Gary Dotson, who was wrongly convicted of rape and aggravated kidnapping, the analyst presented inaccurate statistics when he testified that Dotson was included in 11% of the population that could have been the source of the semen found on the victim, whereas in reality 100% of the population could have been the source of the semen. The second main type of invalid testimony is “making conclusions regarding the probative value of evidence that are unsupported by empirical data.” This includes the presenting of statistics or other statements without backing them up with data or making a conclusion that evidence originated from the defendant even if there is no empirical data to permit such a conclusion. In the case of Timothy Durham, who was wrongly convicted of rape and robbery, the analyst said that the specific color of hair found at the crime scene belonged to “about 5 percent of the population” when in reality no empirical data exists on the frequency of hair color.

In their study of the trial transcripts, Garret and Neufeld found that defense counsel rarely cross-examined analysts concerning invalid testimony and rarely retained their own experts, because funding is often denied for defense experts. Prosecutors presented the invalid accounts of forensic evidence during their closing arguments. If the defense challenged the evidence, judges seldom provided relief. Garrett and Neufeld believe that our criminal justice system is simply not well suited to preventing this kind of unscientific testimony. Based on the results of their study, they recommend that the scientific community issue nationally enforceable standards for written reports and testimony to ensure that forensic science in criminal cases is presented in a way that maintains the integrity and fairness of the criminal process."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;