Waco Criminal Law Blog : Waco Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Walter Reaves Law Firm : DWI, DUI, Drug Crimes, Appeals : Waco, McLennan County, Texas

Recently Chicago prosecutors agreed to dismiss charges against Maurice Patterson, who had been convicted in 2004 of murder and sentenced to 30 years. He was back in court because it was discovered that blood on a knife found near the murder contained the victim's blood, along with another person. That was important because at trial prosecutors claimed there was no blood on the knife, and therefore it was not connected to the murder.

in reporting the dismissal the State's attorney said the prosecutors acted in good faith, and noted that the judge found there was no intentional misconduct. They also took offense at any suggestion of misconduct, saying it was "wrong and unfair" to make such claims. They say that, without ever offering an explanation for what happened.

It appears that the lab reports showed blood, which was then tested. So did the prosecutors look at the lab report and mis-interpret the statement that blood was found on the knife? Did they not get the report? If they didn't have the report, then they were certainly reckless in saying no blood was on the knife - without actually knowing that. Did the police lie about blood being on the knife.  I don't know what happened, and while I can't think of a plausible excuse, maybe one exists. What bothers me is this is business as usual. Prosecutors are free to misrepresent evidence without any consequences. We've seen it time and time again.  The explanation that it was an honest mistake is accepted without question. Whatever the real reason in this case, at best the prosecutor  played fast and loose with the truth.

One thing is for sure - whatever the reason, Mr. Patterson spent six years in jail for nothing. At the very least, he should get an explanation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Thanks to Scott Benson at Grits for Breakfast for pointing out a story that provides more ammunition for attacking fingerprints. At a forensic conference sponsored by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Texas DPS fingerprint examiner Bryan Strong described how they resolve disputes among examiners. Here's the story related by Grits:

Mr. Strong described what happens when the first examiner finds a match but the verifying analyst doesn't agree. In such instances, he said, they notified their supervisor and all of them conferred to make a decision. A defense attorney in the crowd asked what seemed to me an obvious question: When two examiners originally disagreed but a supervisor resolved the issue in favor of a match, was that disagreement recorded in the final report? No, replied Strong, only the conclusion. At this, the audience began to murmur and fidget. Somebody from the back cried out, "Have you ever heard of Brady v. Maryland?," which is the US Supreme Court case requiring the state to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense  before trial. No he had not, replied a credulous Strong, a statement which elicited an audible gasp from the crowd.

The Brady problems are obvious, and create a whole of host of potential issues. What struck me about the story however is that provides more evidence of just how unreliable - and unscientific - fingerprint examinations are. Despite what they want you believe, fingerprint examinations are nothing more than a subjective opinion. The fact that two examiners disagree shows that.

I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it: we need to challenge fingerprints more often. There is no science involved, and we need to keep pointing that out. While comparing inked prints to inked prints may be reliable and accurate, there is a big difference between an inked print and a partial print that you have only limited information on. This story gives us one more weapon in the arsenal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The revolt at the forensic science continues. At an emergency meeting yesterday several members called chairman John Bradley to task for calling Cameron Todd Willingham a guilty monster. For some reason they thought that might call his objectivity into question. I don't why they would think that his opinion on guilt would influence his decision on the issues before the commission.

Dr. Sarah Kerrigan had some insightful comments that point out the role should play in criminal cases - a role that has largely abandoned. She asked what guilt or innocence had to do with whether the investigation was flawed. When asked to read all the transcript, she asked why the character of the individual should make a difference in determining what the science shows. In my opinion, she nailed the reason for most of problems we have had with forensics.

Numerous studies have demonstrated how bias can alter the interpretation of the evidence. If you believe someone is guilty, you interpret the evidence to support that opinion. In fact, it should have nothing to do with it; science is neutral, and should not be concerned with guilt or innocence. The problem is when scientists become advocates.

Whether or not Cameron Todd Willingham is guilty has nothing to do with whether the investigation. If he is guilty (which I don't believe), they got lucky; it doesn't somehow transform the investigation.  If the investigation is flawed it's flawed, regardless of whether the defendant is guilty or not.

I've said before that we have lost focus in many of these cases. The focus should not be on guilt, but on whether bad science was used to obtain the conviction. If it was, then how can we make sure that doesn't happen. Dr. Kerrigan is a breath of fresh air - she brings the perspective of a scientist - and not an advocate. If more scientists did that, we would go a long way toward solving many of the problems with forensic evidence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link