COUNTDOWN: 16 days to Wrongful Conviction Day: (Thursday October 6, 2016);
COMMENTRY: "Rejecting Voodoo Science in the Courtroom," by Judge Alex Kozinski, published by The Wall Street Journal on September 19, 2106. (Mr. Kozinski, a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals since 1985, was a senior adviser to the PCAST (President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology) report.)
GIST: "The White House will release a report Tuesday that will fundamentally change the way many criminal trials are conducted. The new study
from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) examines the scientific validity of forensic-evidence
techniques—DNA, fingerprint, bitemark, firearm, footwear and hair
analysis. It concludes that virtually all of these methods are flawed,
some irredeemably so. Americans have long had an abiding faith in
science, including forensic science. Popular TV shows like “CSI” and
“Forensic Files” stoke this confidence. Yet the PCAST report will likely
upend many people’s beliefs, as it should. Why trust a justice system
that imprisons and even executes people based on junk science? Only
the most basic form of DNA analysis is scientifically reliable, the
study indicates. Some forensic methods have significant error rates and
others are rank guesswork. “The prospects of developing bitemark
analysis into a scientifically valid method” are low, according to the
report. In plain terms: Bitemark analysis is about as reliable as
astrology. Yet many unfortunates languish in prison based on such bad
science. Even methods valid in principle can be unreliable in practice.
Forensic scientists, who are often members of the prosecution team,
sometimes see their job as helping to get a conviction. This can lead
them to fabricate evidence or commit perjury. Many forensic examiners
are poorly trained and supervised. They sometimes overstate the strength
of their conclusions by claiming that the risk of error is “vanishingly
small,” “essentially zero,” or “microscopic.” The report calls such
claims “scientifically indefensible,” but jurors generally take them as
gospel when presented by government witnesses who are certified as
scientific experts. Problems with forensic evidence have plagued
the criminal-justice system for years. Faith in the granddaddy of all
forensic-science methods—latent fingerprint comparison—was shaken in
2004 when the FBI announced that a print recovered from the Madrid train
bombing was a perfect match with American lawyer Brandon Mayfield.
Spanish authorities promptly discovered that the print belonged to
someone else. Doubt
turned to horror when studies revealed that certain types of forensic
science had absolutely no scientific basis. Longstanding ideas about
“char patterns” that prove a fire was caused by arson have been
discredited. Yet at least one man, Cameron Todd Willingham of Texas, was executed based on such mumbo jumbo. The
PCAST report recommends developing standards for validating forensic
methods, training forensic examiners and making forensic labs
independent of police and prosecutors. All should be swiftly
implemented. Preventing the incarceration and execution of innocent
persons is as good a use of tax dollars as any. The report will also
immediately influence ongoing criminal cases, as it provides a road map
for defense lawyers to challenge prosecution experts.........Among
the more than 2.2 million inmates in U.S. prisons and jails, countless
may have been convicted using unreliable or fabricated forensic science.
The U.S. has an abiding and unfulfilled moral obligation to free
citizens who were imprisoned by such questionable means. If your son or
daughter, sibling or cousin, best friend or spouse, was the victim of
voodoo science, you would expect no less."
The entire commentary can be found at:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rejecting-voodoo-science-in-the-courtroom-1474328199
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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 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.
The entire commentary can be found at:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rejecting-voodoo-science-in-the-courtroom-1474328199
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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 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.