New York City Criminal Defense Lawyer » Junk Science

Junk Science Routinely Used By Prosecutors, Congressional Study Finds

Howard Weiner — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:39:57 +0000

A Report issued by that National Academies of Science found that evidence without proper scientific basis – also known as junk science — is routinely admitted in courts across the country in criminal prosecutions. With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, the report found that the evidence to support the reliability of many techniques is simply lacking.

This Report has profound implications for any case which the government seeks to introduce the testimony of an expert witness, including drug cases, sex offenses, and computer crimes, and provides a basis to challenge the admissibility of such evidence. The Report also illustrates the importance of hiring an attorney who is knowledgeable of cutting edge forensic techniques which may be critical to the success of your case.

A stark example of the profound implications of junk science can be seen in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 by the State of Texas for setting a fire which killed his three kids. In a scathing report, the forensic expert hired by Texas’ own government commission formed to re-investigate the Willingham case and others found that the investigator in Willingham’s case had no scientific basis to conclude that arson had been committed, relied on discredited folklore to reach conclusions, “in an approach that was more characteristic of mystics or psychics.”

Several other renowned arson investigators have publicly echoed this conclusion, and it now appears that an innocent man was executed for nothing more than a horrific accident.

You can view the entire Report here: STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES: A PATH FORWARD.

Up to 90% of U.S. Currency Contains Cocaine Residue

Howard Weiner — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:01:10 +0000

In the largest study to date of cocaine contamination in currency, scientists report that cocaine is present in up to 90 percent of paper money in the United States, particularly in large cities. Scientists found traces of cocaine in 95 percent of the banknotes analyzed from Washington, D.C., alone. The results were presented at the 238th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held in August 2009 in Washington, D.C.

Money can be contaminated with cocaine if a user snorts it with a bill. But not all bills are involved in drug use — they can also get contaminated inside currency counting machines at a bank and other ways.

This is noteworthy for criminal defense practitioners, since a positive alert to the presence of cocaine residue on currency by a trained drug detection dog is often cited by law enforcement as evidence of drug dealing.

Chemists Must Testify, Supreme Court Says

Howard Weiner — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:28:23 +0000

A lab chemist must be called to testify in order to admit a lab analysis as evidence at trial, the Supreme Court recently held in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 07-591 (June 22, 2009). This case effectively ends the government’s routine practice of entering into evidence one sided, conclusory reports prepared by government lab technicians for the sole purpose of trial, which essentially allowed the prosecution to present its some of its strongest evidence without allowing a defendant to conduct any cross-examination. In the case of Melendez-Diaz, the report in question contained no information about the qualifications or experience of the analyst who conducted the testing, the identity of the testing methods used to arrive at the analyst’s conclusions (and accompanying error rates), or whether any record-keeping or storage measures had been taken to preserve the integrity of the items for testing, among other things, which the defendant should have been able to cross examine the chemist who authored the report about. To admit the report without the testimony of the chemist violated the defendant’s right of confrontation, affirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).