Massachusetts undertakes a review of problematic hair evidence in past convictions

George Perrot’s recent exoneration has prompted a review of other Massachusetts cases involving hair comparison analysis. George Perrot was recently released from prison after spending 30 years in jail for a crime he did not commit. Officials have not yet worked out the details on how the review will be carried out, but they have identified […]

Read More Massachusetts undertakes a review of problematic hair evidence in past convictions

Ban on Bite Mark Evidence

Coverage of the Texas Forensic Science Commission ban on the use of bite mark evidence at the New York Times, Wall Street Journal blog, Washington Post, and the Dallas Morning News.  “An influential scientific commission in Texas called Friday for a halt in the use of bite-mark identifications in criminal trials, concluding that the validity of […]

Read More Ban on Bite Mark Evidence

Does the New Texas “Junk Science” Law Apply to an Individual Expert Who Recants Previous Testimony?

Neal Robbins was convicted in the 1998 death of his girlfriend’s daughter. Robbins appealed after Texas passed a 2013 statute allowing for convictions to be overturned if “junk science” was used to convict the defendant. The question before the court was whether the law applied to whole fields that have since been discredited (such as […]

Read More Does the New Texas “Junk Science” Law Apply to an Individual Expert Who Recants Previous Testimony?

If Prosecutors can use unreliable bitemark comparison against defendants, should defendants be able to use the same unreliable science in their defense?

The Washington Post examines three cases to highlight the problems with unreliable bitemark evidence. The first is a murder case from Minnesota, where the judge allowed for a bitemark expert to testify, but would not allow the expert to say that the bitemark was a positive match to the defendant. Instead, the expert was allowed […]

Read More If Prosecutors can use unreliable bitemark comparison against defendants, should defendants be able to use the same unreliable science in their defense?