Category Archives: Reforming/Improving the system

Thursday’s Quick Clicks…

Friday’s Quick Clicks…

Thursday’s Quick Clicks…

Trump’s Insistence that Central Park 5 are Guilty Reveals Frightening Ignorance and Worse

Donald Trump doesn’t acknowledge wrongful convictions proven by DNA and by the credible, delayed confession of a convicted murderer and rapist. Insisting on Friday that the Central Park 5 are guilty of the 1989 high-profile horrific attack and rape of an investment banker jogging in Central Park, he revealed he knows nothing about DNA, the dynamics of false confessions, or contemporary understandings relating to criminal justice and wrongful convictions.

Shortly after the crime occurred Trump paid thousands to run full-page ads in newspapers calling for reinstatement of the death penalty in New York. The ads fueled a fever pitch of outrage over a crime that had already stunned the nation. His insistence on inserting his opinion could only exacerbate tempers in a difficult time of race relations.

In his statement Friday, Trump revealed he is woefully uneducated in the realities of criminal justice miscarriages. This is frightening when the need for criminal justice reform has reached an awareness level great enough to find a place in both the Republican and Democrat national political platforms.

For those who study wrongful convictions and even for the informed everyday citizen, Continue reading

CA Prosecutors Who Withhold or Tamper with Evidence Now Face Felony Charges

Well ….. it’s about time!

This is a “biggy” – a significant step in establishing prosecutorial accountability and exposure to sanctions.

California has just enacted a law that exposes prosecutors who withhold or tamper with exculpatory evidence to felony charges, with up to three years imprisonment.

Please see the LA Times story here.

Now we just need to have this migrate to all the rest of the states and the Department of Justice.


Wednesday’s Quick Clicks…

Calls for limits on ‘flawed science’ in court are well-founded: A guest post

From: The Washington Post

A White House advisory council on Tuesday issued a report urging federal prosecutors and judges to tread cautiously around forensic science on bullet markings, bite marks, tire tread marks and complex DNA samples, saying the science on them has not been proven by testing and research. The Post’s Spencer Hsu has the full story here, including strongly dissenting views from police and prosecutors’ groups, and the report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology is included at the bottom.

University of Virginia law professor Brandon L. Garrett, who has written a book on flawed forensics and wrongful convictions, titled, “Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong,” argues that the council’s report is well-founded and supports a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report that much of forensic evidence used in criminal trials is “without any meaningful scientific validation.”

By Brandon L. Garrett

“They weren’t looking for the truth. They were looking for a conviction,” Keith Harward said after he was exonerated. “They need to stop this stuff.”

Harward served 33 years in prison in Virginia before his exoneration on April 8 for a Newport News rape and murder that he did not commit. He was originally convicted based on false testimony by two experts claiming his teeth matched bite marks on the victim. If it were up to him, such unreliable forensics would be banned.

In a remarkable report released this morning, the White House’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology prominently called on prosecutors to do just that: stop using unreliable forensics and stop making unscientific claims about the forensics. The administration’s recommendations are an important step toward safeguarding forensics and preventing tragic wrongful convictions.

After all, at Harward’s trial, it wasn’t just that the experts were wrong. They were spectacularly wrong. Yet they told the jury that they were totally certain they were right. One dentist testified to “a very, very, very high degree of probability those teeth left that bite mark.” A second dentist testified that “there is just not anyone else that would have this unique dentition.”

They were both wrong — and it gets worse. In a massive dental dragnet, police took over 1,000 molds of every Navy sailor on a ship docked at Newport News. One of those sailors was the actual culprit, but the bite experts didn’t detect him — DNA tests identified him 33 years later.

Stopping the use of unreliable forensics like bite-mark evidence is just the beginning. Despite depictions on shows like “CSI,” many types of forensics can provide valuable information but can also go wrong. Jurors understandably place great weight on testimony by an expert who claims to have found a match. But jurors might think differently if they heard about the real error rates for forensics.

Any human technique has an error rate, and a crucial quality control is to do testing to find out how good experts really are. It is not enough for fingerprint or bite-mark examiners to vouch for their own reliability. We must put their experience to the test. The few tests that have been done show disturbing error rates. For example, the White House report highlights a study showing a 1 in 18 error rate for fingerprint comparison and another showing a shocking 1 in 6 error rate for bite marks.

Cases like Harward’s are not isolated examples. Having read trial transcripts of DNA exonerees by the hundreds, I have found that more often than not, the testimony was exaggerated, overstated and erroneous. Of the first 330 people exonerated by DNA testing, 71 percent, or 235 cases, involved forensic analysis or testimony. DNA set these people free, but at the time of their convictions, the bulk of the forensics was flawed.

It has taken too long to respond to a national crisis of bad forensics. A 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that much of forensic evidence used in criminal trials is “without any meaningful scientific validation.” Little changed. To be sure, scientists and researchers have made strides to improve forensics and how they are used in courtrooms; I have taken part in such efforts. However, the White House is right that seven years later, it is time for the use of flawed forensics to come to an end.

Here is the full report:

Pcast Forensic Science Report Final by Tom Jackman on Scribd


Mark Norwood Convicted of Murder After Eluding Justice in Earlier Murder

On Friday, a Travis County (TX) jury found Mark Norwood, 62, guilty of the 1988 bludgeoning murder of Debra Baker. Norwood was at liberty to commit Debra’s murder, because he escaped justice in the similar murder of Christine Morton two years earlier. Both victims lived in the Austin area.

Christine’s husband, Michael, was wrongfully convicted of his wife’s murder and spent nearly 25 years in prison. Among the many sad outcomes of this wrongful conviction was that the Morton’s three-year-old son Eric lost both his mother and, for 25 years, a normal relationship with his father.

If evidence supporting Michael Morton’s innocence had been shared with the defense, which is required of prosecutors, it is less likely he would have been convicted. The jury did not know that a bloody bandana was found the day after Christine’s murder outside the Morton home along a likely escape route from the property.

The jury didn’t know that little Eric was present during his mother’s murder. He told his grandmother his father wasn’t home and “a monster” was hurting his mommy. Continue reading

Junk Science Reigns ____ So Much for True Science in the Courtroom

We had hope, back in 2009, when the National Academy of Sciences report Forensic Science in the United States; A Path Forward was published, that there might finally be some remedy for all the junk science being used to convict innocent people. The report painted a scathing picture of the lack of true science contained in, and the invalidity of, traditional forensic disciplines; the sole exception being DNA. The report did spawn the creation of the Federal Commission on Forensic Science, which has proven, over the last three years, to be a totally toothless tiger, accomplishing essentially nothing.

Now recently, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has issued an additional report that is highly condemning of current forensic practices. You can see the PCAST report here:  pcast_forensic_science_report_final

HOWEVER, even in light of this recent report, both the FBI and the Department of Justice have stated they have no intention of changing the way they currently address forensics.


Nothing to Smile About: Bite Mark Evidence Blasted Again

Your smile could cost you your freedom.

Just ask Crystal Weimer from Pennsylvania, or William Richards from California.  Weimer and Richards don’t know each other, but their fates were eerily and tragically similar.

Both were tried and convicted of murder in unrelated cases.  Both of their convictions were based on testimony by so-called bite mark experts, who claimed to have matched marks found on victims with each of the defendant’s “bite mark.”  In both cases, the prosecution relied heavily on the “matching” bite marks as proof of the defendants’ guilt.  In both cases, the bite mark evidence was just plain nonsense.

A new report released this week by the President’s Counsel of Advisors for Science and Technology (PCAST), offered yet another devastating critique of bite mark evidence:

available scientific evidence strongly suggests that [bite mark] examiners not only cannot identify the source of bite mark with reasonable accuracy, they cannot even consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bite mark. For these reasons, PCAST finds that bite mark analysis is far from meeting the scientific standards for foundational validity.

PCAST, an advisory group appointed by the President and made up of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers, suggested that bite mark analysis was unlikely to be “salvageable” as a forensic methodology and that scarce forensic resources should be devoted elsewhere.

The PCAST report adds to the chorus of experts that put bite mark evidence in the junk science category.  In 2009, leading scientists from the National Academy of Sciences issued a report condemning bite mark evidence as highly unreliable.

But despite all the criticism from top-notch forensic experts, bite mark evidence has not been banned from the court room.

Which means that innocent people could wind up in prison for crimes they didn’t commit based on “science” that isn’t scientific at all.

In June, 2016, both Weimer and Richards were exonerated – just one day a part.   As it turns out, the bitemark evidence that put them in prison was just plain wrong.  Collectively, they spent nearly thirty years in prison.

And that is nothing to smile about.





Jim Petro commentary: Death penalty is in decline, but problems remain

Jim Petro, former Ohio attorney general, comments today in the Columbus Dispatch on problems with Ohio’s death penalty, including unaddressed recommendations to reduce the risk of executing the wrongly convicted…

Columbus Dispatch

Friday’s Quick Clicks…

Wednesday’s Quick Clicks..

Child Abuse Pediatricians: An “Ethically Bankrupt” Profession that Destroys Families

You may, or may not, have noticed that for quite some time, I have withdrawn from writing about SBS-related cases and issues (shaken baby syndrome). The reasons for this are many, complicated, and really of no consequence to the reader. However, a recent article about the role that child abuse pediatricians (CAP’s) play in these travesties of justice demands widespread exposure.

Please see our earlier post:  The Child Abuse Pediatrician (CAP) – Just Another Term for Medical “Cop.”

The recent article by Monica Mears for the Health Impact News goes to the heart of the problem with CAP’s. This from the article: “More shocking are the many ways in which the medical profession and its child abuse pediatric specialty hide stereotyping, arrogance, abuse of authority and twisted “science” when it claims to “diagnose” child abuse – which is in fact a legal allegation, not truly a medical diagnosis.”

Please see the powerful and compelling  Health Impact News  story by Monica Mears here.


Wednesday’s Quick Clicks…

Angela Corey, FL 4th Judicial Circuit State’s Attorney, Defeated in Primary

Anyone who has followed my stuff on this site knows that prosecutors are not my favorite people. This is not because they are inherently bad, evil people, but it’s because of what the structures and incentives of the justice system turn them into – personally ambitious and politically motivated inquisitors with practically ultimate power and little regard for true justice.

As I’ve studied prosecutorial abuses of the justice system over the last eight and a half years, there are two prosecutors that emerged as what I would term the “most vicious.” Those would be Anita Alvarez (Cook County, IL – Chicago) and Angela Corey (Florida 4th Judicial Circuit).

Anita Alvarez was defeated in her primary re-election bid last March. See our previous story on this here.

I can now also report that Angela Corey has lost her primary re-election bid to a challenger by a margin of 64% to 26%. Corey’s most infamous cases include the failure to convict George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and the unfortunately successful and ugly conviction of Marissa Alexander for firing a warning shot at her abusive boyfriend. Please see the USA Today story here.

Monday’s Quick Clicks…

Post Exoneraton Developments in the Debra Milke Case

I hope that by now, everybody knows that Debra Milke, previously convicted and inprisoned in Maricopa County, AZ, for contracting the murder of her young son, has been exonerated.

We’ve posted about the Debra Milke case on this blog several times previously. In chronological order –  here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here(The red link is particularly germane to the subject of this post.)

Pursuant to her wrongful conviction, wrongful imprisonment (22 years on death row), and eventual exoneration, Debra filed suit with five claims against four defendants, including two former Phoenix police officers and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (Bill Montgomery), stating that that she was denied a fair trial and due process of law. The two police officers and the Maricopa County Attorney filed a motion with the court to dismiss the suit. Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona has denied the motion to dismiss, and is allowing the suit to go forward.

See the story from azcentral here.

You can read the decision by Senior United States District Judge Roslyn O. Silver here:  97-OrderreMotionstoDismiss


Monday’s Quick Clicks…

Thursday’s Quick Clicks…