COMMENTARY: "No one should be in prison based on debunked science," by Joshua Tepfer, published on October 14, 2015, by the Chicago-Sun. (Joshua Tepfer is an attorney with the Exoneration Project and a Lecturer-in-Law at the University of Chicago Law School.)
GIST; "In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences questioned the
reliability of many “scientific” tests routinely used in criminal
investigations and prosecutions. In its 300-page report, the academy
said many of the tests, such as hair microscopy or bite mark analysis,
had not “been exposed to stringent scientific scrutiny” and that “faulty
forensic science” has “contributed to the wrongful conviction of
innocent persons.” Illinois needs to re-examine all cases in which possibly innocent
individuals remain incarcerated on the basis of debunked science. The academy’s report, which followed four years of study by a
blue-ribbon committee, spurred some jurisdictions and law enforcement
agencies elsewhere across the country into action. The U.S. Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation, for
example, have admitted that examiners gave flawed testimony regarding
hair comparison analysis in almost all trials over a two-decade period
before 2000, and a review of thousands of long-ago closed criminal
trials was launched.In some cases, the review has led to exonerations,
such as that of Santae Tribble, from DNA testing of the hairs previously
“matched” to the convicted defendant. Evidentiary hearings are starting
to be held in other cases, including for George Perrot in
Massachusetts, where the hairs or DNA testing are not available. In some
instances, as in the Charlotte, N.C., case of Timothy Scott Bridges,
prosecutors are foregoing evidentiary hearings altogether and agreeing
to new trials where the flawed hair testimony was introduced. Here in Illinois, however, very little has happened. At least
publicly, there has been no widespread examination, audit, or response
to the federal government’s groundbreaking report that exposed systemic
flaws in the “science” used in our courtrooms. There is, however, absolutely no question that faulty science has
been used in Illinois cases. Take, for example, Bennie Starks, who was
wrongfully convicted in Lake County on the basis of bite mark testimony
that a federal judge recently called nothing more than “‘experts’
peddling junk science to credulous judges and jurors.” And individual
Illinois State Police forensic analysts have, in the past, been
criticized for providing misleading testimony that has led to wrongful
convictions. Indeed, the National Registry of Exonerations identifies 30
Illinois cases where “false or misleading forensic evidence”
contributed to the wrongful conviction. Instead of dealing with these problems on a case-by-case basis,
criminal justice leaders in Illinois need to put a system in place that
will allow a wholesale re-examination of cases where individuals remain
incarcerated on the basis of debunked science...This is a problem in the criminal justice system that was identified
many years ago yet never addressed. Those of us working in the Illinois
criminal justice system need to come together to begin to address it.
The entire commentary can be found at:
http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/7/71/1024123/opinion-one-prison-based-debunked-science
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
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/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com;
