Criminal Defense Attorneys Must Question Findings, Conclusions of Forensic Experts
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
We have posted a number of blogs about the “junk science” associated with forensic evidence—a science popularized by network television with drams like “CSI” and its spin-offs. It would indeed by an ideal world if all the evidence-gathering and analysis reflected in these TV programs reflected the real world of crime and criminal prosecutions. The reality is that while these shows may entertain their legion of loyal viewers, they do a tremendous disservice to our criminal justice system. http://www.newscientist.com They contribute to the popular acceptance among most jurors that “forensic evidence” is infallible when, in truth, the evidence analysis methodologies used in most of this science have never been validated and the end results have been tragic. According to the New York-based Innocence Project, nearly half of all the DNA exonerations in this country involved “false forensics,” not to mention the horrific way this flawed process undermines the integrity of our truth-seeking, albeit adversarial justice system.
For example, KCBD television in Lubbock recently reported that Paul Shrode, the city’s former Deputy Medical Examiner, lied on his resume to secure the position of Chief Medical Examiner in El Paso County. The Texas Medical Board has indicated it will investigate the complaint filed by an Austin documents analyst named David Fisher (who frequently works with criminal defense attorneys) against Shrode with the medical board concerning the “resume doctoring”.
The Paul Shrode revelation comes on the heels of a series of fine investigative reports by Fort Worth Star-Telegram investigative reporter Yamil Berard about statewide problems dealing with medical examiners and the flawed nature of their forensic work, particularly when it comes to autopsies performed by these “medical forensic experts.” After Tarrant County District Attorney Joe Shannon told the newspaper that his office relied upon the county’s medical examiners “a great deal,” Yamil pointed out the flawed nature of the evidence analysis methodology of medical examiners:
“ … even though medical examiners rule as to how people die, that is an opinion based on interpretation of available evidence. In some cases, critics say, justice may be trumped by outside influences and by speculation that goes beyond hard scientific evidence. There are even questions about how much ‘science’ is in forensic science. In a report to Congress [last] year, the National Academy of Sciences said that there is a dearth of studies establishing the scientific validity of many forensic methods and that invalid interpretation of forensic evidence is a serious problem.
Subscribe
