NORTH CAROLINA LAB: SCOTT GREENFIELD'S INSIGHTFUL POST: HOW A BAD LAB REPORT CHANGES HOW ALL OTHER FACTORS FIT TOGETHER AND IMPACTS THE OUTCOME;

"No "smoking guns," given that each defendant confessed to their respective murder. On the surface, it doesn't look as if any great injustice was done. Sure, the labs had issues, but isn't it about making sure that the guilty get what they deserve?

If only it was so simple. In this complex system, there is an interconnection between evidence, the inducement of confessions, the decision to bring a capital prosecution and the strength of evidence in determining a plea offer. Without researching the particulars of any case, there is no rational view of the criminal justice system that doesn't take into account the myriad of influences the produce any particular outcome. Like Chaos Theory, a bad lab report changes how all the other factors fit together and, by definition, impacts the outcome......

"That people who serve a critical function in the system want to be a part of what they perceive to be the solution comes as no shock. They pick the side they believe to be righteous and do what they can to help it along. If that means fudge some tests, or hide some bad results, it's all in the name of justice. As I've tried to make clear many times, our justice isn't their justice. There are few things less compelling than fools who justify their actions in the name of justice......

"There is only one way to eliminate the potential of executing someone who doesn't "deserve" it, whether because he's innocent or because the system cheated him out of a half-fair chance of fighting. End executions. We're just not good enough at this whole criminal justice thing to be worthy of playing God.""


SCOTT GREENFIELD: NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENCE BLOG;

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

"The FBI review of the North Carolina's crime lab is in. It's not good," Scott Greenfield's post begins, under the heading, "Better Late Than Never?"

"The government-ordered inquest by two former FBI officials found that agents of the State Bureau of Investigation repeatedly aided prosecutors in obtaining convictions over a 16-year period, mostly by misrepresenting blood evidence and keeping critical notes from defense attorneys," the post continues.

"The review of blood evidence in cases from 1987 to 2003 by two former assistant directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation calls for a thorough examination of 190 criminal cases, stating information that could have helped defendants was sometimes misrepresented or withheld.

"It impacted the decisions that were made — it could have," report author Chris Swecker said Wednesday. "Let me step back and make sure you understand: It could have resulted in situations where information that was material and favorable to the defendant was not disclosed."

In three of the cases, the defendants were executed.

The failings don't prove that the executed defendants were innocent, but that the system failed and it's possible. At it's absolute best, it shows that the North Carolina crime lab withheld Brady. In the middle, it manufactured reports for the purpose of aiding the prosecution to convict. No matter which way you twist it, it's bad. Very bad.

We have this great big complex system which, if every cog meshed perfectly and every widget did what it was supposed to do, would work fairly well most of the time. The problem is that it's replete with broken cogs and missing widgets. Those failures are usually the nice people whose fingers are necessary to make the system happen, but end up in a nose, ear or eye. No doubt the hard-working crime lab people believed that they were doing the right thing by making sure the guilty got convicted. But as Murray Kempton used to say, there they go again, framing the guilty.

That people who serve a critical function in the system want to be a part of what they perceive to be the solution comes as no shock. They pick the side they believe to be righteous and do what they can to help it along. If that means fudge some tests, or hide some bad results, it's all in the name of justice. As I've tried to make clear many times, our justice isn't their justice. There are few things less compelling than fools who justify their actions in the name of justice.

But what of the three dead men ?

—Desmond Keith Carter was executed in 2002, a decade after he was convicted of first-degree murder for the fatal stabbing of his neighbor in Eden. An SBI analyst reported a confirmed presence of blood on an item in the investigation. That overstated the results because a follow-up test was negative due to an insufficient sample to test.

Carter confessed that he killed Helen Purdy after going to her home to borrow money so he could buy drugs.

— John Hardy Rose was convicted of first-degree murder in 1992 and executed in 2001 for the slaying of Patricia Stewart in Graham County. An SBI analyst reported that an item in the investigation gave chemical indications for the presence of blood and said that there wasn’t enough quantity in the stain to test further. In fact, the analyst had conducted two follow-up tests, one of which was negative and one of which was inconclusive. Neither was reported.

Rose confessed to the stabbing death; testing on other items found in Rose’s car revealed blood consistent with victim Patricia Stewart.

— Joseph Timothy Keel was executed in 2003 for the 1990 slaying of his father-in-law in Edgecombe County. An SBI analyst reported that there were indications for the presence of blood on an item in the investigation but that there wasn’t enough evidence for a conclusive identification. That report failed to reflect an attempt at a confirmatory test that came up negative.

Keel confessed to the shooting death of Johnny Smith.

No "smoking guns," given that each defendant confessed to their respective murder. On the surface, it doesn't look as if any great injustice was done. Sure, the labs had issues, but isn't it about making sure that the guilty get what they deserve?

If only it was so simple. In this complex system, there is an interconnection between evidence, the inducement of confessions, the decision to bring a capital prosecution and the strength of evidence in determining a plea offer. Without researching the particulars of any case, there is no rational view of the criminal justice system that doesn't take into account the myriad of influences the produce any particular outcome. Like Chaos Theory, a bad lab report changes how all the other factors fit together and, by definition, impacts the outcome.

This doesn't mean that any of the three dead men were innocent. It does mean that the executions of these three men are now in question, and we can never replay how these cases wound their way through the system to end up in death. There are no mulligans here, and there is no way to bring back the dead to ask them what they want to do now.

As long as there are human fingers involved in doing the work upon which the system's integrity relies, there will be failures. Even if crime labs become putatively "independent", as opposed to captives of the prosecution, there will be lab techs who believe they are doing God's work by putting criminals in prison. It will be an improvement, but not a perfect cure. The human mind is an ugly thing, doing wrong and yet feeling pretty darn good about it.

There is only one way to eliminate the potential of executing someone who doesn't "deserve" it, whether because he's innocent or because the system cheated him out of a half-fair chance of fighting. End executions. We're just not good enough at this whole criminal justice thing to be worthy of playing God."

The post can be found at:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2010/08/19/better-late-than-never.aspx?ref=rss

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 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 accessed at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;