SHOCKING RESEARCH PAPER BY NEUFIELD AND GARRETT: PART THREE; SUMMARY; THE MID-ATLANTIC PROJECT;

"IN THE CASE OF TIMOTHY DURHAM, WHO WAS WRONGLY CONVICTED OF RAPE AND ROBBERY, THE ANALYST SAID THAT THE SPECIFIC COLOR OF HAIR FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE BELONGED TO “ABOUT 5 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION” WHEN IN REALITY NO EMPIRICAL DATA EXISTS ON THE FREQUENCY OF HAIR COLOR."

THE MID-ATLANTIC PROJECT;

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

At a recent conference in Toronto which explored the nexus between "expert" forensic evidence and "wrongful convictions," Innocence Project co-founder Peter Neufeld referred to a research paper he had co-authored with Brandon L. Garrett called "Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions" published in the March, 2009, issue of the Virginia Law Review;

Neufeld explained that he and Garrett had made the disturbing finding that
in 82 cases or 60% of the trials, forensic analysts provided “invalid” testimony, meaning they had presented conclusions that either misstated empirical data or that were entirely unsupported by empirical data.

This invalid testimony did not come from a small group of analysts –not just the “bad apples”–but from 72 different analysts from 52 laboratories, practices, or hospitals in 25 states.

This disturbing finding should also be of concern to Canadians - as well as people in jurisdictions throughout the world - because the expert opinions provided by so-called forensic pathologists have been shielded from close scrutiny for so many years.

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

"In an article published in the March 2009 issue of the Virginia Law Review, Brandon L. Garrett and Peter J. Neufeld conclude that in the majority of trials of innocent people who were later exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing, forensic nalysts testifying for the prosecution provided invalid testimony at trial," the
summary, prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Project, begins;

"Garrett and Neufeld located and reviewed trial transcripts for 137 of the 156 DNA exonorees in whose trials forensic analysts had testified," the summary continues;

"They found that in 82 cases or 60% of the trials, forensic analysts provided “invalid” testimony, meaning they had presented conclusions that either misstated empirical data or that were entirely unsupported by empirical data. This invalid testimony did not come from a small group of analysts –not just the “bad pples”–but from 72 different analysts from 52 laboratories, practices, or hospitals in 25 states.

Garrett and Neufeld’s study revealed that the analysts’ invalid testimony fell into two basic categories. The first is “the misuse of empirical population data” by presenting non-probative evidence as inculpatory, by discounting exculpatory evidence, or by presenting inaccurate statistics. For example, in the case of Gary Dotson, who was wrongly convicted of rape and aggravated kidnapping, the analyst presented inaccurate statistics when he testified that Dotson was included in 11% of the population that could have been the source of the semen found on the victim, whereas in reality 100% of the population could have been the source of the semen. The second main type of invalid testimony is “making conclusions regarding the probative value of evidence that are unsupported by empirical data.” This includes the presenting of statistics or other statements without backing them up with data or making a conclusion that evidence originated from the defendant even if there is no empirical data to permit such a conclusion. In the case of Timothy Durham, who was wrongly convicted of rape and robbery, the analyst said that the specific color of hair found at the crime scene belonged to “about 5 percent of the population” when in reality no empirical data exists on the frequency of hair color.

In their study of the trial transcripts, Garret and Neufeld found that defense counsel rarely cross-examined analysts concerning invalid testimony and rarely retained their own experts, because funding is often denied for defense experts. Prosecutors presented the invalid accounts of forensic evidence during their closing arguments. If the defense challenged the evidence, judges seldom provided relief. Garrett and Neufeld believe that our criminal justice system is simply not well suited to preventing this kind of unscientific testimony. Based on the results of their study, they recommend that the scientific community issue nationally enforceable standards for written reports and testimony to ensure that forensic science in criminal cases is presented in a way that maintains the integrity and fairness of the criminal process."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

SHOCKING RESEARCH PAPER BY NEUFIELD AND GARRETT: PART ONE; INVALID TESTIMONY BY FORENSIC ANALYSTS FOUND IN 60% OF CASES STUDIED;

At a recent conference in Toronto which explored the nexus between "expert" forensic evidence and "wrongful convictions," Innocence Project co-founder Peter Neufeld referred to a research paper he had co-authored with Brandon L. Garrett called "Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions" published in the March, 2009, issue of the Virginia Law Review;

Neufeld explained that he and Garrett had made the disturbing finding that
in 82 cases or 60% of the trials, forensic analysts provided “invalid” testimony, meaning they had presented conclusions that either misstated empirical data or that were entirely unsupported by empirical data.

This invalid testimony did not come from a small group of analysts –not just the “bad apples”–but from 72 different analysts from 52 laboratories, practices, or hospitals in 25 states.

This disturbing finding should also be of concern to Canadians - as well as people in jurisdictions throughout the world - because the expert opinions provided by so-called forensic pathologists have been shielded from close scrutiny for so many years.

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

I will be devoting several posts to this important paper which can be found in Volume 95, Issue 1, of the Virginia Law Review (2009); at 009, Volume 95, Issue 1

For a start, here is a description of the paper provided by the Law Review:

"This is the first study to explore the forensic science testimony by prosecution experts in the trials of innocent persons, all convicted of serious crimes, who were later exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing.

Trial transcripts were sought for all 156 exonerees identified as having trial testimony by forensic analysts, of which 137 were located and reviewed.

These trials most commonly included serological analysis and microscopic hair comparison, but some included bite mark, shoe print, soil, fiber, and fingerprint comparisons, and several included DNA testing.

This study found that in the bulk of these trials of innocent defendants—82 cases or 60 percent—forensic analysts called by the prosecution provided invalid testimony at trial—that is, testimony with conclusions misstating empirical data or wholly unsupported by empirical data.

This was not the testimony of a mere handful of analysts: this set of trials included invalid testimony by seventy-two forensic analysts called by the prosecution and employed by fifty-two laboratories, practices, or hospitals from twenty-five states.

Unfortunately, the adversary system largely failed to police this invalid testimony.

Defense counsel rarely cross-examined analysts concerning invalid testimony and rarely obtained experts of their own.

In the few cases in which invalid forensic science was challenged, judges seldom provided relief.

This evidence supports efforts to create scientific oversight mechanisms for reviewing forensic testimony and to develop clear scientific standards for report writing and testimony.

The scientific community can promulgate standards to ensure the valid presentation of forensic science in criminal cases and thus the integrity and fairness of the criminal process."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;