Back in action; On-Going: Grits For Breakfast explains how Texas's Junk science writ took out bite-mark evidence..."In the Steven Chaney case, Texas' junk science writ worked exactly as it was intended. Texas courts have refused to exclude bite-mark evidence on the front end through Daubert hearings. But the junk science writ gave wrongfully convicted defendants an avenue to challenge false convictions on the back end. And it provided the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals a vehicle to declare junk science invalid in a way that applies to the rest of the system going forward."

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I recently ran a post on this import bite-mark case and wish to thank Grits for Breakfast for providing what I previously lacked  -  the majority opinion, all other opinions and briefs from the case. A veritable treasure trove. Posts like this explain why Grits for Breakfast is widely recognized as one of the finest criminal justice web sites.

Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

----------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Junk science writ takes out bite-mark evidence," published by Grits for Breakfast on December 22, 2018.

GIST: "In the Steven Chaney case, Texas' junk science writ worked exactly as it was intended. Texas courts have refused to exclude bite-mark evidence on the front end through Daubert hearings. But the junk science writ gave wrongfully convicted defendants an avenue to challenge false convictions on the back end. And it provided the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals a vehicle to declare junk science invalid in a way that applies to the rest of the system going forward. That's what happened here. Now, bite mark evidence cannot be portrayed as "matching" evidence to a defendant, and past cases where such evidence was a) overstated and b) pivotal to the case could result in more convictions being overturned. This case also lays out the model, and the reasoning, for how other "comparative" forensic science may be challenged in the future. See the majority opinion, and all opinions and briefs from the case here. This will definitely be a topic featured on January's Reasonably Suspicious podcast."

The entire article can be read at:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2018/12/junk-science-writ-takes-out-bite-mark.html

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;