The Dallas Observer's Brantley Hargrove has an excellent, extended piece out today with the same title as this post on the Sonia Cacy arson conviction, one of the cases that was reviewed by the state fire marshal for faulty forensics and found wanting. My employers at the Innocence Project of Texas are handling her post-conviction innocence claim, which includes a challenge of forensic evidence misinterpreted by an expert at trial to falsely claim there was accelerant (gasoline) used at the scene under Texas' new junk science writ. Fine reporting on a complex topic, read the whole thing.
MORE: From the Dallas Observer's Unfair Park blog, "Why the District Attorney's Arson Case Against Sonia Cacy Remains Weak."
' Dr. Larry Ytuarte confirmed what Hurst had always suspected — that the lab had manufactured paperwork to patch a chain of evidence broken by mishandling.' Sure seems this alone, not to mention the many other doubts in this case would warrant a reversal of conviction.
ReplyDeleteWhat lab handled the initial testing and mishandling?
ReplyDeleteI know of another case in Texas, where the detective that collected an evidence sample, then held on to said evidence sample for approx 22 hour period of time before it was logged into evidence with other samples collected the next day. Would anyone think this is the correct manner of handling evidence? I was under the distinct impression that evidence is or should be logged into the evidence lockup on a daily basis.
ReplyDelete@4:07, it was the Bexar County Medical Examiner's Office.
ReplyDeletemanufactured paperwork
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain how is this not perjury?