Forensic Experts Must Testify To Results

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that forensic reports qualify as “testimony”, and therefore that forensic experts must be made available for cross-examination. Melendez-Diaz argued that the expert who wrote the report in his case, identifying a substance found on the defendant as cocaine, should be made available for cross-examination so that testing procedures and the custodial history of the evidence could be presented to the jury. This decision comes just days after the Supreme Court decided Osborne v. Alaska, and the disparate rulings mean that defendants will have more tools to fight charges in court, but no new aid in appealing their convictions.
A.P.: Court rules for defendants on crime lab reports

The New York Times: Justices Rule Lab Analysts Must Testify on Results

MA Appeals Court Rules On Remuneration Case

A Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled last week that Humberto Guzman could be eligible for as much as $500,000 after he spent four years in prison for drug charges. At issue before the court was whether the Massachusetts Erroneous Convictions Law of 2004 could benefit those who had not been conclusively exonerated. Guzman's conviction was vacated in 1994 on the basis of inadequate counsel, and after two Boston police detectives who originally testified against him were indicted by a federal grand jury for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars during drug raids. The officers were convicted and served three years in prison. In 2006, Guzman applied for remuneration but was denied because the court said he had not actually been found innocent and other evidence implicated him in the crime. The Appeals Court decided that the law does not limit eligibility for remuneration “to those individuals exonerated as a result of compelling or overwhelming exculpatory evidence."

Read more from The Boston Globe: $500,000 could be awarded in overturned drug case

Troy Davis Case May Be Decided Today

Updates will be forthcoming if Troy Davis' case is decided by the U.S. Supreme Court today, as is expected. Davis was convicted in the murder of a Georgia police officer in 1991 and is being held on death row. 7 of 9 State witnesses have recanted their testimony and another man has been named as the perpetrator. Davis is seeking an evidentiary hearing, which could free him after more than 18 years in prison.

Davis' petition is on SCOTUSBlog here: Petition for certiorari

New Findings May Exonerate Many in Shaken Baby Cases

A recent article by Maurice Possley brings to light new evidence about shaken baby-related murder convictions. Over the last thirty years, thousands of parents and caretakers have been charged after the death of a child in his or her care was attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). A diagnosis of SBS is based on a triad of evidence: retinal hemorhage, bleeding in the brain, and brain swelling. Individuals are generally only charged after the diagnosis of SBS is made. However, new scientific findings show that SBS may not always be a result of violent shaking, but that a short fall may also produce the same symptoms.

Audrey Edmunds of Wisconsin, a day care provider, was charged in 1995 with murder, after a 7-month old in her care died, and prosecuters alleged that she had shaken the baby to death. Last year, with the help of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, Edmunds was granted a new trial and released. One of the experts who had testified at her trial came forward to say that he was no longer sure Edmunds had harmed the child, and that the damage could have taken place hours earlier than originally believed. An article in the Washington University Law Review by Deborah Tuerkheimer to be published in September seeks to examine recent research into SBS which could free thousands of people who were imprisoned with the help of faulty science.

The case of Louise Woodward, the 19 year old au pair who was charged with second degree manslaughter after she was accused of shaking to death the child in her care, illustrates the point. Experts for the prosecution alleged that the child was shaken violently and his head was hit against a hard surface. Experts for the defense testified that the boy's injuries could have been sustained days earlier. The most recent scientific findings show that there is no certainty in the medical community that SBS is caused by violent trauma. Indeed, symptoms from the triad of SBS symptoms may be found in children before they are taken home from the hospital for the first time.

In light of the most recent medical research, many of those convicted in SBS cases could receive new trials, and it seems that the burden of proof may be moving in their favor.

Maurice Possley's article on thecrimereport.org: Mistaken diagnoses of Shaken Baby Syndrome may have sent thousands of innocent people to prison, according to a new study

Change.org article: Shaken Babies and Wrongful Convictions

Washington University Law Review abstract: The Next Innocence Project: Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Criminal Courts

Record Sum Awarded to Chicago Exoneree

Juan Johnson, a former member of the Chicago gang the Spanish Cobras, was awarded 21 million dollars yesterday by a federal jury, after spending 11 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. The court found that Johnson was framed by the arresting officer, Reynaldo Guevara, and that witnesses were coerced into testifying against Johnson at trial. The city of Chicago will pay remuneration. Despite the hardship that Johnson endured while in prison, he says that he only seeks an apology from the arresting officer. None has been forthcoming, so Guevara must pay 15 thousand dollars in punitive damages. No charges have been brought against the arresting officer at this time.

AP: Jury in Ill. awards $21M for wrongful conviction

Chicago Tribune: Record verdict: Former gang member awarded $21 million for wrongful conviction

Oregon Inmate Using NAS Report To Bring Appeal

Phillip Scott Cannon was convicted in 1998 of a triple homicide. He was sentenced to three life sentences. Cannon has protested his innocence for more than ten years. The key piece of evidence in Cannon's trial was the use of "bullet-lead analysis", a forensic science so unreliable that the FBI has stopped using it. Since the National Academy of Sciences released its report on forensic sciences in February 2009, Cannon has decided to appeal his conviction. A spokesman for the Oregon Department of Justice commented, "The post-conviction relief process is exactly the appropriate place to sort out these things. The FBI is no longer doing these tests because they don't consider them valid. But, if there is other evidence lined up, then we want to get it in front of a judge to sort it out. We're interested in getting to the truth. We have a higher obligation to the truth."

Read more here: Oregon case puts reliability of science itself on trial

Supreme Court Rules There Is No Right to Post-Conviction DNA Tests

Today the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their ruling in the case of D.A.'s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, finding that inmates are not constitutionally guaranteed the right to test evidence for DNA. In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled against Mr. Osborne, a resident of Alaska. 46 states have laws allowing some inmates the right to post-conviction testing. Massachusetts, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Alaska do not explicitly allow the testing. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., seems to have considered this as part of their ruling, reasoning that the matter should be left to state legislatures to consider.

Mr. Osborne was represented by Peter Neufeld, a co-founder of The Innocence Project.

The full text of the court opinion is available here
Article from the New York Times here
Article from the Boston Globe here