Criminal Justice

The Perils of Junk Science

Published March 11, 2009 @ 04:42AM PT

If a scientist were to testify that he saw a person commit a crime because he went to the scene in the Way Back Machine with Peabody and his pet boy Sherman, everyone would know it was untrue.  Unfortunately, innocent people have been convicted of crimes based on science just as unbelievable as the Way Back Machine.  Junk science and incompetent forensic technicians are at least two reasons that people are charged and convicted of crimes they did not commit.

That is why the study released recently by National Academy of Science describing the problems in forensic laboratories across the country is so important. The NAS found that many labs have poorly trained technicians.  The lack of standardized methods and training create an environment where sloppy work is presented and accepted in court.  The study recommends the creation of a federal agency to provide oversight of the country’s forensic labs.  The suggestion is for the agency to develop best practices for training, research and uniformity in analyzing information.

An article in the current issue of Reason magazine demonstrates the dangers of junk science convicting innocent people. Dr. Michael West is a forensic odontologist (or bite mark expert).  He has testified in many capital cases.  Kennedy Brewer, who has since been exonerated from Mississippi’s death row, was convicted when the jury believed Dr. West’s testimony.  Dr. West claimed that he saw Brewer’s bite marks on the victim, and Brewer was convicted of raping and murdering a little girl.  The marks were later found to be insect bites and not those of Brewer or any other human being. Another man has since been convicted of the crime. The Innocence Project was able to help free Mr. Brewer.

Dr. West once claimed to have developed a new technique for analyzing wound patterns and dubbed it “the West Phenomenon.” The “West Phenomenon” consists of the doctor putting on a pair of goggles, using ultraviolet light and observing a body. Dr. West has been sanctioned by forensic organizations, and yet some prosecutors continue to use him as an “expert.”  In the film “Traces of Guilt: The Verdict,” John Holdridge, Director of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project, discusses the serious flaws in Dr. West’s techniques and testimony.

Dr. West is just one forensic “scientist” who has put people on death row by testifying to junk science.  In Oklahoma, forensic scientist Joyce Gilchrist helped send 23 people to death row.  At least one judge stated that she had withheld exculpatory evidence and provided “untrue” false testimony.

Curtis McCarty was exonerated from death row because Gilchrist’s transgressions with the evidence in his case.  Junk scientists and junk science have sent many innocent people to death row. Ernest Willis of Texas was exonerated because the science used to convict him of arson and murder has been rejected by fire experts.  The same science used to prove Willis’s innocence may exonerate Cameron Willingham who was executed for an arson murder in 2004.  Texas has hired a fire expert to investigate Willingham’s case.  An Innocence Project review with arson experts has shown that the fire was probably accidental.

The NAS study provides needed solutions to an epidemic problem.  Unfortunately, we do not have a Way Back Machine to go back in time to correct all of the errors produced by junk science.  However, the recommendations of the new NAS study, if implemented, should help to keep some (but by no means all) innocent people out of prison and off of death row.

Related Posts

Comments (1)

  1. Ken Cohrn

    Your article, regarding the cases sited, appears accurate. However, the overall tone as I read it, is that most, if not all forensic science, is junk science! As you know, that is simply not true. Room for improvement- absolutely. I am a boarded forensic odontologist. I am also appalled at the likes of West and a few others in the field.The "scientist" is at fault, not the science. Most of what we do in bitemark evaluation has evidentiary value. The good far outways the quakery of the few. Frankly, I appreciate the value of the NAS study and the scrutiny on all the forensic disciplines. We will become better scientists because of it as long as others don't condemn the entire process and those who strive to be consciencious.
    ken

    Posted by Ken Cohrn on 03/11/2009 @ 03:36PM PT

  2. Reply to thread

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Christopher Hill is the State Strategies Coordinator with the ACLU Capital Punishment Project.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action. If you already have an account click here.

  Cancel