PHOTO CAPTION: "White House council has declared junk science all too common in the
criminal justice system, but the Department of Justice is refusing to
implement recommendations that would increase safeguards against
scientifically invalid testimony and require greater disclosure of
misconduct and shoddy work."
GIST: "In September the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report finding "a dismaying frequency of instances of use of forensic evidence"—such as analyses of hair, bite marks, and shoe prints—"that do not pass an objective test of scientific validity."
This is not just a theoretical problem. Last year, the FBI admitted that nearly every one of the experts at its microscopic hair analysis lab had given scientifically invalid testimony. The breaches affected almost 270 cases. Of those, 32 defendants were sentenced to death, and 14 were executed or died in prison. When The Washington Post investigated the probe, it found that "while many prosecutors made swift and full disclosures [to defendants], many others did so incompletely, years late or not at all." One defense attorney only learned his client's case had been affected after he read it in the Post. Despite these embarrassments, the Justice Department rejected PCAST's recommendations, which include requiring forensic experts to disclose high error rates in their testimony and discontinuing use of methods that haven't been independently verified. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told The Wall Street Journal that "the department believes that the current legal standards regarding the admissibility of forensic evidence are based on sound science and sound legal reasoning." One of those "sound" methods she's defending is bitemark analysis. But the PCAST report found that "available scientific evidence strongly suggests that examiners not only cannot identify the source of bitemark with reasonable accuracy, they cannot even consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bitemark.".........In a September Wall Street Journal op-ed, Alex Kozinski, the outspoken chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, called on the Justice Department to reject the "voodoo science" plaguing courts. "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," Kozinski wrote. "The U.S. has an abiding and unfulfilled moral obligation to free citizens who were imprisoned by such questionable means."
GIST: "In September the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report finding "a dismaying frequency of instances of use of forensic evidence"—such as analyses of hair, bite marks, and shoe prints—"that do not pass an objective test of scientific validity."
This is not just a theoretical problem. Last year, the FBI admitted that nearly every one of the experts at its microscopic hair analysis lab had given scientifically invalid testimony. The breaches affected almost 270 cases. Of those, 32 defendants were sentenced to death, and 14 were executed or died in prison. When The Washington Post investigated the probe, it found that "while many prosecutors made swift and full disclosures [to defendants], many others did so incompletely, years late or not at all." One defense attorney only learned his client's case had been affected after he read it in the Post. Despite these embarrassments, the Justice Department rejected PCAST's recommendations, which include requiring forensic experts to disclose high error rates in their testimony and discontinuing use of methods that haven't been independently verified. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told The Wall Street Journal that "the department believes that the current legal standards regarding the admissibility of forensic evidence are based on sound science and sound legal reasoning." One of those "sound" methods she's defending is bitemark analysis. But the PCAST report found that "available scientific evidence strongly suggests that examiners not only cannot identify the source of bitemark with reasonable accuracy, they cannot even consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bitemark.".........In a September Wall Street Journal op-ed, Alex Kozinski, the outspoken chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, called on the Justice Department to reject the "voodoo science" plaguing courts. "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," Kozinski wrote. "The U.S. has an abiding and unfulfilled moral obligation to free citizens who were imprisoned by such questionable means."
The entire commentary can be found at:
http://reason.com/archives/2016/12/22/forensic-science-is-a-mess-and
See CSIDDS: Forensics in Focus post at the link below: "Here is Reason’s response to USDOJ Loretta Lynch and by implication, to the incoming Jeff Sessions. The history of prosecutorial misconduct arguments within his old jurisdiction just came out today on CNN.
https://csidds.com/2016/12/22/forensics-is-a-mess-and-the-prosecutors-love-it-reason-magazine/
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/
