6 ms·

Seen in light of http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/fbi_s_flawed_forensics_expert_testimony_hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerpr

Seen in light of http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/fbi_s_flawed_forensics_expert_testimony_hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerprints.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... this looks like a systemic problem and not an innocent mistake. If crime labs were doing science, they would have run enough control samples to quickly discover the mistake. But the error "may have affected thousands of cases going back to 1999". I don't think forensic science, as currently practiced in the United States, deserves the name "science". And the errors are all in the same direction: towards conviction.

x5n1 11y ago
If I were any of the jailed people I would sue the hell out of these people. In fact if I was a class action law firm, I would bring a class action lawsuit against all these corrupt morons.
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  unfortunately prosecutors are almost entirely immune to civil legal action.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    maybe they shouldn't be. but the prosecutors aren't responsible the labs are.
- Retric 11y ago
  > I would sue the hell out of these people. I often hear people say this, but do you actually have the ~20-200+k to actually sue in this case? Because, the vast majority of people out there really don't have the option to just sue. And, I think that's part of why are justice system stays so broken. Many people only find out how corrupt it is after there in it's cross-hairs.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    That's the thing, the just system isn't really broken, it's doing exactly what it's designed to do, protect the rich. The poor have never gotten a fair shake nor particularly liked the so called "justice system" nor the police who enforce it. Police are not your friends and the law is designed by and for the benefit of the rich and really always has been.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
Shouldn't defendants be demanding that "science" be done in any evidence against them? Or, at least getting every piece of "non-science" evidence thrown out?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Unless you have deep pockets, it's hard to demand anything as a defendant.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    Bullshit. Public defenders are lawyers.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      And they have nowhere near the resources of a lawyer and law firm you could retain if you have the funds available to you. Having a public defender represent you when they have hundreds of other cases concurrently is useless.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        >Having a public defender represent you when they have hundreds of other cases concurrently is useless. This could turn into a good thing (for the defendant). Simply argue that the state provided you with incompetent representation and therefore any continued proceedings by the court are unconstitutional.
      - monochromatic 11y ago
        Yes, wealthy people have an easier time of it. That doesn't mean that a public defender is useless.
- Kinnard 11y ago
  Defendants are weak the state is strong. There is no such thing as a fair trial in this country, holding on to that sort of wishful thinking prevents us from progressing toward anything that approximates fairness.
Zigurd 11y ago
It's a travesty that the forensics lab works as an ally and partner to police and prosecution. Way too many perverse incentives to go off into the weeds on pseudoscience and bad science and, as we had in Massachusetts, outright fraud. Forensics labs should be blind to the cases they are working on, and should be sent QA samples unrelated to cases to measure their error rate, and have no direct communication with law enforcement and prosecutors.
- lifeisstillgood 11y ago
  Thats...sensible. In fact, I don't know why that is not currently the case. Surely there must be some blind testing, and processes to stop, for example, a technician testing the blood samples on their wife's murder. So I would be surprised if most of what you say is not already true, but also surprised if it werent
  - weaksauce 11y ago
    Well I haven't done any research on the current state of affairs in this particular matter but it's been shown time and time again that the people that make the laws are pretty far from being an expert in the things they are making laws for. There is also no incentive to have subject matter experts weigh in on things when it would probably go against your major donors. I hope Lawrence Lessig or someone can actually change the finance laws for the better.
- rhizome 11y ago
  Not only an ally and a partner, it's common for the entire biological evidence process to be answerable to the Sheriff.
paulsutter 11y ago
The US has an adversarial system. - The prosecution, police and crime lab are solely focused on conviction, and - the judge is like a referee, focused on procedure It's like "trial by combat" in Game of Thrones. Alternatives exist. Germany has an inquisitorial system where judges actively investigate the facts of the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Germany A little bonus crazy: in the US prosecutors have absolute immunity for anything they do during the prosecution.
- CamatHN 11y ago
  Prosecutors within in the US technically only have a responsibility to administer justice rather than convict. [1] Thats why they have to bring forward evidence which supports that the defendant is not guilty. - The way this is practiced is may however differ depending on the particular prosecutor. This is an individual problem rather than there being an inherently adversarial system. [1] https://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pfunc_blk.html https://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_se...
  - dctoedt 11y ago
    > This is an individual problem rather than there being an inherently adversarial system. It's both. My guess is that the vast majority of prosecutors do think about justice as well as about winning. But consider the incentives: + All lawyers tend to want a high win rate, because wins serve as a marker of professional competence. Wins help to bring in more work --- no one wants to have to sit around waiting for the phone to ring --- as well as more-prestigious and better-paying work. + Prosecutors in particular want the Ws to enhance (i) their chances of promotion within the government system (and, in the case of elected district attorneys, their chances of re-election) as well as (ii) their ability to move to lucrative private-sector jobs as defense attorneys, or even a TV gig as an anchor or reality-show host. For example, the Houston Chronicle recently reported that the assistant U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted financial fraudster R. Allen Stanford just moved to the giant Jones Day law firm to do white-collar criminal defense work. You can be sure he'll earn far more money in private practice than he ever did in government service. [1] As another example, former Houston state prosecutor Kelly Siegler is one of the hosts of a cold-case-files series on the TNT cable-TV network; it's a safe bet that she'll make more money doing that than in her old job. [2] [1] http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Jones-Day-snags-Houston-federal-prosecutor-6559373.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Jones-Day-s... [2] http://www.houstonchronicle.com/entertainment/tv/article/Former-prosecutor-Kelly-Siegler-chases-cold-cases-4781541.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/entertainment/tv/article/For...
rubidium 11y ago
Yes. The biggest, most helpful systemic change would be for all forensics labs to be under the control of the city/states medical rather than the police force. Some city's do it this way, and it makes a big difference. Otherwise forensics budgets are always competing with "more policemen". Guess what, policemen win almost every time.

x5n1 11y ago

If I were any of the jailed people I would sue the hell out of these people. In fact if I was a class action law firm, I would bring a class action lawsuit against all these corrupt morons.

throwaway2048 11y ago
unfortunately prosecutors are almost entirely immune to civil legal action.
- x5n1 11y ago
  maybe they shouldn't be. but the prosecutors aren't responsible the labs are.
Retric 11y ago
> I would sue the hell out of these people. I often hear people say this, but do you actually have the ~20-200+k to actually sue in this case? Because, the vast majority of people out there really don't have the option to just sue. And, I think that's part of why are justice system stays so broken. Many people only find out how corrupt it is after there in it's cross-hairs.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  That's the thing, the just system isn't really broken, it's doing exactly what it's designed to do, protect the rich. The poor have never gotten a fair shake nor particularly liked the so called "justice system" nor the police who enforce it. Police are not your friends and the law is designed by and for the benefit of the rich and really always has been.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

Shouldn't defendants be demanding that "science" be done in any evidence against them? Or, at least getting every piece of "non-science" evidence thrown out?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Unless you have deep pockets, it's hard to demand anything as a defendant.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  Bullshit. Public defenders are lawyers.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    And they have nowhere near the resources of a lawyer and law firm you could retain if you have the funds available to you. Having a public defender represent you when they have hundreds of other cases concurrently is useless.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      >Having a public defender represent you when they have hundreds of other cases concurrently is useless. This could turn into a good thing (for the defendant). Simply argue that the state provided you with incompetent representation and therefore any continued proceedings by the court are unconstitutional.
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      Yes, wealthy people have an easier time of it. That doesn't mean that a public defender is useless.
Kinnard 11y ago
Defendants are weak the state is strong. There is no such thing as a fair trial in this country, holding on to that sort of wishful thinking prevents us from progressing toward anything that approximates fairness.

Zigurd 11y ago

It's a travesty that the forensics lab works as an ally and partner to police and prosecution. Way too many perverse incentives to go off into the weeds on pseudoscience and bad science and, as we had in Massachusetts, outright fraud. Forensics labs should be blind to the cases they are working on, and should be sent QA samples unrelated to cases to measure their error rate, and have no direct communication with law enforcement and prosecutors.

lifeisstillgood 11y ago
Thats...sensible. In fact, I don't know why that is not currently the case. Surely there must be some blind testing, and processes to stop, for example, a technician testing the blood samples on their wife's murder. So I would be surprised if most of what you say is not already true, but also surprised if it werent
- weaksauce 11y ago
  Well I haven't done any research on the current state of affairs in this particular matter but it's been shown time and time again that the people that make the laws are pretty far from being an expert in the things they are making laws for. There is also no incentive to have subject matter experts weigh in on things when it would probably go against your major donors. I hope Lawrence Lessig or someone can actually change the finance laws for the better.
rhizome 11y ago
Not only an ally and a partner, it's common for the entire biological evidence process to be answerable to the Sheriff.

paulsutter 11y ago

The US has an adversarial system. - The prosecution, police and crime lab are solely focused on conviction, and - the judge is like a referee, focused on procedure It's like "trial by combat" in Game of Thrones. Alternatives exist. Germany has an inquisitorial system where judges actively investigate the facts of the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Germany A little bonus crazy: in the US prosecutors have absolute immunity for anything they do during the prosecution.

CamatHN 11y ago
Prosecutors within in the US technically only have a responsibility to administer justice rather than convict. [1] Thats why they have to bring forward evidence which supports that the defendant is not guilty. - The way this is practiced is may however differ depending on the particular prosecutor. This is an individual problem rather than there being an inherently adversarial system. [1] https://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pfunc_blk.html https://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_se...
- dctoedt 11y ago
  > This is an individual problem rather than there being an inherently adversarial system. It's both. My guess is that the vast majority of prosecutors do think about justice as well as about winning. But consider the incentives: + All lawyers tend to want a high win rate, because wins serve as a marker of professional competence. Wins help to bring in more work --- no one wants to have to sit around waiting for the phone to ring --- as well as more-prestigious and better-paying work. + Prosecutors in particular want the Ws to enhance (i) their chances of promotion within the government system (and, in the case of elected district attorneys, their chances of re-election) as well as (ii) their ability to move to lucrative private-sector jobs as defense attorneys, or even a TV gig as an anchor or reality-show host. For example, the Houston Chronicle recently reported that the assistant U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted financial fraudster R. Allen Stanford just moved to the giant Jones Day law firm to do white-collar criminal defense work. You can be sure he'll earn far more money in private practice than he ever did in government service. [1] As another example, former Houston state prosecutor Kelly Siegler is one of the hosts of a cold-case-files series on the TNT cable-TV network; it's a safe bet that she'll make more money doing that than in her old job. [2] [1] http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Jones-Day-snags-Houston-federal-prosecutor-6559373.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Jones-Day-s... [2] http://www.houstonchronicle.com/entertainment/tv/article/Former-prosecutor-Kelly-Siegler-chases-cold-cases-4781541.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/entertainment/tv/article/For...

rubidium 11y ago

Yes. The biggest, most helpful systemic change would be for all forensics labs to be under the control of the city/states medical rather than the police force. Some city's do it this way, and it makes a big difference. Otherwise forensics budgets are always competing with "more policemen". Guess what, policemen win almost every time.