Federal court in Pennsylvania allows the re-sentencing of a man who plead guilty due to an invalid hair comparison analysis report

In an uncontested motion, defendant John Flick moved to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence for a 1999 conviction of five counts of armed bank robbery and one count of the use of a firearm in a crime of violence. In May 2015, the Department of Justice announced that hair comparison results prior to December 31, 1999 would be under review after finding that many experts’ reports contained statements that “exceeded the limits of science.” Flick argued that his plea agreement was based on a positive identification through hair comparison analysis that would no longer be considered valid. The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not oppose his motion and the parties agreed to request a 222 month sentence instead of a 235 month sentence that had originally been imposed. The court found the agreement to be reasonable and re-sentenced Flick to 222 months with credit for time served.
U.S. v. Flick, 2016 WL80669 (2016)

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: