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
Posted now on ssrn is a new essay, part of a Washington & Lee L. Rev. symposium on the Joseph Giarratano case. Here is the abstract: The Constitution increasingly regulates the use of forensic evidence in criminal cases. This is a remarkable shift. In decades past, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to provide strong due […]Read More The Constitutional Regulation of Forensic 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
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?
Peter Neufeld, who co-founded the Innocence Project, spoke this Friday on the radio show Here & Now. Neufeld discussed the dangers associated with assigning reliability to forensic procedures not scientifically supported including hair matching and bite mark evidence. Listen to the interview and read the highlights here.Read More Here & Now: An Interview with Peter Neufeld
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?