Bulletin: Pennsylvania; Han Tak Lee; Arson "science."... Appeals court won't reinstate 1990 arson-murder conviction; "Lee said Wednesday in a brief phone interview that he was happy about the ruling. His attorney, Peter Goldberger, called on prosecutors to drop the case. "I hope, now, that they will finally see there is no basis for this conviction," Goldberger said. "They can say it's nobody's fault, that science changed, that this is over now, and the federal court has had the last word." ..."After years of appeals, the 3rd Circuit granted Lee's request for an independent review of the evidence. The review, led by a magistrate judge, concluded the expert testimony used to convict him was based on "little more than superstition." "The commonwealth concedes that, due to scientific developments since Lee's trial in 1990, the basis for all of this evidence is now invalid," the appeals court said in Wednesday's ruling." Associated Press;

"An elderly man who spent 24 years in prison for his daughter's death in a fire will remain free after a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania on Wednesday refused to reinstate his murder conviction. Han Tak Lee, 80, a native of South Korea who earned U.S. citizenship, was exonerated and freed last year after a judge concluded the case against him was based on since-discredited scientific theories about arson. Prosecutors appealed, saying that other evidence pointed to his guilt. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal, meaning Lee will stay out of prison.  Lee said Wednesday in a brief phone interview that he was happy about the ruling. His attorney, Peter Goldberger, called on prosecutors to drop the case. "I hope, now, that they will finally see there is no basis for this conviction," Goldberger said. "They can say it's nobody's fault, that science changed, that this is over now, and the federal court has had the last word." Monroe County District Attorney David Christine, who prosecuted Lee in 1990, said he will consider an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.........Lee's conviction was one of dozens to be called into question around the U.S. amid revolutionary changes in investigators' understanding of how an intentionally set fire can be distinguished from an accidental one. The New York City shop owner had taken his 20-year-old, mentally ill daughter to a religious retreat in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains where, prosecutors say, he set fire to their cabin. Lee has long contended the 1989 fire was accidental. A state police fire marshal testified at Lee's trial that the wood in the Lees' cabin was deeply charred and blistered, that the windows had a series of tiny fractures and that he had found at least eight separate points of origin for the fire — all evidence of arson, according to the orthodoxies of the day. The jury convicted Lee of murder and sentenced him to life without parole. After years of appeals, the 3rd Circuit granted Lee's request for an independent review of the evidence. The review, led by a magistrate judge, concluded the expert testimony used to convict him was based on "little more than superstition." "The commonwealth concedes that, due to scientific developments since Lee's trial in 1990, the basis for all of this evidence is now invalid," the appeals court said in Wednesday's ruling. Prosecutors pointed to what they said was other evidence supporting the conviction, including a pathologist's opinion that Lee's daughter might have been strangled before the fire and Lee's stoic demeanor afterward. But the appeals judges agreed with the lower court's determination that Lee's passivity at the fire scene likely stemmed from a cultural taboo against showing emotion in public, and said the strangulation theory "was supported by very little forensic evidence." Lee, who returned to Queens after his release from prison, told The Associated Press last month that he still loved America and "I expect America to make the right decision.""

 http://lancasteronline.com/news/pennsylvania/appeals-court-won-t-reinstate-arson-murder-conviction/article_66ce9d5f-ebda-5740-bfb9-8ffdf6563686.html

Bulletin: Douglas Prade; Ohio: Bite-mark evidence once again under scrutiny: Akron Beacon Journal says discredited bite mark evidence makes "a persuasive case for a new trial."..." At the same time, prosecutors depended heavily in the 1998 trial on bite-mark evidence that has been discredited, most notably, due to advanced DNA testing that has excluded Prade. More than two years ago, Judge Judy Hunter, now retired, examined all of this evidence, and freed Prade from prison. She also ruled that if her decision eventually was reversed by a higher court, Prade should receive a new trial."

"That isn’t to say all evidence of guilt has disappeared. As the prosecutor’s office notes, Prade stalked his wife. He threatened her. At the same time, prosecutors depended heavily in the 1998 trial on bite-mark evidence that has been discredited, most notably, due to advanced DNA testing that has excluded Prade. More than two years ago, Judge Judy Hunter, now retired, examined all of this evidence, and freed Prade from prison. She also ruled that if her decision eventually was reversed by a higher court, Prade should receive a new trial. Such an outcome runs counter to what many believe happened 18 years ago. Prosecutors insist the lab coat with the bite mark is contaminated, though that argument hardly has been proved. What matters is the thinking behind the law. What would have happened during the trial if jurors knew about this new evidence, that DNA testing excluded Prade? Might one have arrived at reasonable doubt? Judge Hunter essentially answered yes, and thus, she served as that juror. She found the new evidence substantial enough that it carried the potential to alter the outcome of the trial. That doesn’t mean Douglas Prade would be found not guilty. It does make a persuasive case for a new trial."
http://www.ohio.com/editorial/editorials/logic-of-a-new-trial-for-douglas-prade-1.616627

Bulletin: Cameron Todd Willingham; Texas; Major development; "Texas prosecutor made secret deals in more than one death penalty case, report says." Washington Post; (See link below to groundbreaking Marshall Project post..."a second jailhouse snitch claims;")... (Must Read. HL);

"A now-retired Texas prosecutor struck secret deals to secure key testimony in more than one death penalty case, according to a new report. After uncovering evidence last summer that Navarro County prosecutor John Jackson arranged such a deal in one death penalty case, The Marshall Project, a news nonprofit focused on criminal justice issues, reported Tuesday that Jackson did the same in another, earlier case. In both instances, the report says, defense attorneys were not told about the deals and those testifying reported feeling pressured into doing so and guided in what to share. The new story alleges that Jackson bolstered a 1986 case against Ernest Baldree—who was charged with murdering a husband and wife during a robbery—with testimony from Kyle Barnett, who was an inmate with Baldree. But Barnett says he never wanted to testify against Baldree: “The prosecutors there had me in a position where it would be real hard on me if I refused,” he said, according to the report. Barnett said Baldree admitted to the murders, but was also remorseful, saying he was high on speed and didn’t know what he was doing—a fact, he says, prosecutors were uninterested in hearing. “The scenario that Barnett described strongly echoes allegations later made in the far more famous case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for the arson murder of his three young daughters,” Maurice Possley and Maurice Chammah write. Jackson had, for more than 20 years, denied making a deal in that case, too, but a story by Possley republished by The Washington Post last summer cast doubt on his denial."
A second jailhouse snitch claims a secret deal with Texas prosecutor  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/08/18/texas-prosecutor-made-secret-deals-in-more-than-one-death-penalty-case-report-says/

Bulletin: Medical Examiner Steven Hayne: Radley Balko revisits Hayne on "The Watch."..."Mississippi officials say controversial medical examiner isn’t a credible witness — unless he’s testifying for them."

(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.) "If you’ve been reading 'The Watch'  (Washington Post) with any frequency, you’ll know the name Steven Hayne. But here’s a quick summary: Hayne is the controversial medical examiner in Mississippi who for the better part of two decades performed an ungodly number of autopsies in that state — as many as 1,800 per year, according to his own testimony. Several convictions won in part or mostly due to Hayne’s testimony have since been overturned due to questions about the validity of his testimony. Additionally, two men once convicted of rape and murder due to testimony from Hayne and bite mark specialist Michael West were exonerated and released after serving nearly 20 years in prison each. One of those men was nearly executed. Hayne was able to monopolize the state’s autopsy referrals even though he was never board-certified in forensic pathology by the American Board of Pathology, nearly universally recognized as the only legitimate certifying organization in that field (including under Mississippi law).......... But as noted, while the 2008 order barred Hayne from doing any more autopsies for Mississippi prosecutors, he could still testify for the defense. I’ve been reporting on this story for nearly 10 years, and I can think of only a couple of occasions prior to that order in which Hayne had testified for the defense, but he has done so several times since the order. One such case was the 2013 murder trial of Shannon Rayner, accused of killing his wife in 2011, first by striking her in the head with an object, then setting fire to her house. He was convicted of the murder, although the arson charge was dropped. The Mississippi Court of Appeals just upheld the conviction on Tuesday. In hiring Hayne on as an expert witness, Rayner’s attorneys set up a surreal situation in which Hayne, the longtime favorite witness of Mississippi prosecutors, would not only be testifying against the state, but also he’d be directly contradicting the physicians in the state medical examiner’s office. Hayne had wanted that job but was barred by his lack of certification. Instead, Mississippi officials simply left the office vacant, allowing Hayne to become the state’s de facto medical examiner, even though he wasn’t qualified to hold the title. Now, he’d be trying to undermine the state’s case by testifying in opposition to physicians working in the office he wasn’t qualified to fill. The state’s medical examiner testified that Rayner’s wife died of blunt force trauma to the head. Hayne claimed that she died of a drug overdose, a combination of alcohol and an anti-depressant. The interesting part came during the state’s cross examination of Hayne. From the ruling: "During the State’s cross-examination of Dr. Hayne, the prosecutor asked Dr. Hayne: “You told me during lunch the reason you have to carry around that big notebook with you is you have to defend yourself nowadays for all the reversals you’ve had in the Mississippi Supreme Court; is that correct?” Rayner objected to the relevancy and improper questioning of Dr. Hayne; however, the trial court overruled the objection, finding that the question related to Dr. Hayne’s credibility, and allowed the prosecutor to proceed with his line of cross-examination questioning. After presenting his case to the jury, Rayner renewed his all of his previous motions, especially for a directed verdict/judgment of acquittal. The trial court overruled Rayner’s motions. During closing arguments, the State, on rebuttal, made the following comment: “Then you go to Dr. Hayne, a discredited doctor in the State of Mississippi.” Rayner objected to the comment, and the trial court sustained the objection, instructing the jury to disregard the statement concerning Dr. Hayne’s character. The prosecutor also questioned Hayne about the several convictions won based on his testimony that had been overturned, and that the state’s supreme court had explicitly found him to have testified outside his area of expertise. Here you have a prosecutor for the state of Mississippi attacking not just Hayne’s testimony but also his core credibility as an expert witness. The prosecutor then refers to Hayne as “discredited” in his closing statement. Yet as he’s doing this, in other cases, the state of Mississippi is telling the state’s court of appeals and supreme court in brief after brief that Hayne is completely credible, and that the attacks on his credibility have no merit. They’ve made this argument so emphatically, in some briefs they nearly ridicule defendants for daring to question Hayne’s authority and credentials......... But if Hood believes Hayne isn’t credible, he shouldn’t be defending all those other convictions for which Hayne’s testimony was determinant. And he should start reviewing the thousands of cases in which Hayne has testified for possible wrongful convictions. (Hood’s reluctance to come around on this point probably has something to do with the fact that Hood himself used Hayne numerous times back when he was a district attorney. Thus he’d be forced to admit his own judgment was in error.) Instead, we have the state of Mississippi arguing that Hayne both is and isn’t qualified and credible to testify as an expert witness — depending on whether he’s testifying for or against the prosecution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/14/mississippi-officials-say-controversial-medical-examiner-isnt-a-credible-witness-unless-hes-testifying-for-them/

Bulletin: Raymond "Beaver" Tempest, Jr; Rhode Island; "He has been granted bail after murder conviction overturned and is expected to be released on home confinement today; "A judge vacated the second-degree murder conviction last month, saying there were ‘constitutional violations of Mr. Tempest’s due process rights.” His lawyers presented testimony and DNA evidence not heard in the original trial, including the fact that hair found clutched in Picard’s hand did not belong to Tempest."

"A man who’s spent the last 23 years behind bars for a 1982 murder may soon be released. A judge granted bail Friday for Raymond “Beaver” Tempest, Jr., set at $100,000. He’ll be released on home confinement Tuesday pending a state appeal to the Supreme Court.........Tempest was found guilty in 1992 in the strangling death of Doreen Picard in Woonsocket. He’s consistently maintained his innocence in the case, claiming he was framed by Woonsocket police. A judge vacated the second-degree murder conviction last month, saying there were ‘constitutional violations of Mr. Tempest’s due process rights.” His lawyers presented testimony and DNA evidence not heard in the original trial, including the fact that hair found clutched in Picard’s hand did not belong to Tempest.".........Now, the case is in the hands of the Supreme Court – which has the choice to deny the state’s appeal, freeing Tempest permanently. If they uphold it, though, there will be a retrial of Tempest for the murder of Doreen Picard."
http://wpri.com/2015/08/14/beaver-tempest-granted-bail-after-murder-conviction-overturned/

Bulletin: Marine Joseph Scott Pemberton: "Mrs. Pemberton became emotional in court as she described her son as a good boy who could not have killed in cold blood. She said she cannot believe and still finds it impossible that her son is being tried for killing someone. She insisted her son is not a killer."...The defense will present its next witness next week. (CNN Phillippines);

"The defense panel in the Jennifer Laude murder case presented on Monday (August 17) prime suspect U.S. Marine Private First Class Joseph Scott Pemberton's mother, Lisa Pemberton, as its first witness in the trial. Mrs. Pemberton became emotional in court as she described her  son as a good boy who could not have killed in cold blood. She said she cannot believe and still finds it impossible that her son is being tried for killing someone. She insisted her son is not a killer. She even brought with her 22 letters, mostly from relatives and friends, saying good things about her son, Joseph Scott. However, during the cross-examination, she admitted that she doesn't have personal knowledge of what happened because she wasn't in the country when the crime allegedly happened.........Pemberton's lawyer Rowena Garcia-Flores said Lisa will leave the country Tuesday (August 18). She was able to visit her son who is being held at Camp Aguinaldo. The defense will present its next witness next week."
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/08/17/US-Marine-Joseph-Scott-Pemberton-mom-transgender-Jennifer-Laude-murder-trial.html

Bulletin: Gamso; Blogger extraordinaire Jeff Gamso, in his usual blunt, take no prisoners, hard-hitting prose, gives some good reasons to watch "Al Jazeera America's" show "Under the Microscope: The FBI Hair Cases," this evening. (Monday 17 August); (My favourate Gamso reason: "Because hair comparison, even when done right and testified to accurately, is bullshit." Pretty clear, wouldn't you say? HL);

"I've written before about the FBI's "stunning" admission that hair comparison, the very hair comparison its forensic guys testified to thousands of times, is bullshit.  And while they claim they're getting the word out to the boatloads of folks who were convicted based on that testimony, well, we'll see how that goes. While we wait, turn to Al Jazeera America Monday night for Fault Lines.*  Monday's show is "Under the Microscope: The FBI Hair Cases," and it tells that story. More, it tells of Joseph Sledge who spent 37 years in prison for a pair of rape murders he didn't commit.  It was an horrific crime scene.  Blood everywhere.  Everywhere except on Joe Sledge.  There were palmprints in the blood.  They weren't Joe's.  But there were also a handful of hairs.  Those, the FBI's crack hair analysts said, those were just like Joe's.  There are 16 points of comparison.  They matched up at all 16. It tells the story of Kirk Odom, arrested at 18 for a rape he didn't commit.  But the hair, the hair.  And Santae Tribble.  He was 17 when the cops got him for murder.  There were 13 hairs.  It was a murder case.  The FBI had two of their forensic scientists look at them.  Match his hair, they both said.   You know what happened next.  DNA testing on the hair.  On the hairs that convicted Joe and Kirk and Santae.  On the hairs that weren't theirs.  In Santae's case, one of the hairs that sent him down for murder, one of the 13 hairs hairs that the crack guys from the FBI told the jury was just like his, so, you know, . . . . That hair came from a dog. A fucking dog.  Who he says probably committed the crime.........Because hair comparison, even when done right and testified to accurately, is bullshit.  The comparison microscope is a lovely thing.  But the FBI forensic folks who use it, they aren't scientists. And what they're doing isn't science.  If you read this blog, you know all that.  You should watch the show anyhow.  It brings home the human dimension and slams home the real science.  And how else will you learn Joe Sledge's answer to the question: What can they do make this right for you?
http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.ca/2015/08/95-error-rate.html