STORY: "Texas leading massive review of criminal cases based on change in DNA calculations," by reporter Gabrielle Baks, published by the Houston Chronicle, on January 31, 2016.
GIST: "Texas criminal justice organizations have begun reviewing thousands of cases that relied on an outdated method for calculating the odds that a particular person left DNA evidence at a crime scene. At issue are samples that include more than one person's DNA, such as evidence swabbed from a countertop after a convenience store heist or taken from bodily fluids in a rape kit. Experts revised national guidelines for calculating odds in these scenarios six years ago, but no one sounded an alarm or asked prosecutors to re-examine cases that used the previous methodology. Now, Texas labs and lawyers are reviewing pending prosecutions and thousands of adjudicated cases, including those of death row defendants who had this type of evidence presented at trial. The science behind DNA testing hasn't changed, but for mixed samples, analysts now focus on fewer factors in their results before determining the odds of someone being at the scene. The findings are more conservative. Inaccurate calculations still might be happening around the country, said Barry Scheck, director of the Innocence Project, a legal nonprofit that has reviewed post-conviction DNA evidence since 1992. Scheck took an informal poll last week among forensic scientists at a national conference on the outdated "multiple contributor" DNA protocol, and all agreed: "Texas is the only place that's systematically trying to correct it." The review was initiated by crime labs and coordinated by the state's Forensic Science Commission. Prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges have joined the effort to comb through old cases, contact affected parties and, in some instances, halt the judicial process to ensure the science is up to date. Signs posted in Texas prison libraries in December tell inmates in English and Spanish about the issue and provide a Harris County post office box to which inmates may write if they believe their cases included this kind of DNA evidence..........The new results may have little or no bearing on a defendant's guilt.But in a rare show of solidarity in the adversarial legal system, leaders of the state's science, law enforcement and criminal-defense communities have banded together to deal with the problem. "Texas is really the only state that's taking it seriously," said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a University of Houston criminal-law professor who has studied wrongful convictions and serves on the board of the Houston Forensic Science Center. "Instead of looking at this as a big mess, I think we need to be applauding our state's leaders for having the apparatus in the first place to deal with this issue and for using it." Forensic science methods, including arson analysis, ballistic test interpretation and bite-mark comparisons, have come under scrutiny nationally for being inconsistent. Texas is far ahead of other states, Thompson said, because it has broader requirements for prosecutors to notify defense attorneys if a problem arises with scientific evidence..........The Harris County DA has flagged 24,000 DNA cases to review. The effort involves a lab-by-lab review of cases, and each lab keeps its records differently. Once defendants have been notified, they're instructed to contact Wicoff, who is heading the defense effort.
Stakeholders agree this will be the biggest post-adjudication review project they or possibly any jurisdiction has undertaken. Wicoff plans to set up trainings in the Panhandle, Dallas or Fort
Worth, Austin, Houston and the Rio Grande Valley at which lawyers can
get scientific background on mixture DNA protocol and learn the legal
remedies if they think they have a case. "It's impossible to say how many cases we'll have to review," Wicoff said, "but it could take a long, long time."
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/
