Is Winfrey really an attack on junk science?
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals doesn't reverse many cases, and it's really rare to get a reversal on legal sufficiency - which means they enter a judgment of acquittal. So its understandable why everyone is excited about the decision in Winfrey, which reversed a conviction that was based mostly on a dog scent line-up. Some have described it as an attack on junk science. Unfortunately, I don't think it is any such thing.
Winfrey did not address the admissibility of scent line-ups. For some unknown reason the evidence was never even challenged at trial. Instead of addressing the admissibility of such evidence, the court simply held that the scent line up was not enough to support a conviction; along the way noting that at best the scent line-up shows the defendant had contact at some time with the victim's clothing. There was nothing else to establish guilt. As I noted earlier, the real physical evidence actually excluded Mr. Winfrey.
A concurring opinion did make note of the scientific criticism of scent line-ups. However, whether they should be admitted is still an open question. The Innocence Project has already addressed the problems with such evidence, which are many. This evidence still needs to be challenged, and hopefully it will not admitted. If not, we will soon see a decision on whether scent line-ups have any place in a court of law.
