So you know how prosecutors relied on hair samples to get convictions for years and years? And how we heard that it was a great tool for determining guilt or innocence?
Yeah, not so much:
The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.
Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.
And yes, some of the evidence put people on death row:
The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.
While I'm not comfortable with conflating "executed" with "died in prison," these revelations are yet another reminder of why the death penalty really needs to be abolished.
14 comments:
Um, Mark, take a look at the source; the "National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers" and the "Innocence Project." So what we have is not scientifically verifiable, at least from the Post article, but rather one group's biased testimony against another group's biased testimony.
No argument with the idea that we need to work on improving the collection of evidence for all crimes, but I'm not going to simply go with this evidence absent independent corroboration.
We'll stipulate that the Innocence Project has a dog in the fight. Of course they do. I would also point out their batting average is pretty high. They don't take on all cases, only the ones with a good chance of success.
I've come to oppose the death penalty for two reasons. The first is that I don't trust the state with the power of life and death. I'm also a Catholic and while we don't stand foursquare against capital punishment, church teaching is getting pretty close to that. We can disagree about my reasoning, but there it is.
Now my question for you — what would constitute independent corroboration? Given that the FBI and the Justice Department are both acknowledging that the evidence is not reliable in hundreds of cases, is that not probative?
what? we cant trust law enforcement to tell the truth??? i'm shocked!, shocked i tell ya.
Mark, who runs the DOJ and FBI these days? Isn't it the same clowns that are ignoring open and shut cases against IRS employees and Al Sharpton because it would embarrass you know who? So their agreement to this means less than bupkus to me.
And here's the money quote:
In reality, there is no accepted research on how often hair from different people may appear the same.
OK, now how the heck do they conclude that 95% of decisions made by FBI forensics experts favored the prosecution if they have no objective criteria with which to compare? And why the heck did the DOJ not catch on to this?
The Sharpton case is an outrage. It's also a red herring in this context. We're not talking about a corrupt administration protecting a favored individual from prosecution; we're talking about a federal agency providing assistance to prosecutors at both the federal and state level that turns out to be lacking in scientific rigor, in cases that have already been adjudicated. Totally different issue.
What is the incentive for the Justice Department invalidate the work of their predecessors?
As I've said before, the Innocence Project isn't about emptying the jails. It's about challenging convictions where there is exculpatory evidence that was either not considered or allowed at trial, especially in capital cases.
As for the 95% figure, c'mon — let's not be silly. The prosecution isn't going to call in a witness that contradicts its case. The FBI and the forensics experts were there because they would testify for the prosecution, based on the science we had at the time. I'm not accusing past prosecutors of acting in bad faith. They presented the cases they had and used the hair analysis as one part of their overall case. All I'm arguing is that if the facts presented then don't turn out to be accurate, we have a responsibility to take another look at these cases.
Mark, you're missing the point. If, as the article concedes, nobody has agreed upon what measure to use with this data, all we have here is one uncalibrated gauge being compared with another uncalibrated guage. Come to me with that data, and I as a quality engineer will say "calibrate your gauge and retake the data". I will not act on it because the data are meaningless.
And that's why the corruption of the DOJ matters here--they didn't catch on here, just as they use "disparate impact" to try to prevent prosecution of those they favor. See what's going on?
Put another way, you can say that the methodology is unsupported with peer reviewed studies. You cannot say that a specific proportion of reports given were in error because you have no basis on which to make that calculation.
That the Innocence Project perpetrated this, and that the DOJ and FBI signed off on it, does not say good things about any of these.
Bubba, the percentages aren't the issue per se. In many cases, there is plenty of other evidence to support a conviction. In other cases, a hair sample might be the reason for a conviction. If the samples are not reliable, then the case needs to be revisited. I'm not comfortable with keeping someone on death row if the evidence is now inconclusive. It should be on the prosecution to find another gauge.
I get that you don't trust Holder. This is an issue that predates him.
Mark, I realize you're not a numbers guy, but stating numbers while admitting there is no gauge is a huge deal here. It means the entire methodology is fatally flawed.
Now I've got no problem with reviewing the data and seeing what it actually means. If there isn't decent data showing that hair A actually belonged to defendant B, yes, let's see whether that was a critical part of convicting him and release him with a big old apology if not.
That said, this report does not make that case. It only proves that those who wrote it made a huge, basic, methodological error.
Now I've got no problem with reviewing the data and seeing what it actually means. If there isn't decent data showing that hair A actually belonged to defendant B, yes, let's see whether that was a critical part of convicting him and release him with a big old apology if not.
Thank you. That's all I've been saying.
Bubba, you're more wore wrong than usual here.
You're completely conflating the statement regarding the fact that no one agrees on the correct methodology for hair match analysis (which is, in fact, one of the reasons that prompted the case review in the first place) with the methodology used to review the cases. Those are completely seperate issues.
The way the cases were reviewed was by looking at the statements given in court regarding the interpretation of hair analysis and comparing them with the state of the art at the time the testimony was given. Essentially, was the degree of certainty they testified to supported by what was technically possible at the time. And based on that criteria, 90% of them weren't.
The science on which the review criteria were based is peer reviewed and published.
Don't take my word for it:
"The review focused on specific cases in which FBI Laboratory testimony or reports included conclusions and probabilities that were scientifically invalid among cases processed by its laboratory prior to 2000, when mitochondrial DNA testing on hair became routine at the FBI. As of April 14, 2015, the FBI had reviewed over 500 cases. Transcripts were obtained in 268 trials in which hair evidence was used to inculpate the defendant(s). The review was conducted using consensus criteria issued by the FBI Laboratory that defined the limits of the science to distinguish between erroneous testimony and appropriate testimony based on what was known about microscopic hair comparison at the time FBI agents provided testimony. Only 11 transcripts of the first 268 were shown to have appropriate testimony proffered by FBI examiners."
If you're going to throw around your credentials as a "numbers guy" to take pot shots at studies you don't like, you should be more prepared to actually dig into the numbers and the methodology.
"Technically possible at the time", Brian? "comparing them with state of the art"?
Translated: "we picked the studies we liked and compared the FBI work to them."
Sorry, Brian, but you're simply wrong here. If we have multiple published papers but no consensus, that means that multiple published, peer reviewed papers disagree. That in turn means that the state of the art is that which is defended by this study.
Which was exactly my point.
One thing I will say in support of this; if indeed the lack of consensus on certain aspects of hair analysis indicates a range of conclusions drawn by peer reviewed papers, I do have to ask why certain aspects of the method were used at all by the FBI.
And you don't need to do a big study to figure that one out.
I know how science works. Thanks.
Post a Comment