| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| DOJ Failed to Review 7,250 Cases on Phony Forensics |
| 2016-09-21 |
| Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, one of the brightest legal minds in the country and fearless in his willingness to hold the government accountable, has issued another challenge to our justice system writ large and the Department of Justice in particular. In today’s Wall Street Journal, Judge Kozinski explains the importance of a report the White House is releasing today from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST]. This report calls into question or flat out condemns “the scientific validity of forensic evidence techniques” on which rest countless criminal convictions in federal and state courts across the country. This includes DNA, fingerprint, bitemark, firearm, footwear and hair analysis. As Judge Kozinski notes, television shows like CSI have instilled a belief that these methods can be trusted, and many juries have convicted based on them. But in truth, both the methods and those who apply them are quite fallible. Indeed, Judge Kozinski writes, “Bitemark analysis is about as reliable as astrology.” There are many examples of false identifications—even with fingerprints, which we have long thought were so accurate. One need only look to the FBI’s declaration that the 2004 Madrid bombing fingerprint matched that of an American lawyer. Fortunately for that American, Spanish authorities identified the real bomber. More at the link |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #1 One need only look to the FBI’s declaration that the 2004 Madrid bombing fingerprint matched that of an American lawyer. A lawyer's fingerprints on the Madrid bomb? Couldn't get him for something like jaywalking or tearing the labels off mattresses? Judge Alex is correct. There are two court standards for admissible expert testimony. These two legal tests for expert testimony are: the Frye test and the Daubert test. Judges are faced with deciding whether evidence and expert qualifications meet these standards. I have seen some experts not allowed to testify in court as the result of these standards. Some sciences are "soft" such as the area of psychiatry and psychology whereas others are "harder" such as those of physics and engineering. At times the technology is in a nascent stage and just not well-developed. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2016-09-21 08:47 |