BACKGROUND: "After spending 27 years on death row in a case built largely on disputed forensic testimony, Jimmie “Chris” Duncan was exonerated in June 2026 for the 1998 murder of his former girlfriend’s toddler. Duncan spent 27 years on death row largely due to the testimony of medical examiner Dr. Steven Hayne and Hayne’s co-conspirator and local dentist, Dr. Michael West. Hayne and West had been using “junk science” to take advantage of “bad forensics, structural racism and institutional failures,” Duke Law wrote, from the 1990s through the 2000s. Duncan was the last person “awaiting an execution” based on Hayne and West’s testimony, according to ProPublica. Nine people who were convicted following Hayne and West’s testimony have also been freed from prison, including three men who were also on death row."
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "“Science deserves its privileged place in the courtroom, but only when it is truly scientific,” Hutchinson, Bowling and Mull wrote. “The most important safeguard against junk science is not a better jury instruction or a stronger cross-examination. It is a judge willing to keep unreliable opinions out of the courtroom altogether. Expert testimony must be grounded in methods that have been rigorously tested, independently validated and honestly presented to juries with their limitations fully acknowledged.”
------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. It requires that the witness’s “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge” must aid in the court’s understanding of the evidence presented. It also requires that the testimony be based on facts or data and that the “expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case,” according to Cornell Law School. The 2023 amendments to Rule 702 reinforced the judge’s gatekeeping responsibility to determine whether expert testimony satisfies reliability requirements before it is admitted. Hutchinson, Bowling and Mull noted that Mississippi is considering changing its court rules to embrace the federal approach and that the Mississippi Supreme Court is studying the issue. “States should adopt the federal standard for expert testimony and make reliability a threshold requirement, not a question left for jurors to sort out after unreliable science has been heard,” they wrote. “…States should adopt the federal approach so that evidence is not admitted because it sounds scientific; it is admitted because it is reliable.” Using this standard, junk science can be avoided, and people will be far less likely to be wrongfully convicted, Hutchinson, Bowling and Mull argue."
----------------------------------------
STORY: "Federal rule of evidence could help end junk science in story: Courtrooms," by journalist Barbara Kay published by The Davis Vanguard, on August 7, 2026. (Barbara Kay is Brooklyn born and based journalist, and student at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism;)
LOUISIANA — After spending 27 years on death row in a case built largely on disputed forensic testimony, Jimmie “Chris” Duncan was exonerated in June 2026 for the 1998 murder of his former girlfriend’s toddler.
Duncan spent 27 years on death row largely due to the testimony of medical examiner Dr. Steven Hayne and Hayne’s co-conspirator and local dentist, Dr. Michael West.
Hayne and West had been using “junk science” to take advantage of “bad forensics, structural racism and institutional failures,” Duke Law wrote, from the 1990s through the 2000s.
Duncan was the last person “awaiting an execution” based on Hayne and West’s testimony, according to ProPublica. Nine people who were convicted following Hayne and West’s testimony have also been freed from prison, including three men who were also on death row.
In their July 27 opinion essay, “When Junk Science Decides Guilt in the South,” writers Jeremy Hutchinson, director of Special Projects at Unify.US; Mark Bowling, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent; and Mary Kate Mull, a legal fellow at Unify.US, condemned the use of junk science and urged courts to adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The writers argue the damage from unreliable forensic evidence has been particularly severe in the South, where it has operated alongside underfunded public defense systems, elected coroners with limited medical training and a criminal legal system shaped by a history of racial inequality. They noted that poor defendants in rural communities may lack the resources necessary to effectively challenge forensic claims presented by prosecution experts.
“Phony forensics gave the system a language of certainty,” they wrote. “It allowed prosecutors to present weak cases as scientific fact, and it made racial and class bias harder to see because the prejudice arrived wearing the mask of expertise.”
The writers point to Levon Brooks and Kennedy Brewer, two Black men from rural Mississippi who were convicted in separate child murder cases after Hayne and West linked them to purported bite-mark evidence. Both spent years incarcerated before DNA evidence showed another man was responsible, demonstrating, the writers argue, that junk science can not only convict innocent people but also allow the guilty to remain free.
Junk science claims are not peer-reviewed, misapply neuroscience and more, according to Palo Alto University. Junk science can include bite marks, microscopic hair comparisons and bloodstain patterns, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
Concerns about such forensic techniques have persisted for years. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences warned that numerous forensic methods lacked sufficient scientific support, and in 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology found that feature-comparison disciplines, including bite-mark and hair-comparison analysis, lacked foundational validity.
A 2015 review of more than 3,000 cases found that in 95% of cases involving microscopic hair comparisons, FBI examiners gave scientifically invalid testimony.
The Innocence Project has found that misapplied forensic science contributed to more than half of its wrongful conviction cases, according to Hutchinson, Bowling and Mull.
Sixty percent of those exonerated due to junk science have been people of color, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, with half of those exonerated people of color being Black.
Hutchinson, Bowling and Mull argue that rather than having jurors decide whether a piece of evidence is scientifically reliable, judges should determine whether expert evidence meets reliability requirements before allowing jurors to hear it.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. It requires that the witness’s “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge” must aid in the court’s understanding of the evidence presented.
It also requires that the testimony be based on facts or data and that the “expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case,” according to Cornell Law School.
The 2023 amendments to Rule 702 reinforced the judge’s gatekeeping responsibility to determine whether expert testimony satisfies reliability requirements before it is admitted. Hutchinson, Bowling and Mull noted that Mississippi is considering changing its court rules to embrace the federal approach and that the Mississippi Supreme Court is studying the issue.
“States should adopt the federal standard for expert testimony and make reliability a threshold requirement, not a question left for jurors to sort out after unreliable science has been heard,” they wrote. “…States should adopt the federal approach so that evidence is not admitted because it sounds scientific; it is admitted because it is reliable.”
Using this standard, junk science can be avoided, and people will be far less likely to be wrongfully convicted, Hutchinson, Bowling and Mull argue.
“Science deserves its privileged place in the courtroom, but only when it is truly scientific,” Hutchinson, Bowling and Mull wrote. “The most important safeguard against junk science is not a better jury instruction or a stronger cross-examination. It is a judge willing to keep unreliable opinions out of the courtroom altogether. Expert testimony must be grounded in methods that have been rigorously tested, independently validated and honestly presented to juries with their limitations fully acknowledged.”"
The entire story 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. 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. 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;
