via Volokh:

 

Today’s Washington Post has an extensive report by Spencer Hsu on the Department of Justice’s failure to disclose flaws in forensic work that may have led to the conviction of innocent people. It begins:

 

Justice Department officials have known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people nationwide, but prosecutors failed to notify defendants or their attorneys even in many cases they knew were troubled.

 

Officials started reviewing the cases in the 1990s after reports that sloppy work by examiners at the FBI lab was producing unreliable forensic evidence in court trials. Instead of releasing those findings, they made them available only to the prosecutors in the affected cases, according to documents and interviews with dozens of officials.

 

In addition, the Justice Department reviewed only a limited number of cases and focused on the work of one scientist at the FBI lab, despite warnings that problems were far more widespread and could affect potentially thousands of cases in federal, state and local courts.

 

As a result, hundreds of defendants remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects.

As I listened to this story on the radio this morning I was wondering why the defense wouldn't have gotten their own expert to review/test whatever it is the FBI was testing. Maybe it's a situation where there isn't enough blood/hair/ballistics whatever anymore to do that, but why on earth would you ever just accept as truth what those test say, especially if they're bad for your client?

As I listened to this story on the radio this morning I was wondering why the defense wouldn't have gotten their own expert to review/test whatever it is the FBI was testing. Maybe it's a situation where there isn't enough blood/hair/ballistics whatever anymore to do that, but why on earth would you ever just accept as truth what those test say, especially if they're bad for your client?

I think the answer is money. There aren't many labs that do those sorts of tests, and most of the ones that can are funded by the government and therefore prosecution.

I think the answer is money. There aren't many labs that do those sorts of tests, and most of the ones that can are funded by the government and therefore prosecution.

 

There are plenty of labs out there that test this stuff on a daily basis. It's not like we're talking 10k here either. If i'm wrongly accused of killing/raping someone, and some kind of forensic evidence test is confirming (in error) the accusation, money isn't going to deter me from getting another test done.

This is going back to the 80's and 90's so these sorts of labs are a lot more wide-spread now.

There are plenty of labs out there that test this stuff on a daily basis. It's not like we're talking 10k here either. If i'm wrongly accused of killing/raping someone, and some kind of forensic evidence test is confirming (in error) the accusation, money isn't going to deter me from getting another test done.

 

how much is a public defender going to be able to spend on lab tests?

how much is a public defender going to be able to spend on lab tests?

 

Well that's true. But again if that's the key piece of evidence I don't see how the public defenders office wouldn't allow that cost. I know when I've gotten testing done (blood/food/clothing) it's been hundreds of dollars, not thousands, and i'm sure the PD's office gets discounts if they do volume work.

 

If anything i'm sure it's more on the PD's office simply accepting the test results (as they probably should since they should be trusted) and not believing their client. Which isn't something to be upset with them about considering 90% of their clients lie straight to their faces about everything.

Well that's true. But again if that's the key piece of evidence I don't see how the public defenders office wouldn't allow that cost. I know when I've gotten testing done (blood/food/clothing) it's been hundreds of dollars, not thousands, and i'm sure the PD's office gets discounts if they do volume work.

 

If anything i'm sure it's more on the PD's office simply accepting the test results (as they probably should since they should be trusted) and not believing their client. Which isn't something to be upset with them about considering 90% of their clients lie straight to their faces about everything.

No way a PD's office is going to have enough of a supply of taxpayer funds to re-do every forensics test just to make sure that the lab is trustworthy.

 

The problem is that a 2% failure rate from a lab puts thousands of people in jail, but double-checking would require double-checking a large number of the 98% of tests that worked.

No way a PD's office is going to have enough of a supply of taxpayer funds to re-do every forensics test just to make sure that the lab is trustworthy.

 

The problem is that a 2% failure rate from a lab puts thousands of people in jail, but double-checking would require double-checking a large number of the 98% of tests that worked.

 

True, but again it's going to depend on the case. If 90% of the evidence points one way, and the test points the other way and it's going to be enough to get a guilty verdict, i'd be shocked if they would flat out deny a retest.

True, but again it's going to depend on the case. If 90% of the evidence points one way, and the test points the other way and it's going to be enough to get a guilty verdict, i'd be shocked if they would flat out deny a retest.

Remember though, the forensic/DNA evidence is by far the most powerful evidence in any case. Unless you absolutely cannot square the forensic evidence with an overwhelming amount of evidence, like a dozen witnesses and receipts proving the person on trial was 1000 miles away at the time, I'd believe the forensic/lab evidence over anything else.

Well that's true. But again if that's the key piece of evidence I don't see how the public defenders office wouldn't allow that cost. I know when I've gotten testing done (blood/food/clothing) it's been hundreds of dollars, not thousands, and i'm sure the PD's office gets discounts if they do volume work.

 

If anything i'm sure it's more on the PD's office simply accepting the test results (as they probably should since they should be trusted) and not believing their client. Which isn't something to be upset with them about considering 90% of their clients lie straight to their faces about everything.

 

PD offices barely have enough money to pay meager salaries to severely overburdened lawyers.

Remember though, the forensic/DNA evidence is by far the most powerful evidence in any case. Unless you absolutely cannot square the forensic evidence with an overwhelming amount of evidence, like a dozen witnesses and receipts proving the person on trial was 1000 miles away at the time, I'd believe the forensic/lab evidence over anything else.

 

People also expect iron-clad forensic evidence these days. Thanks, CSI!

People also expect iron-clad forensic evidence these days. Thanks, CSI!

 

That's true. And due to the cost, in a lot of lower charged cases (think not murder or rape - or DUI since labs are kind of important there), there aren't any labs. That doesn't stop a panel of jurors from expecting DNA evidence to conclusively tie the guy charged with car theft to the vehicle by some fiber of hair left on the seat. In fact, if you are in a jury pool, you might get a question asking if you watch CSI and an answer in the affirmative might make you more likely to get struck from the panel.

That's true. And due to the cost, in a lot of lower charged cases (think not murder or rape - or DUI since labs are kind of important there), there aren't any labs. That doesn't stop a panel of jurors from expecting DNA evidence to conclusively tie the guy charged with car theft to the vehicle by some fiber of hair left on the seat. In fact, if you are in a jury pool, you might get a question asking if you watch CSI and an answer in the affirmative might make you more likely to get struck from the panel.

My criminal forensics teacher used to refer to CSI as BSI because of the nonsense they do on that show.

 

My guess is that although many of the tests may not have been as iron-clad as they once were perceived to be, in the overwhelming, overwhelming majority of cases (think 98%), they still have the right person in jail. It's not often that you have a situation like Balta laid out, where all the witness testimony and evidence said one thing and the forensic evidence said another.

 

 

That's true. And due to the cost, in a lot of lower charged cases (think not murder or rape - or DUI since labs are kind of important there), there aren't any labs. That doesn't stop a panel of jurors from expecting DNA evidence to conclusively tie the guy charged with car theft to the vehicle by some fiber of hair left on the seat. In fact, if you are in a jury pool, you might get a question asking if you watch CSI and an answer in the affirmative might make you more likely to get struck from the panel.

 

I need to remember that the next time I get called for jury duty. One more way to get out of it.

I need to remember that the next time I get called for jury duty. One more way to get out of it.

 

Just be a grumpy asshole.

OR, and I know this is a crazy idea, take it seriously as someones life, livelihood or future may hang in the balance and they deserve good jurors? A day may come when you're up there innocently...and those of you who feel this way better hope you don't get yourselves as potential jurors...because, well...you won't get yourselves...you'll get the garbage left over that weren't intelligent enough to weasel out of doing it.

OR, and I know this is a crazy idea, take it seriously as someones life, livelihood or future may hang in the balance and they deserve good jurors? A day may come when you're up there innocently...and those of you who feel this way better hope you don't get yourselves as potential jurors...because, well...you won't get yourselves...you'll get the garbage left over that weren't intelligent enough to weasel out of doing it.

Mandate that employers pay a full days wage for jury duty.

Mandate that employers pay a full days wage for jury duty.

 

Even when companies do, people still have that prevalent attitude toward jury duty.

Even when companies do, people still have that prevalent attitude toward jury duty.

I would be a professional juror if I got paid well for it.

Could the government give you some kind of tax credit if you actually serve on a jury?

Mandate that employers pay a full days wage for jury duty.

 

^^^This.

 

If I got paid my regular wage for being there, I'd have no problem with it at all. Until then, the livelihood of myself and my family come first.

Edited April 19, 201213 yr by Iwritecode

Could the government give you some kind of tax credit if you actually serve on a jury?

Of course it "Could", but that would be expensive.

Of course it "Could", but that would be expensive.

I don't like the idea of employers directly subsidizing a civic duty. But if the government would tax the wealthy like it should they could ultimately be defraying the cost of such a program.

I don't like the idea of employers directly subsidizing a civic duty. But if the government would tax the wealthy like it should they could ultimately be defraying the cost of such a program.

 

 

Good point. I always thought it was more a case of allowing a few more vacation days, but your way is really valid.