Steven Hayne; Michael West: Radley Balko writes in his Washington Post column 'The Watch' that despite ‘grossly negligent’ testimony that put two innocent men in prison, forensic experts can’t be sued..." But the most damning evidence of recklessness is that the men — West in particular — used a method of bite-mark analysis West called “direct comparison.” The “technique” (which Hayne has also admitted to using) involves forcefully pushing a mold of the suspect’s teeth directly into the skin of the victim, on top of the alleged bite mark. As you might imagine, more-credible forensic specialists find this to be outrageous. Even within the already scientifically suspect bite-mark community, West’s methods are considered out of bounds. At best, pushing a replica of a suspect’s teeth into allege bite marks distorts the marks so that no other expert can examine them in their original state. At worst, it’s manufacturing evidence. I’ve written about two subsequent cases in which West actually recorded his examination of the victim, and in both cases, he appears to be creating the very bite marks he later attributed to the defendant."

 

COMMENTARY: "Federal court: Despite ‘grossly negligent’ testimony that put two innocent men in prison, forensic experts can’t be sued," by Radley Balko, published by The Washington Post.  (Radley Balko blogs about criminal justice, the drug war and civil liberties for The Washington Post. He is the author of the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces.")

GIST:  Regular readers of The Watch will by now be familiar with the saga of Steven Hayne and Michael West, the two men who dominated Mississippi’s death investigation system for the better part of 20 years. West testified in dozens of cases, Hayne in thousands. Both often gave testimony well outside the constraints of science. Hayne, for example, once claimed that the bullet wounds in a murder victim were “consistent with” a theory that two people were holding the murder weapon when it was fired. West has claimed to be able to trace bruises on a victim’s abdomen to the specific shoe that inflicted the injuries; claimed to match fingernail scrapes to the specific fingernails that made them; and in one particularly nutty case, claimed that the knife wounds in a murder victim could only have been caused by one specific knife, and then claimed to have found marks on the chief suspect’s hands that could only have been caused by gripping the handle of that knife — and only that knife. This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that because Hayne and West are protected by qualified immunity for any case in which they testified, they’re only liable to a lawsuit if the plaintiff can show that they acted recklessly. Mere negligence — even gross negligence — is not enough. The lawsuit in question was brought by Levon Brooks and Kennedy Brewer, two men who were wrongly convicted in the 1990s, largely due to testimony from Hayne and West. In both cases, a little girl was abducted from her home at night, sexually assaulted and murdered, and her body was thrown into a creek. The two crimes occurred just a couple of miles apart. In both cases, the authorities suspected a boyfriend of the mother. In both cases, they took the body to Hayne for autopsy. In both cases, Hayne claimed to have found bite marks that other experts have since said were not human bites at all. In both cases, Hayne then called in West, who was making a name for himself as an expert bite-mark analyst. In both cases, West claimed that the marks were in fact human bites and that the marks “indeed, and without a doubt” were a match to the authorities’ chief suspect. In reality, the same man — Justin Albert Johnson — committed both crimes. Johnson had a history of attempted sexual assaults. On at least two other occasions he had broken into a home, at night, and attempted to attack a sleeping victim. In fact, he was initially a suspect in the first murder. Had Hayne, West and local authorities not wrongly implicated Levon Brooks in that first crime, the second little girl may never have been attacked and murdered. Instead, West actually exonerated Johnson. He compared a dental mold of Johnson’s teeth with the alleged bite marks and determined that they weren’t a match. (As it would turn out, he was right about that, but only because those marks weren’t bites at all — Johnson never bit either victim.) Brooks was sentenced to life in prison. Brewer was sentenced to death, and at one point was given a death warrant. In 2000, Brewer was excluded as the source of the sperm found in the little girl, yet local officials insisted on keeping him in prison, citing West’s testimony. Brewer may not have raped the girl, they argued, but because West said that Brewer and only Brewer bit her, he must have participated in the attack. They speculated that he must have held her down and bit her while someone else raped her. Yet for reasons that remain unclear, they refused to run the DNA profile from the sperm through the state database. Years later, Brewer’s attorneys finally got a court order for testing. When they did, it was a match to Justin Johnson. He then confessed to both crimes. After they were released from prison in 2007, Brewer and Brooks sued. Their lawsuits were later combined. A federal district court dismissed the suit, finding that Hayne and West had absolute immunity for the testimony in court and qualified immunity for the reports that they wrote for police and prosecutors. They appealed. The appeals court released its opinion this week.........Brooks and Brewer argued that Hayne and West were exceptionally reckless in their respective cases. For example, Hayne and West said that the bite marks were made only by the upper back teeth of the defendants, a bizarre claim that nearly defies the laws of physics. In the Brooks case, West oddly used Silly Putty to make a mold of Brooks’s teeth, which he said was the only material that could record the level of detail he needed to match Brooks’s teeth to the bite marks. In addition to the rather strange novelty of using Silly Putty, West’s explanation of why he did so also made little sense. Human skin is spongy, fungible and resilient. Even under ideal conditions, it’s a poor receptacle for recording bite marks with the level of detail that bite mark analysts claim. (Indeed, there’s no scientific research to support this claim.) But in this case, the little girl’s body had spent 24 hours submerged in water. It had been exposed to insects and animals. It had begun to decay. It had even been embalmed. Even if West were right about Silly Putty’s ability to record more intricate details than a conventional dental mold, for that extra detail to be relevant, the same level of detail would need to have been preserved in the bite marks themselves. And that is highly unlikely.

Another example: Multiple experts who have reviewed the cases have said that the girls’ injuries were clearly inflicted after death. That would mean they were unlikely to have been human bites (the same experts said that, too). Hayne could have made sure one way or another by taking biopsies of the injuries and examining them under a microscope. He didn’t. Instead, he merely stated definitively that they were inflicted before death, then brought West in to do his magic. But the most damning evidence of recklessness is that the men — West in particular — used a method of bite-mark analysis West called “direct comparison.” The “technique” (which Hayne has also admitted to using) involves forcefully pushing a mold of the suspect’s teeth directly into the skin of the victim, on top of the alleged bite mark. As you might imagine, more-credible forensic specialists find this to be outrageous. Even within the already scientifically suspect bite-mark community, West’s methods are considered out of bounds. At best, pushing a replica of a suspect’s teeth into allege bite marks distorts the marks so that no other expert can examine them in their original state. At worst, it’s manufacturing evidence. I’ve written about two subsequent cases in which West actually recorded his examination of the victim, and in both cases, he appears to be creating the very bite marks he later attributed to the defendant. That is, the video shows no marks on the skin before West does his thing — it only appears afterward. Experts who have examined those videos have called West’s “technique” somewhere between malpractice and criminality. There’s a video of West’s exam in the Brewer case as well, although it hasn’t been released to the public. Experts who have seen it, however, say that West appears to have created the bite marks in that video, too. Even if you believe that expert witnesses should have qualified immunity, that particular form of immunity goes only so far. It would not protect a witness if a defendant could show that he or she knowingly lied on the witness stand, for example. And it certainly wouldn’t protect a witness who fabricated evidence.
The 5th Circuit opinion acknowledges that bite-mark evidence has recently been “called into question,” but finds that because it was widely accepted at the time, Brewer and Brooks would have to show that West either fabricated evidence or knowingly lied in court............In the end, there will be no reckoning. The men who did Kennedy Brewer and Levon Brooks wrong will get away with it. The system that enabled these wrongful convictions will continue to shield itself from any real accountability. And despite the fact that we now know that the evidence used to convict the two men was dubious from the start — and that there was plenty of reason for the courts to have known it was dubious — there have been no measures put in place to ensure that it won’t happen again."

The entire commentary can be found at:
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/06/29/federal-court-despite-grossly-negligent-testimony-that-put-two-innocent-men-in-prison-forensic-experts-cant-be-sued/?outputType=comment&utm_term=.c5000f17fca6

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;

Part 28: U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session's war on crime/forensics; Rush Holt and Jed Sakoff charge that the U.S. Justice Department is squandering progress in forensic science..........(Washington Post)........."More than 250 individuals and groups, including leading legal scholars and scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, recently submitted public comments to the Justice Department on how to proceed on forensic science. The overwhelming majority of comments urged the department to ensure that there be an independent and transparent oversight body for forensic science like the now-suspended commission. For now, the Justice Department has taken the opposite view, that there is no conflict with having internal department evaluators oversee forensic science research that their prosecutors hope to use in the courtroom. We urge the attorney general and the department to take a thorough look at the many thoughtful comments from concerned citizens and quickly reconsider this approach. Forensic science requires conflict-free independent evaluation if it is to advance the truth. People’s lives and our society’s faith in the American justice system are at stake."

COMMENTARY: "The Justice Department is squandering progress in forensic science," by Rush D. Holt and Jed S. Rakoff, published by The Washington Post on July 2, 2017.  "Rush D. Holt is chief executive officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Jed S. Rakoff is a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York who served ex officio on the National Commission on Forensic Science."

GIST: "According to the National Registry of Exonerations, no fewer than 490 people have been exonerated since 1989 after being convicted on the basis of false or misleading forensic techniques. Just last month, a Michigan man was freed from jail 41 years after his conviction after prosecutors agreed that evidence against him — based on an analysis of a single hair — didn’t meet FBI standards. Another Michigan man was released in May after 25 years in prison following a faulty conviction based on bullets matched to a gun........ During the past decade, thanks largely to a 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences, we have made important progress in ridding our nation’s courtrooms of such scenarios. But the Justice Department’s recent decision to not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science — the primary forum through which scientists, forensic lab technicians, lawyers and judges have worked together to guide the future of forensic science — threatens to stall and even reverse that progress. The NAS report found that too few forensic disciplines, other than DNA analysis, have adequate scientific basis. The report also found that experts often overstate their claims in testimony, invoking unscientific terms like “scientific certainty” and claiming 100 percent accuracy.  The Justice Department is the responsible agency for prosecuting federal crimes and, in this role, makes frequent use of forensic techniques. It is therefore not appropriate for the Justice Department to be the evaluator of forensic practices. In the 2009 report, the NAS strongly recommended that to avoid a conflict of interest, an entity independent of the Justice Department should oversee forensic standards.  While the Justice Department did not fully embrace this recommendation, it went ahead and, in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, helped create the National Commission on Forensic Science. From 2013 until earlier this year, the commission provided a venue for all of the relevant stakeholders to discuss issues facing forensic labs and foundational science and to advance a path forward to strengthen forensic practices and research. By building consensus among these diverse groups who all care deeply about the integrity of our justice system, the commission promoted important reforms, such as mandatory accreditation of crime labs used by the government and the immediate disclosure to defense counsels of a government forensic expert’s entire file relating to a defendant. Many of the commission’s recommendations have been adopted not only by the Justice Department but also by state and local crime labs. They have also resulted in changes both to prosecutorial practices and to codes of professional conduct for those working in forensic laboratories. With these improvements in providing justice, it is not time to pull back from the forensic commission. More than 250 individuals and groups, including leading legal scholars and scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, recently submitted public comments to the Justice Department on how to proceed on forensic science. The overwhelming majority of comments urged the department to ensure that there be an independent and transparent oversight body for forensic science like the now-suspended commission. For now, the Justice Department has taken the opposite view, that there is no conflict with having internal department evaluators oversee forensic science research that their prosecutors hope to use in the courtroom. We urge the attorney general and the department to take a thorough look at the many thoughtful comments from concerned citizens and quickly reconsider this approach. Forensic science requires conflict-free independent evaluation if it is to advance the truth. People’s lives and our society’s faith in the American justice system are at stake."

The entire commentary can be found at:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-justice-department-is-squandering-progress-in-forensic-science/2017/07/02/9f6301ba-5cd8-11e7-9b7d-14576dc0f39d_story.html?utm_term=.ec5f2a61ab2a

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;

Sonja Farak: Massachusetts: Boston Herald asks: "Who do you believe, the politician or the judge?"..."Who’s telling the truth — Attorney General Maura Healey or Superior Court Judge Richard J. Carey? The Democrat AG says there is “no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct by attorneys in the AG’s office.” But after months of hearings, the judge last week ruled that two assistant AG’s engaged in “intentional, repeated, prolonged and deceptive withholding of evidence from defendants, the court and local prosecutors ... (conduct that was) egregious and harmful to the administration of justice.” This is the scandal of Sonja Farak, the former state chemist who from 2004 to 2013 continuously worked under the influence of drugs, including heroin and LSD, at the state labs in Jamaica Plain and Amherst, handling tens of thousands of criminal drug analyses and HIV tests. After her 10-year binge on stolen drugs, Farak pleaded guilty in 2014 to drug theft and tampering and was sentenced to 18 months in jail. Now defendants in her drug cases are trying to get their convictions tossed. Last week Judge Carey vacated seven of the convictions, ruling that conduct by the attorney general’s office had sunk to “a depth of deceptiveness that constitutes a fraud upon the court.” Who do you believe, the politician or the judge?"

 

COMMENTARY: "Carr: Judge sees misconduct; Attorney General sees none," by Howie Carr, published by The Boston Herald on July 2, 2017.

GIST: Who’s telling the truth — Attorney General Maura Healey or Superior Court Judge Richard J. Carey? The Democrat AG says there is “no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct by attorneys in the AG’s office.” But after months of hearings, the judge last week ruled that two assistant AG’s engaged in “intentional, repeated, prolonged and deceptive withholding of evidence from defendants, the court and local prosecutors ... (conduct that was) egregious and harmful to the administration of justice.” This is the scandal of Sonja Farak, the former state chemist who from 2004 to 2013 continuously worked under the influence of drugs, including heroin and LSD, at the state labs in Jamaica Plain and Amherst, handling tens of thousands of criminal drug analyses and HIV tests. After her 10-year binge on stolen drugs, Farak pleaded guilty in 2014 to drug theft and tampering and was sentenced to 18 months in jail. Now defendants in her drug cases are trying to get their convictions tossed. Last week Judge Carey vacated seven of the convictions, ruling that conduct by the attorney general’s office had sunk to “a depth of deceptiveness that constitutes a fraud upon the court.” Who do you believe, the politician or the judge?

The entire story can be found at:

.

.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2017/07/carr_judge_sees_misconduct_ag_sees_none

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;

Mark Carver: North Carolina; Convicted ‘Death by the River’ killer wins new hearing in slaying of college student..."Defense attorney Chris Mumma said in court that she will prove that Carver received an inadequate defense and that the DNA evidence used to convict him would not stand up to updated testing and reporting techniques – improvements that the state lab “consciously chose” not to use during Carver’s trial. “My expectations is the same as it has been since we filed that motion in December 2016: At a minimum, Mark Carver deserves a new trial,” said Mumma, executive director of the North Carolina Center for Actual Innocence. “Most appropriate for justice is that the charges should be dropped and not refiled.”

STORY: "Convicted ‘Death by the River’ killer wins new hearing in slaying of college student," by reporter Michael Gordon, published by The Charlotte Observer on July 3, 2017.

SUB-HEADING: "Mark Carver is serving a life sentence for the 2008 murder of UNC Charlotte student Irina Yarmolenko. His attorneys say he was convicted on evidence that will not stand up to advances in testing."

GIST: "Mark Carver’s chance for freedom or a new trial in the disputed 2008 killing of UNC Charlotte student Irina Yarmolenko will hinge on a Sept. 25 hearing in the courthouse where he was convicted. And the 48-year-old Gaston County man will be on hand to watch. During a sometimes acrimonious two-hour hearing in a Gaston County courtroom, in which he repeatedly expressed exasperation as the opposing sides renewed long-running arguments over the sharing of evidence, Union County Superior Court Judge David Lee set the fall date to hear arguments that Carver was wrongly convicted in Yarmolenko’s 2008 death. Defense attorney Chris Mumma said in court that she will prove that Carver received an inadequate defense and that the DNA evidence used to convict him would not stand up to updated testing and reporting techniques – improvements that the state lab “consciously chose” not to use during Carver’s trial. “My expectations is the same as it has been since we filed that motion in December 2016: At a minimum, Mark Carver deserves a new trial,” said Mumma, executive director of the North Carolina Center for Actual Innocence. “Most appropriate for justice is that the charges should be dropped and not refiled.”........More than two months after Lee ordered both sides to abide by state law and share evidence in the case, the debate over who’s hoarding what still pulsed through the hearing. Last month, Mumma asked Lee to hold Bell in contempt of court for failing to turn over promised material – an allegation she repeated during Monday’s hearing. Bell and Assistant District Attorney Stephanie Hamlin countered that Mumma has not produced a waiver that will allow them to collect Carver’s physical and emotional medical records that are key parts of the new defense for the Gaston County man.........Carver is serving a life sentence without parole after his 2011 conviction for strangling Yarmolenko. Her body was found near her car in Mount Holly, on the banks of the Catawba River. Carver and his cousin were fishing downstream at the time. The cousin died the day before his murder trial was to start. Carver was convicted by a Gaston County jury in 2011 and sentenced to life without parole. Last year, the Observer published “Death by the River,” a six-part series raising questions about Carver’s guilt.

Mumma and Bell have been wrangling for months over evidence. North Carolina is known as an “open-file discovery” state in which the law requires attorneys to turn over their complete files to the opposing side. In response to one of Mumma’s earlier requests, Bell asked Mumma in writing to cite the portion of state law that compelled him “to do your research for you.” During the April hearing, Lee elicited promises from Bell and Mumma that they would exchange all evidence before any hearing on the defense request for a new trial takes place. “My only concern is: Does everybody have everything that’s out there?” Lee said As of Monday, the answer appears to remain the same – no."

Michael Gordon: 704-358-5095, @MikeGordonOBS

The entire story can be found at:

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article159469789.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article159469789.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;

Raymond McCann: Michigan; Perjury? Who's lying? WOOD TV tells the story of attorneys from two university innocence clinics who, citing iffy evidence and shady interrogation practices, are working to clear the name of a man who spent nearly two years in a state prison for allegedly lying to police as they investigated the murder of an 11-year-old girl...."McCann’s new attorneys are focusing on grainy video that they say exposes another lie told by police. During McCann’s search for Jodi, he told another officer to meet him at a path leading to a dam in Constantine. At his preliminary hearing in 2014, the prosecutor said surveillance video showed the entrance to the path and that McCann wasn’t there, proving he lied. McCann and his new attorneys hadn’t seen the video until Target 8 showed it to them last year. His new attorneys said they recently discovered that the surveillance camera “did not capture” the entrance to the path, according to the motion filed Thursday. Instead, it was aimed at a nearby street. The attorneys accused a detective and the prosecution of using “false and misleading testimony” about the video to get McCann to plead no contest. They say his defense attorney at the time failed McCann by not challenging the video. Two years ago, Daniel Furlong, a man never considered a suspect in Jodi’s murder, was arrested in nearby White Pigeon after luring a young girl into his garage. DNA linked Furlong to Jodi’s murder."

STORY: "Video challenged in Jodi Parrack perjury case: Law professor raises doubts over bartender's Carlisle park murder conviction," by reporter Ken Kolker, published by WOOD TV on June 29, 2017.

GIST: "Citing iffy evidence and shady interrogation practices, attorneys from two university innocence clinics are working to clear the name of Constantine man who spent nearly two years in a state prison for allegedly lying to police as they investigated the murder of an 11-year-old girl. The attorneys from University of Michigan’s Michigan Innocence Clinic and Northwestern University’s Center for Wrongful Convictions took up Raymond McCann’s case in response to a Target 8 investigation last year. Thursday, they filed a motion to have his conviction overturned. McCann was long considered the lead suspect in the 2007 rape and murder of 11-year-old Jodi Parrack, whose body was found in a Constantine cemetery. He pleaded no contest in 2015 to perjury and served 20 months in jail and prison.  Target 8 revealed last year that his plea followed months of interrogations by detectives who lied repeatedly to him — a tactic that is legal in the U.S. Among the lies: that police had evidence that he had touched Jodi’s body. McCann was a reserve police officer in Constantine who helped look for Jodi. Police targeted him in their investigation because of what they called holes in his stories before Jodi disappeared, during his search for her and after her body was found. During video-recorded interrogations obtained by Target 8, McCann denied any involvement in Jodi’s death 86 times. Thursday, law schools at the University of Michigan and Northwestern University filed a 119-page document in St. Joseph County court. They are asking a judge to overturn the conviction and order a new trial. The attorneys include David Moran of the Michigan Innocence Clinic and Steven A. Drizin, who played a key role in the popular Netflix “Making a Murderer” series. McCann’s new attorneys are focusing on grainy video that they say exposes another lie told by police. During McCann’s search for Jodi, he told another officer to meet him at a path leading to a dam in Constantine. At his preliminary hearing in 2014, the prosecutor said  surveillance video showed the entrance to the path and that McCann wasn’t there, proving he lied. McCann and his new attorneys hadn’t seen the video until Target 8 showed it to them last year. His new attorneys said they recently discovered that the surveillance camera “did not capture” the entrance to the path, according to the motion filed Thursday. Instead, it was aimed at a nearby street. The attorneys accused a detective and the prosecution of using “false and misleading testimony” about the video to get McCann to plead no contest. They say his defense attorney at the time failed McCann by not challenging the video. Two years ago, Daniel Furlong, a man never considered a suspect in Jodi’s murder, was arrested in nearby White Pigeon after luring a young girl into his garage. DNA linked Furlong to Jodi’s murder.  Police continued calling McCann a suspect even after Furlong said he had worked alone. Furlong is now serving 30 to 60 years in prison."

The entire story can be found at:

http://woodtv.com/2017/06/29/law-schools-seek-to-erase-conviction-in-probe-of-dead-girl/

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;

Brendan Dassey: Wisconsin; False confession case; Criminal justice experts: Case has wide-reaching, national impact, USA Today Network reports..."A federal judge in Milwaukee ruled that Dassey’s constitutional rights were violated because investigators made false promises during multiple interrogations. Judge William Duffin, in overturning the conviction, said investigators made “repeated false promises” that, “when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary.”

STORY: "Making Murder Experts say Brendan Dassey case has wide-reaching national impact," by reporter Andy Thompson, published by The Post Crescent on July 2, 2017.

 

GIST:The federal appeals process has yet to play out, but it’s already clear that the murder case against Brendan Dassey is having a national impact on the criminal justice system. Dassey won an important victory on June 22, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago affirmed a federal magistrate’s ruling in August 2016 that overturned Dassey’s conviction in the 2005 homicide of 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach. The Wisconsin Department of Justice, which intends to appeal the decision, won a victory of its own this week when the Seventh Circuit denied Dassey’s request to be released from prison on bond. While Dassey’s fate has yet to be determined — the state could still re-try him for Halbach’s murder if the appeals fail — those who have been following the case since “Making a Murderer” hit the Netflix in December 2015 say it has national significance in terms of interrogations of juveniles, false confessions, mental health issues and the treatment of juveniles who are accused of major crimes. “It has really brought into the national spotlight the hazards of interrogating juveniles,” said Daniel Medwed, a professor of law and criminal justice at Northeastern University in Boston. “It's a good thing that people are talking about these issues.” A federal judge in Milwaukee ruled that Dassey’s constitutional rights were violated because investigators made false promises during multiple interrogations. Judge William Duffin, in overturning the conviction, said investigators made “repeated false promises” that, “when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary.” The Wisconsin justice department disagrees with the ruling, saying investigators made no specific promises to Dassey and argued that his confession was voluntary. Medwed said the Dassey case “will get a lot of attention nationally. It could draw attention to false confessions and encourage courts to look more closely at these issues." “It would signal to judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys to look more carefully at juvenile confessions,” he said. “People, and juveniles with mental health issues, are often times more open to suggestions and more susceptible to coercion.” That sentiment is shared by Marsha Levick, deputy director and chief counsel at the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia. “There’s no positive value to a false confession,” she said. “It provides no measure of justice to the victim.” Levick said the focus on the Dassey case in “Making a Murderer” provided a “living record” of how his confession was obtained. She is hopeful that those involved in juvenile prosecutions will take Dassey’s experience into account when they assess cases. “Having a readily available video (of the interrogation of Dassey) amplified the impact,” she said. “You can look at the circumstances of the interrogation.” Videotapes from Dassey’s case are being used in some educational and training sessions to illustrate interrogations that can lead to false confessions and overturned convictions. “I hope it leads to changes,” said Lindsay Malloy, a professor in the department of psychology at Florida International University. “I’m hoping this case leads to the recognition that juveniles are not adults, and we shouldn’t be evaluating them as such.” Malloy said the popularity of “Making a Murderer” has led to a greater public awareness of false confessions."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2017/07/02/making-murderer-experts-say-brendan-dassey-case-has-wide-reaching-impact/436625001/

 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;

(Part 27) U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session's war against crime/forensics..."Leading U.S. science organizations called on the Justice Department to renew an abandoned partnership with independent scientists to help raise forensic science standards, warning bluntly that doubts about questioned techniques have grown to the point that "society's faith in the American justice system is at risk." The groups, led by the nation's largest general scientific body and professional societies representing chemists, statisticians and human behavioral and brain researchers, were responding to the Trump administration's decision to replace the National Commission on Forensic Science with an in-house law enforcement task force and yet-to-be-named adviser. Led by the 120,000-member American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes the journal Science, the groups said in a June 9 letter that after years of enhanced scrutiny, "we simply do not know whether many forensic practices are reliable or valid scientifically." The association linked the problem to what it described as an inherent conflict of interest in having law enforcement overseeing the work of forensic labs on which police and prosecutors rely to win and defend convictions. "The importance of independence from DOJ in this endeavor cannot be overstated. The DOJ must not be put in the position of using forensic tools in its role as a prosecutor in federal criminal litigation, while simultaneously determining the scientific value of those same tools," the groups wrote."

 

STORY: "Science organizations renew call for independent US committee on forensics," by Spencer S. Hsu,  published  by The Washington Post on June 29, 2017.

GIST: "Leading U.S. science organizations called on the Justice Department to renew an abandoned partnership with independent scientists to help raise forensic science standards, warning bluntly that doubts about questioned techniques have grown to the point that "society's faith in the American justice system is at risk." The groups, led by the nation's largest general scientific body and professional societies representing chemists, statisticians and human behavioral and brain researchers, were responding to the Trump administration's decision to replace the National Commission on Forensic Science with an in-house law enforcement task force and yet-to-be-named adviser. Led by the 120,000-member American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes the journal Science, the groups said in a June 9 letter that after years of enhanced scrutiny, "we simply do not know whether many forensic practices are reliable or valid scientifically."
The association linked the problem to what it described as an inherent conflict of interest in having law enforcement overseeing the work of forensic labs on which police and prosecutors rely to win and defend convictions. "The importance of independence from DOJ in this endeavor cannot be overstated. The DOJ must not be put in the position of using forensic tools in its role as a prosecutor in federal criminal litigation, while simultaneously determining the scientific value of those same tools," the groups wrote.........The change of course comes after an Obama White House panel of scientific advisers last September called on courts to question the admissibility of four heavily used techniques, including firearms tracing, saying claims about their reliability had not been scientifically proved. Scientists' concerns have increased with the rise of new forensic technologies.........Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April declined to renew the commission, a roughly 30-member policy advisory panel of scientists, judges, crime lab leaders, prosecutors and defense lawyers chartered by the Obama administration in 2013 to make recommendations to the department. In a statement at the time, Sessions focused instead on aiding overburdened police crime labs, proposing to survey crime-lab workloads, backlogs and equipment needs as a way to increase the labs' capacities, as well as putting more focus on the need for reliability and "specificity" of results. Sessions, a former federal prosecutor, has said he wanted to ensure that Obama-era priorities did not counter Trump administration goals of combating violent crime and promoting police safety and morale. But the administration's handling of the issue has created divisions among some forensic scientists and groups in the federal government and outside. Many of the public commenters said they hoped outside scientists would continue playing a role in Justice Department decision-making, and hoped the department would follow through on commitments to scientific objectivity and transparency. The AAAS called for a panel with "broad representation" from policy, practice and research interests and federal science agencies that would begin by identifying acceptable and invalid forensic practices and research priorities. "Indeed, sidelining scientists has been a key problem," said the American Statistical Association, which has been involved in trying to determine error rates for forensic techniques......... The commission was created after critical reports from the National Academy of Sciences about a dearth of standards and funding for crime labs, examiners and researchers, problems it traced partly to law enforcement control over the system. Although examiners had long claimed to be able to match pattern evidence - such as with firearms or bite marks - to a source with "absolute" or "scientific" certainty, only DNA analysis had been validated through statistical research, scientists reported. The Justice Department last year announced a wider review of testimony by experts across several disciplines after finding that nearly all FBI experts for years had overstated and given scientifically misleading testimony about two techniques the FBI Laboratory long championed: the tracing of crime-scene hairs based on microscopic examinations and of bullets based on chemical composition. The cases include 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison.

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Science-organizations-renew-call-for-independent-11255377.php

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;