Notice of Filing Virginia Law Review Article from March 2009 - 4/28/2011
Page 1 of 1
Notice of Filing Virginia Law Review Article from March 2009 - 4/28/2011
04/28/2011 Notice of Filing Virginia Law Review Article from March 2009
http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com
http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com
mom_in_il- Supreme Commander of the Universe With Cape AND Tights AND Fancy Headgear
Re: Notice of Filing Virginia Law Review Article from March 2009 - 4/28/2011
Could this be it???
March 2009, Volume 95, Issue 1
Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions
by Brandon L. Garrett and Peter J. Neufeld
95 Va. L. Rev. 1 (2009) View PDF
This is the first study to explore the forensic science testimony by prosecution experts in the trials of innocent persons, all convicted of serious crimes, who were later exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing. Trial transcripts were sought for all 156 exonerees identified as having trial testimony by forensic analysts, of which 137 were located and reviewed. These trials most commonly included serological analysis and microscopic hair comparison, but some included bite mark, shoe print, soil, fiber, and fingerprint comparisons, and several included DNA testing. This study found that in the bulk of these trials of innocent defendants—82 cases or 60 percent—forensic analysts called by the prosecution provided invalid testimony at trial—that is, testimony with conclusions misstating empirical data or wholly unsupported by empirical data. This was not the testimony of a mere handful of analysts: this set of trials included invalid testimony by seventy-two forensic analysts called by the prosecution and employed by fifty-two laboratories, practices, or hospitals from twenty-five states. Unfortunately, the adversary system largely failed to police this invalid testimony. Defense counsel rarely cross-examined analysts concerning invalid testimony and rarely obtained experts of their own. In the few cases in which invalid forensic science was challenged, judges seldom provided relief. This evidence supports efforts to create scientific oversight mechanisms for reviewing forensic testimony and to develop clear scientific standards for report writing and testimony. The scientific community can promulgate standards to ensure the valid presentation of forensic science in criminal cases and thus the integrity and fairness of the criminal process.
http://www.virginialawreview.org/articles.php?article=254
Full PDF: http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/95/1.pdf
March 2009, Volume 95, Issue 1
Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions
by Brandon L. Garrett and Peter J. Neufeld
95 Va. L. Rev. 1 (2009) View PDF
This is the first study to explore the forensic science testimony by prosecution experts in the trials of innocent persons, all convicted of serious crimes, who were later exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing. Trial transcripts were sought for all 156 exonerees identified as having trial testimony by forensic analysts, of which 137 were located and reviewed. These trials most commonly included serological analysis and microscopic hair comparison, but some included bite mark, shoe print, soil, fiber, and fingerprint comparisons, and several included DNA testing. This study found that in the bulk of these trials of innocent defendants—82 cases or 60 percent—forensic analysts called by the prosecution provided invalid testimony at trial—that is, testimony with conclusions misstating empirical data or wholly unsupported by empirical data. This was not the testimony of a mere handful of analysts: this set of trials included invalid testimony by seventy-two forensic analysts called by the prosecution and employed by fifty-two laboratories, practices, or hospitals from twenty-five states. Unfortunately, the adversary system largely failed to police this invalid testimony. Defense counsel rarely cross-examined analysts concerning invalid testimony and rarely obtained experts of their own. In the few cases in which invalid forensic science was challenged, judges seldom provided relief. This evidence supports efforts to create scientific oversight mechanisms for reviewing forensic testimony and to develop clear scientific standards for report writing and testimony. The scientific community can promulgate standards to ensure the valid presentation of forensic science in criminal cases and thus the integrity and fairness of the criminal process.
http://www.virginialawreview.org/articles.php?article=254
Full PDF: http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/95/1.pdf
mom_in_il- Supreme Commander of the Universe With Cape AND Tights AND Fancy Headgear
Similar topics
» Notice of Filing 06/21/2011 Transcript Filed William Rodriguez III PHD 6/18/2011 - 6/21/2011
» Notice of Filing - 4/20/2011
» Notice of Filing - 4/18/2011
» Notice of Filing 6 Transcripts - 3/3/2011
» Notice of Filing Original Transcripts - 5/5/2011
» Notice of Filing - 4/20/2011
» Notice of Filing - 4/18/2011
» Notice of Filing 6 Transcripts - 3/3/2011
» Notice of Filing Original Transcripts - 5/5/2011
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum