ABSTRACT:
The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence.” A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system—but not under the purview of any forensic science organization—may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.Highlights
- Causes of wrongful convictions associated with forensic science errors are identified.
- Most errors are associated with poor adherence to practice and testimony standards.
- Validated scientific standards and innovations may reduce the risk of wrongful convictions.
- Existing governance structures may fail to prevent forensic errors in some contexts.
- Defendants may face an adversarial deficit in cases involving complex forensic analyses."
- --------------------------------------------------------
- EXCERPT OF THIS LENGTHY STUDY: "Many wrongful convictions include valid and reliable forensic analysis that was misused or misunderstood by officers of the court in the adjudication of a case. Defendants face a substantial adversarial deficit related to the use of forensic evidence. In many cases, a prosecution is based on forensic results and interpretations, such as a conclusion that a fire had an incendiary origin or seized evidence included a controlled substance. A wrongful conviction may occur when the limitations of forensic conclusions are poorly understood, or alternative interpretations are not presented. Officers of the court may lack sufficient understanding or resources to consider appropriate objections or obtain independent reviews of forensic evidence. The increasing technical complexity of forensic evidence may exacerbate this issue. Forensic scientists may bear some responsibility for courtroom errors. They may fail to communicate the strengths and limitations of evidence clearly or completely. They may provide limited information to defense attorneys concerning the probative value of potentially exonerating evidence. Such issues may have contributed to the high incidence of inadequate defense in the dataset. More broadly, it is clear that legal practitioners could benefit by improved scientific training and greater engagement with the forensic science community. The forensic science community could benefit by improved testimony standards and training in effective and thorough communication, which may build public trust in forensic science [306] Although judges may often be excellent auto-didacts, they nonetheless have made significant errors in the handling of forensic evidence in wrongful convictions. They accepted unvalidated forensic evidence or failed to accept valid and reliable testimony that could have been exculpatory. Often, these critiques have been raised solely with respect to the acceptance of unvalidated techniques. In wrongful convictions, the reliable use of validated forensic evidence may be more important. Judges frequently failed to account for the adversarial deficit faced by defendants who lack the resources to retain forensic experts to support their cases. Certainly, improved training and resources for indigent defense may alleviate the adversarial deficit to some degree. Courts should also recognize the importance of governance mechanisms for forensic science outside the courtroom and place greater emphasis on the importance of scientific consensus reviews in their deliberations."
- The entire periodical report can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
