Bulletin: George Perrot: Massachusetts: Major development: Washington Post reports that in a first, a judge has granted a retrial solely on an FBI hair ‘match'...."The decision by the Massachusetts state judge had been awaited as a bellwether for how state and legal authorities respond to the errors, made by almost every examiner in an elite microscopic hair analysis unit in nearly all trial testimony before 2000, when DNA testing of hair had become routine. The judge’s ruling also comes as a White House-appointed commission, Justice Department and FBI are debating how to strengthen forensic science standards, including how results are reported by law enforcement." ..."Some legal observers called the ruling a milestone in how courts tackle questions about final convictions involving later-disputed or debunked forensic practices. “This decision, although it does not represent precedent elsewhere, can be a very persuasive analysis to other trial judges facing similar questions,” said Kirsten Mayer, a partner with the Ropes & Gray law firm in Boston that represented Perrot pro bono. Reporter Spencer H. Hsu.

"A Massachusetts man imprisoned 30 years for rape has been granted a retrial, marking the first conviction in the country overturned solely because of recent FBI admissions that its evidence experts for decades overstated forensic hair links to crimes. Previous exonerations based on flawed hair evidence — including several in the District — included new DNA results or came in appeals launched before the FBI and Justice Department confirmed in April that FBI lab reports and testimony incriminating hundreds “exceeded the limits of science.”  The federal review of convictions including FBI hair matches began in 2012 and has uncovered errors in more than 1,300 cases, including many in which defendants pleaded guilty. Flaws have been identified in 33 of 35 death row cases, including 14 cases in which the defendant was executed or died in prison. Defenders and prosecutors are being notified to determine whether there is other evidence of guilt or grounds for appeal. One notice went in 2014 to George Perrot, 48, a Springfield, Mass., man who was 17 when he accused of rape during a burglary and later convicted by a jury that heard now-recanted FBI testimony matching Perrot to hair found on a bedsheet. In a 79-page opinion filed Jan. 26, Hampden County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Kane found that the FBI acknowledgment of errors on its own constituted newly discovered evidence regarding evolving science and granted Perrot a retrial. “Justice may not have been done’” in Perrot’s conviction for the Nov. 30, 1985, rape of a 78-year-old woman in Springfield, Kane wrote, because of errors “not authoritatively recognized and addressed” earlier. Had “any” of that hair evidence been offered today, the judge wrote, “it would have been excluded.” Some legal observers called the ruling a milestone in how courts tackle questions about final convictions involving later-disputed or debunked forensic practices. “This decision, although it does not represent precedent elsewhere, can be a very persuasive analysis to other trial judges facing similar questions,” said Kirsten Mayer, a partner with the Ropes & Gray law firm in Boston that represented Perrot pro bono..........The Innocence Project and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers — two outside legal groups assisting the FBI review — said Perrot’s was the first retrial granted and that it would help speed greater scrutiny of flawed techniques. They praised the FBI for acknowledging a “duty to correct” scientific errors and said they hoped state labs whose examiners were trained by the FBI would join that effort. .........Texas, North Carolina and Massachusetts are reviewing their hair-examiner cases..........Federal authorities began their investigation after The Washington Post reported in 2012 that flawed forensic hair matches might have led to convictions of hundreds of potentially innocent people since at least the 1970s, typically for murder, rape and other violent crimes. Perrot was among the first to ask for new trial without DNA evidence in a contested proceeding. Prosecutors raised procedural objections and argued there was other evidence of guilt, although in his ruling, the Massachusetts judge noted the defense had also countered there may have been police misconduct. Perrot, 17 at the time with multiple burglary arrests, was identified in a purse-snatching in December 1985. After lengthy interrogation, Perrot confessed to burglarizing the homes of two elderly women but denied attacking one who said she also had been raped. The victim, since deceased, testified that although she was not wearing her eyeglasses the bearded Perrot could not have been her clean-shaven attacker. But at trial, an FBI examiner testified that a bedsheet hair matched Perrot’s, and said that it would be “extremely rare” for the examiner to be unable to distinguish hair samples from different people. The Hampden District Attorney’s Office said it was weighing whether to challenge the judge’s decision or retry Perrot and oppose his attorneys’ request to have him released. A bail hearing is set for Feb. 8."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-a-first-judge-grants-retrial-solely-on-fbi-hair-match/2016/02/02/e3adcc96-c49b-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html