"What does this mean for the 2,000 or so past cases where Texas courts already allowed this now-deemed unreliable testimony? On that the jury is out. For now we know for sure the evidence won't be allowed in criminal trials henceforth in Texas' First District, and especially since Deputy Pikett has retired and no one else in the state performs the procedure, possibly this may be the beginning of the end for the use of dog-scent lineups in Texas."
GRITS FOR BREAKFAST; "Grits for Breakfast says it "looks at the Texas criminal justice system, with a little politics and whatever else suits the author's (Scott Henson) fancy thrown in. All opinions are my own. The facts belong to everybody." Its motto: "Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Good news for opponents of junk science in the courtroom: Brandon Barnett at Liberty and Justice for Y'all brings word that the First Court of Appeals in Houston has once again benchslapped testimonial evidence in a capital murder case from Fort Bend Sheriff Deputy Keith Pikett's bloodhounds, when yesterday they issued an opinion in another case involving the Fort Bend County dog handler," the Grits for Breakfast post published earlier today under the heading, "Appellate court upholds exclusion of dog-scent lineup evidence," begins.
"Much like the last case I posted about, the dog handler was used to match a murder suspect's scent with the scent of certain evidence from the crime scene," the post continues.
"This time, however, the scent lineup evidence did not even make it to the trier of fact. After hearing the views of competing experts, the trial judge ruled that the evidence was inadmissible as unreliable. Some of the flaws in the dog handler's methodology that the court noted were:
* He carries around his "blind" non-supect scent samples (called foil samples) in ziplock bags;
* His foil samples are old samples, while the scent sample of the suspect is fresh;
* He does not do negative runs where the sample of the suspect is excluded;
* He uses multiple dogs during each test rather than allowing the dogs to work alone; and
* He is mostly self-taught and his methodology is something he created.
On appeal, the State argued that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to admit the evidence. The First District upheld the trial judge's ruling, holding that it was reasonable for the trial court of conclude that the scent lineup evidence was unreliable.
The trial court had excluded dog scent evidence as unreliable - good for District Judge Clifford Vacek - and and the First Court of Appeals upheld his ruling. The trial court also made the following conclusions of law:
1. The science of human scent identification and/or comparison is not sufficiently reliable to be admitted in evidence in a criminal trial. See Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
2. Human scent identification by a canine is not sufficiently reliable to be admitted in evidence in a criminal trial. See Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549, 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
However, the First Court ruling (pdf) stops short of issuing those words from Justice Jane Bland's own pen, but she agrees that the record supports the trial court's findings of fact and upholds decision to suppress dog-scent evidence. Regular readers will recall that dog scent lineups had already been discredited at the Court of Criminal Appeals, which may soon be asked to rule on suppressing dog-scent evidence altogether if the state (as I hope) chooses to appeal the First Court's ruling to the state's highest criminal court.
What does this mean for the 2,000 or so past cases where Texas courts already allowed this now-deemed unreliable testimony? On that the jury is out. For now we know for sure the evidence won't be allowed in criminal trials henceforth in Texas' First District, and especially since Deputy Pikett has retired and no one else in the state performs the procedure, possibly this may be the beginning of the end for the use of dog-scent lineups in Texas.
For more background on dog scent lineups see this public policy report (pdf) from my employers at the Innocence Project of Texas, published while I was furloughed from the group for reasons of fiscal austerity."
The post can be found at:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/07/appellate-court-upholds-exclusion-of.html
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 found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
