Page 24 - Delaware Lawyer - Spring 2022

FEATURE | INNOCENT, BUT BEHIND BARS
certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific in- dividual or source.”4 Then in 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) issued a report within which it made a series of recommendations for pre- venting the use of unreliable forensic evidence in criminal trials.5 These recommendations were spurred by reviews of trial transcripts that according to the researchers revealed that, “expert witnesses have often overstated the probative value of their evidence, going far beyond what the relevant science can justify.”6 The following are a few examples to illustrate why the findings in recent studies on forensics are so disturbing.
Fingerprint Comparisons
Since 2000, studies have raised le- gitimate questions as to whether one’s fingerprints are actually as unique as we have been told; and if they are, whether matching methodologies are scientifically reliable. In common practice, comparisons between latent and exemplar prints raise particularly worrisome issues.7 In 1998, a jury convicted Ronald Jackson after the prosecution called three experts to testify that two bloody fingerprints found at the crime scene belonged to Jackson. He was sentenced to life in prison. A panel investigating the experts’ work concluded that the experts were wrong, and that a “gross miscarriage of justice had
occurred.” The conviction was vacat- ed, but Jackson was still required to post bail of $1 million to be released from jail, until the prosecution ulti- mately dismissed the charges.8
Microscopic Hair Comparisons
Hair found at a crime scene is compared under a microscope with a sample of the accused’s hair. A 2002 FBI study reported that, “When hair examiners conclude in casework that two hair samples are microscopically indistinguishable, the hairs often (one in nine times) come from different sources.”9 The authors of the 2009 NAS report stated that the commit- tee found no scientific support for the use of hair comparisons for individu- alization in the absence of nuclear DNA.10 In fact, the discover y that microscopic hair comparisons were of little value in identifying a guilty party led the U.S. Department of Justice to contact prosecution offices across the country (including Delaware) from 2014 to 2018 to put them on notice that testimony regarding microscopic hair analysis presented in a number of cases, “included statements that exceeded the limits of science in one or more respects.”11 As a result, The Delaware Department of Justice was contacted in relation to 80 separate cases.12 Hair analysis was used to con- vict a Delaware man in 1980. Elmer Daniels was sentenced to life in pris- on. He was released in November of 2018 when the prosecution moved to have his charges dismissed based on uncertainty of his guilt.13
Firearms Examination and Testing
Comparing bullets recovered at crime scenes or from gunshot victims with specific firearms is a longstand- ing forensic practice. This is done by comparing specialized toolmarks in
22 DELAWARE LAWYER SPRING 2022