POST: "Texas, California 'junk science writs' should spur bills in other states," published by Grits for Breakfast on April 9, 2016.
GIST: "Regular Grits readers are well aware of Texas' "junk science writ," which was added to the state's habeas corpus statute in 2013 then amended in 2015. The legislation represented an acknowledgement of the flaws in and lack of scientific basis for many traditional forensic disciplines which were articulated by the National Academy of Sciences in 2009. Though the Texas prosecutors' association dubbed the bill a sign of the "writ apocalypse," elsewhere it was hailed as a sign of progress. In 2014, California became the second state to expand habeas corpus in this fashion. I've recently learned a bit more about what they did and thought I'd share.........The poster-child case for the California statute involved bite mark evidence and, as it happens, my neighbor Jordan Smith, formerly of the Austin Chronicle, wrote the most extensive piece I've found describing it for The Intercept. See also earlier coverage from NPR and the national Innocence Project and the California Innocence Project's write-ups of the case.........It's worth revisiting this history because of the possibility that other states will follow suit, a prospect which tickles me to no end. Grits recently spent some time via phone and email with advocates from a large Midwestern state who want to take on this issue. And there have already been calls in other states to create similar avenues of redress. As justice systems state by state grapple with the myriad issues raised by flawed forensics, which are only beginning to dawn on front-line practitioners, one strongly suspects Texas and California won't be the last to expand habeas corpus in this fashion." More: Hours after this post went up, the PBS Newshour tackled this subject in a segment titled, "Should people convicted based on unsound science be given new trials."
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2016/04/texas-california-junk-science-writs.htmlSee NPR story on whether people convicted of crimes based on poor scientific evidence should be given new trials at the link below: "There are two sides to the criminal justice system in Texas. While the state has a reputation for being tough-on-crime (highest number of executions in the country), Texas is also at the forefront of reforming its system (highest number of exonerations nationwide). Now a relatively new law puts the Lone Star State at the forefront of giving those convicted with bad forensic science a second chance. Texas was the first to pass the junk science law in 2013. It offers convicts a direct path to an appeal when there is new scientific evidence or evidence that contradicts what was used to convict. Short of DNA analysis, new scientific evidence was never enough for the state’s highest criminal court to grant a new trial. Today these cases are finally making it onto the calendar of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the only court that can overturn a conviction. Sonia Cacy is waiting for her day with the court. Cacy is petite but has a loud and generous laugh. She prefers calling everyone – from her best friend to the lady behind the counter scooping her ice cream – “sweetheart.” Most are surprised to learn 68-year-old has a murder conviction. In 1993, Cacy was convicted of killing her uncle Bill Richardson and later sentenced to 99 years in prison. The most critical piece of evidence came from a lab analyst’s report that said there was gasoline on Richardson’s clothing. “They claimed that she had doused her uncle Bill in gasoline and set him on fire, which killed him and then burned the house down,” said Cacy’s attorney Gary Udashen. Cacy spent nearly six years in prison before seven independent arson experts came forward and discredited the arson science that was used to convict her. Two pathologists on behalf of the defense submitted affidavits saying Richardson likely died of a heart attack and not burns. “Sonia is a real, live example of somebody whose life was really destroyed based upon bad scientific testimony in court,” said Udashen. With this new evidence, Cacy was set free on parole, but the transition has not been easy. “Everyone does your background, where you’re living, where you’re going to work. I’ve never been able to get a place to live. You know, a regular place,” said Cacy, who has also struggled to find a steady job, besides working for friends or pet-sitting. And for the past 17 years, she’s also been required to report to a parole officer every month. Today, Cacy hopes the state’s Junk Science law will bring her one step closer to a true chance at freedom."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/should-people-convicted-based-on-poor-scientific-evidence-be-given-new-trials/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
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.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com;
Harold Levy;
Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
