tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post357875122714134458..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Federal hair microscopy review should be replicated at state levelGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-74159266000492679632013-07-22T13:50:55.504-05:002013-07-22T13:50:55.504-05:00Flawed or Prepared Testimony - Flawed or Faked Evi...Flawed or Prepared Testimony - Flawed or Faked Evidence. Organized Police & Prosecutorial Criminal Activity re-worded as simply business as usual or "Misconduct", and now a panel with a preset limited vision and direction steps in 310 'selected' DNA only cases later. <br /><br />Can't wait for the limited results. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-25211948834470887722013-07-22T13:46:14.993-05:002013-07-22T13:46:14.993-05:00We have to start somewhere and yes, this is a good...We have to start somewhere and yes, this is a good thing due to being unprecedented and all, but having a so -called 'Roundtable' that only points to Hair vs. ALL EVIDENCE collected and submitted is equal to a 'win - win' with a questionable victory to be celebrated by a select few of the nations wronged community and the folks making a living off it / them.<br /> <br />At this rate, we should have about 5 or 6 more Roundtables before we get to the Non-DNA, Non-Death Row related victims of the system. You know, the humans (cases) that were arrested on non-extent outstanding traffic warrants (yet highly verifiable then & now), placed in live line ups and positively picked out by crime victims. Despite having nothing in common with the original description provided & multiple alibis witnesses, detectives shown to knowingly & willingly have sought charges. Now labeled as a Defendant pleading Not Guilty and attending their own felony jury trial only to be advised to stop it based on being - Guilty or Not, they were going to prison just for being on probation at time of arrest. <br /><br />Poof! Welcome to the 97% Club, we are accepting applications as fast as they can cross out Not Guilty and write under it - No Contest / Nolo Contendere. <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69409590974437511592013-07-22T13:01:03.336-05:002013-07-22T13:01:03.336-05:00I just read that the FBI will concentraite on defe...I just read that the FBI will concentraite on defendants from broken homes with at least one step father and having Red hair at time of arrest. Not the orangish Red, the fire engine Red. Everyone knows that they are the first to be beaten. <br /><br />Let the Picking & Choosing begin (or continue).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-65436938271741928972013-07-18T21:03:05.688-05:002013-07-18T21:03:05.688-05:00Correction--I was referring to the person who prov...Correction--I was referring to the person who provided responses to 2:58 and 5:26 in that last comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-16970975472704092682013-07-18T20:58:20.830-05:002013-07-18T20:58:20.830-05:00At Friday's Forensic Science Commission meetin...At Friday's Forensic Science Commission meeting, the staff was instructed to send letters to Texas labs asking which ones did hair microscopy during the period in question and to assess whether any additional resources may be needed to help labs identify cases since many will be very old and difficult to track down. <br /><br />That is certainly a first step toward assessing the situation at the state level here. I imagine any further collaborative review would follow from the initial assessment. IPOT was active in the discussion, but it may take more resources than just IPOT--like TDCAA, TCDLA and the State Bar--to work through the cases depending on the volume.<br /><br />2:58 and 5:26--thank you for sharing a clear explanation of ASCLD-LAB's role and the timing of all this. Your comments are right on point from where I sit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-67835931254914225232013-07-18T18:19:11.216-05:002013-07-18T18:19:11.216-05:005:28, I don't really have much input on the le...5:28, I don't really have much input on the legal decisions of the group (IANAL), but I'll bet they'd be willing, at least in theory; the wildcard would be limited resources, prior commitments, etc.. Would have helped if Chairman Pitts had kept the extra money in the budget for the university-based innocence clinics for just this kind of project.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-12585342768232754392013-07-18T18:15:38.195-05:002013-07-18T18:15:38.195-05:005:26 -
The vast majority of labs were not accred...5:26 - <br /><br />The vast majority of labs were not accredited prior to the federal mandate of accreditation (to receive federal funds) in about 2003 or thereabouts. Even for those laboratories that were accredited, ASCLD/LAB did not and does not archive procedure manuals. That is not the function of any accrediting body.<br /><br />Most of the work that is being reviewed here is work that was done in the 1970's - 1990's. So long before accreditation became common, and long before most laboratories even started using detailed procedure manuals, at least to the standard used today. <br /><br />The reason why errors were made is straight forward. The science was inadequate, and many people believed incorrectly that the evidence had greater statistical significance than it actually did.<br /><br />The review process worked out by the FBI, prosecutors, and defense attorneys seems to be working reasonably well. There is no need to invent a new wheel at this point. In a nutshell the process is: for cases involving hair analysis that resulted in convictions/plea deals, 1) lab reports and testimony transcripts are reviewed to identify those where the significance of the evidence was overstated; 2) prosecutors and defense determine in which cases the hair evidence was dispositive or figured greatly into the conviction; 3) postconviction DNA testing is done to corroborate/refute the hair comparison results.<br /><br />Again, the issue here isn't misconduct or negligence or mistraining, per se. Examiners, managers, attorneys, and the courts all generally understood that these microscopic comparisons were more meaningful than they actually were. The source of almost all the training (and procedures for that matter) was ultimately the FBI. Back before DNA most forensic work was justified by something along the lines of, "that was the way I was trained by the FBI". It was only after DNA that the FBI's strangle-hold on forensic science started to loosen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-85323541412947874372013-07-18T17:28:35.679-05:002013-07-18T17:28:35.679-05:00
Scott, what does the IPOT have to say about this?...<br />Scott, what does the IPOT have to say about this? Will they take on hair analysis like they did the state-wide arson investigations?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-82247211445472657232013-07-18T17:26:23.363-05:002013-07-18T17:26:23.363-05:00"ASCLD/LAB cannot mandate the cooperation of ..."ASCLD/LAB cannot mandate the cooperation of people outside the lab system."<br />Agreed, but ASCLD/LAB should have copies of lab procedures and training manuals from those labs it accredits. They have an obligation to review those manuals and identify how/why/who might have been lead or trained to provide misleading testimony. The idea is to to identify the reasons why these hair examiners overstated their testimonies (excluding the pro-prosecution biases). It also might be a good lead for diving into the thousands upon thousands of testimonies to identify those hair examiners which might have been given incorrect or misleading information while working in the labs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68854999122113728602013-07-18T16:38:29.789-05:002013-07-18T16:38:29.789-05:002:58 -
As someone who has worked in crime labora...2:58 - <br /><br />As someone who has worked in crime laboratories before and after accreditation, I am definitely of the opinion that accreditation is a very excellent thing. Only people with no experience in the field would think differently, imho. <br /><br />In this particular instance what ASCLD/LAB has communicated is exactly what they needed to communicate to laboratories under their accreditation. Review of these cases is not simply a laboratory function. Because the problem (identified in the FBI cases) was primarily an issue of overstated testimony, the review requires the cooperation of DAs in getting transcripts, reviewing transcripts, and committing to take action after the review. There is also a need to involve the defense community in the process to make sure all the relevant stake holders are represented. <br /><br />ASCLD/LAB cannot mandate the cooperation of people outside the lab system. The letter that ASCLD/LAB circulated is the sort of official statement that a lab could effectively use to convince people outside the lab to start looking into the issue. <br /><br />I spoke with Norman Reimer last week about how to begin getting the word out to the DA's that I work with regularly, and he gave me some good pointers. However, he also acknowledged that there is another problem that will not be addressed by these efforts. That is the problem of approriate testimony by hair examiners that is later overstated by prosecutors in their summations to juries, so that the jurors are left with the impression that the hair evidence was extremely strong and probative, when that is not at all what the hair examiner said in the original testimony. From what I've seen, this was a common prosecutor approach pre-2000. The review described doesn't even look at those sorts of cases. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-81937633872316113032013-07-18T14:58:33.577-05:002013-07-18T14:58:33.577-05:00April 2013
Notification from the ASCLD/LAB Board o...April 2013<br />Notification from the ASCLD/LAB Board of Directors to Interested Parties Concerning Potential Issues with Hair Comparison Testimony <br />"...We have an ethical obligation to 'take appropriate action if there is potential for, or there has been, a miscarriage of justice due to circumstances that have come to light, incompetent practice or malpractice.' (footnote) It is not ASCLD/LAB’s intent to direct that such reviews be conducted by any laboratory or judicial system but it is our recommendation that each laboratory, in consultation with the appropriate legal authorities, consider whether there may be past cases, specifically involving convictions, in which it would be appropriate to evaluate the potential impact of the reported conclusions and/or related testimony on the conviction."<br /><br />What kind of weird logic is this? The "ethical obligation" and "appropriate action" for the accreditation agency is to do nothing. The crime labs are to clean up their own messes even though they might have been given the go-ahead by ASCLD/LAB accreditation.<br /><br />Anyone still believe that accreditation is a GOOD thing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com