Justice Department revives effort looking at forensic evidence

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press



BY SADIE GURMAN, ASSOCIATED PRESS August 7, 2017 at 10:00 AM EDT


WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is reviving work to develop federal standards for what federal forensic experts can say in court and plans to create a program to monitor the accuracy of forensic testimony.

The department had wanted standards after revelations in 2015 that FBI hair examiners had overstated the strength of their evidence in cases dating back decades. Longstanding concerns remain about the quality of forensic evidence in criminal cases across the country.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Monday in prepared remarks that the effort will resume.

“We must use forensic analysis carefully. But we must continue to use it,” Rosenstein planned to tell a gathering of forensics professionals in Atlanta. “We should not exclude reliable forensic analysis — or any reliable expert testimony — simply because it is based on human judgment.”

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/justice-department-revives-effort-looking-forensic-evidence/

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[mulsh]

2. After taking weeks to explain to Trump people what "forensic" means they finally pointed out

there's an opportunity to load the working group with people as qualified as those on the cabinet.

Seriously I hope there are enough career professionals in this new group to set worthwhile and significant standards. However with august legal scholars like Jefferson Beauregard Sessions at the helm I have profound doubts.

[Igel]

3. They won't do worse.

The NAS reported in 2009 that a lot of the forensic analysis used in courts and considered probative is false. It can be easily misinterpreted and often is. It can be contaminated, and often is. And often there's not been sufficient work done to show that it's even reliable if experted interpreted and untainted. But in a war of opinionated experts some judge or a small set of judges said, "I accept that scientific finding involving biology, chemistry, and physics given my awesome knowledge of political science and my law degree."

It was a beauty context for the judges' eye, in other words.

It wasn't important for years. When it surfaced in the media in a big way in 2015, the DOJ's response was basically, What was that and why should I care? I almost threw something at the car radio when I heard the DOJ official interviewed because of his sheer obtuseness and uninterest: They got convictions and winning was what mattered, not accuracy or truth. Then after a brief firestorm the DOJ set up the panel to investigate the issue. Don't remember the interviews and reports in chronological order, it's easy to think that in the face of a sudden new bit of information the DOJ jumped right on it.

Over half of the murder convictions for inmates later found innocent and set free had bad DNA tests. Bad interpretation, confounds in the data, tainted evidence, or the lab just screwed up. Over half. Over half of that particular argument against the death penalty is "known and preventable human error in the lab." In other words, tech people and the government screw up. The judges can't evaluate the evidence properly and are hemmed in by precedent.

The panel was abolished in 4/17. It's been 4 months this was bad, but if a new administration reviews everything it wasn't unexpected. Now, imagine if the NAS report had been taken up in 2009 instead of having an effect only when additional reporting and additional publicity came along in 2015. What, Obama's people didn't read the National Academy of Science research on forensic evidence? In fairness, they were busy with getting situated and sorting things out. But 6 years? (Nobody's perfect, and not all criticism = hate. Again, there's often a desire to win more than a desire to be accurate and impartial with the facts. I like winning, but first want to know what's up.)

SCI = MacGyver.

[politicat]

4. This has to happen, but this DOJ is like putting Ken Ham in charge of Biology.

They believe pseudoscience to the exclusion of real science.

Growth markets: Voice Stress Analysis, Bite Analysis, Polygraph, IED dowsing rods, Cell tower drive tests, phrenology.

Down markets: almost everything else.