PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The faulty testimony of hair examiners doesn't necessarily mean defendants were wrongly convicted, but it does open a door for evidence to be retested. Why bother with this hassle, especially if it may bring discomfort to victims' families? Because our country is built on an assumption of equal justice. "The whole idea of equal justice under law means that you've got to play by the rules. It has nothing to do with the underlying subject matter. You just tell the truth." Those are the words of former U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, and they summarize why this review of old cases is important. Applying equal justice means no one should be sitting behind bars without first being given due process. And how could such a procedure take place with the use of misleading testimony? That's not to say those examiners intentionally misled juries into believing the suspects were guilty. But now that we know more about the DNA in hair samples, the state needs to review as much testimony as possible to ensure it is not holding innocent people in prison."
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDITORIAL: "Testimony worth the second look," by the Daily Press Editorial Board, published on November 24, 2018.
SUB-HEADING: "Faulty testimony that relied on collected hair samples is being reviewed to ensure defendants were justly tried." Hollywood makes it look easy. Detectives collect samples of blood and lipstick, chance fingerprints and other DNA evidence haphazardly lying around crime scenes. The clues are used to tie ghastly cases together for prosecutors in neat, nearly hour-long episodes. The world we live in is not that clear-cut. And the ever-present technology, science and skilled personnel that seals the case for Hollywood's gumshoes is not as readily available and does not produce as clear a result as it does on television. Hair samples are one such example. The Virginia Department of Forensic Science is reviewing cases in which examiners had testified to the probability that hair entered into evidence belonged to a single person. Experts say that kind of testimony is flawed because science can't definitively link any single hair sample to an individual.Now, the department is reviewing cases where such testimony may have been used as the linchpin to a guilty verdict. The problem with such a review is that there are about a million case files in the archives from between 1973 and 1994 that need to be digitized and searched. The cases already digitized also need to be scrutinized. Record keeping involving case transcripts is not uniform in Virginia, meaning in some instances, the written records of examiners' courtroom testimonies may have already been destroyed or filed away in hard-to-retrieve places. When a transcript isn't available through the court reporter or clerk, the review team is turning to prosecutors, defense attorneys and even defendants to see if they have a copy of the documents. The initiative that kick started this review in Virginia was actually led by the FBI after three DNA exonerations between 2009 and 2012 in which all three defendants were convicted on faulty microscopic hair comparison testimony. The FBI trained hair examiners across the country, and in 2015, the FBI, The Innocence Project, the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers found at least 90 percent of the trial transcripts the FBI analyzed included erroneous statements made by hair examiners. The FBI's finding caused some states to consider their own examiner testimony, revealing just how complicated a review can become. So far, the staff at the Virginia Department of Forensic Science has reviewed about 150,000 of the million cases. Of those, 358 had a positive probative association. Of those, 16 cases involved a suspect who was tried and convicted and the department was able to get the transcripts. The team sent seven notifications to defendants, intended to inform them their trials had questionable testimony from a hair examiner. Of the seven, four notifications are pending because the department hasn't been able to track down the defendant or their family. The faulty testimony of hair examiners doesn't necessarily mean defendants were wrongly convicted, but it does open a door for evidence to be retested. Why bother with this hassle, especially if it may bring discomfort to victims' families? Because our country is built on an assumption of equal justice. "The whole idea of equal justice under law means that you've got to play by the rules. It has nothing to do with the underlying subject matter. You just tell the truth." Those are the words of former U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, and they summarize why this review of old cases is important. Applying equal justice means no one should be sitting behind bars without first being given due process. And how could such a procedure take place with the use of misleading testimony? That's not to say those examiners intentionally misled juries into believing the suspects were guilty. But now that we know more about the DNA in hair samples, the state needs to review as much testimony as possible to ensure it is not holding innocent people in prison. This review is, perhaps, a telling litmus to the state judicial system's record keeping. That is to say, if authorities cannot easily retrieve and review records needed for this process, who's to say they will have the ability to find any valuable records for other cases? We are not saying warehouses of needless files be stored for decades at taxpayers' expense, but the authorities responsible for how cases are evaluated should have a frank discussion about the current state of record keeping and retrieval. Ultimately, this review will consume both time and money, but it may prevent innocent people from needlessly spending precious time behind bars. And freedom, in our free society, is a priceless commodity."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/editorials/dp-edt-dna-evidence-1125-story.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;
