FBI Doesn't Tell Courts About Bogus Evidence

dprovine writes "According to a joint investigation by The Washington Post and 60 Minutes, a forensic test used by the FBI for decades is known to be invalid. The National Academy of Science issued a report in 2004 that FBI investigators had given "problematic" testimony to juries. The FBI later stopped using "bullet lead analysis", but sent a letter to law enforcement officials saying that they still fully supported the science behind it. Hundreds of criminal defendants — some already convicted in part on the testimony of FBI experts — were not informed about the problems with the evidence used against them in court."

Comments

does the article state

[zappepcs]

why the evidence presented was not questioned as to its scientific veracity? From what I read and hear, there is valid reason for questioning every technology that is used against you, whether that is a radar gun, camera, eye witness, anything. Your lawyer should never accept anything as fact, and should attempt to prove in court that it is not valid. For instance, the breathalyzer tests have been shown to read higher than actual in more than 25% of tests. Can't remember the story lead or I'd link it.

It's things like this that ensure that the party with the most money will win...

Re:does the article state

[Derekloffin]

As good as some lawyers are, most are not experts in every scientific technique, and those that aren't frequently don't have the funds to hunt down and procure the testimony of someone who is both familiar with the technique and willing to talk about it's short comings in their client's favor.

Re:does the article state

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Your lawyer should never accept anything as fact, and should attempt to prove in court that it is not valid.

A lawyer I know once described public defenders as always falling into one of two categories:

• Young, altruistic, energetic, and so inexperienced and incompetent they don't know how to file a motion, let alone properly get evidence examined.
• Older guys, there for a paycheck, who do as little as possible, even choosing unnecessary plea bargains just so they have less paperwork to do.

I'd like to think he's being cynical, but I haven't seen much evidence that contradicts his claim. I saw a true crime special the other day about a woman who spent four years in jail after being convicted of murder. The supposed method was LSD poisoning, even though there has never been a human fatality attributed directly to LSD. The test they used to convict her was a preliminary test that was only supposed to show if there was reason to do the more expensive test. The test was run on tissue from a exhumed cadaver, when the test was only useful applied to fresh urine from a living person. The state did perform the follow up test, but it showed up as negative, so they pretended they had not performed it. Somehow, her defendant did not question any of this evidence, at all despite it being scientifically unsound to pretty much any pathologist you could consult. That lawyer is still a practicing public defender.

Re:Polygraph - inaccurate

[eleuthero]

Lie detectors can be used in investigations but not in trials. There's a real, significant difference there.

Update from the first link

[bi_boy]

On Friday, the FBI agreed. It acknowledged that it had made mistakes in handling bullet lead testimony and should have done more to alert defendants and the courts. As a result of the 60 Minutes-Washington Post investigation, the bureau said it will identify, review and release all of the pertinent cases, and notify prosecutors about cases in which faulty testimony was given.

The FBI also says it will begin monitoring the testimony of all lab experts to make sure it is based on sound scientific principles. FBI Assistant Director John Miller said, "We are going to the entire distance to see that justice is now served."
Evidence Of Injustice: FBI's Bullet Lead Analysis Used Flawed Science To Convict Hundreds Of Defendants

Re:Polygraph - inaccurate

[king-manic]

Lie detectors can be used in investigations but not in trials. There's a real, significant difference there. Actually, they aren't considered scientifically sound enough to be entered into most courts. certain US jurisdictions will allow it or a polygraph expert to testify or test to be conducted in front of juries. defense councils occasionally use them in jury cases. So no they aren't strictly forbidden and thats is one of the problems. As well their prominence in Media give them drastically undue weight to a jury of my peers.

Re:A true whistleblower

[morgan_greywolf]

Indeed. This isn't the first time William Tobin has blown the whistle by any stretch of the imagination. Tobin, who was formerly the chief metallurgist at the FBI, also called into question the investigative practices of individuals involved in the FBI's investigation of TWA Flight 800 and has testified as to various fraudulent activities that took place within various FBI investigations. Apparently this test was the same test used to convict Lee Harvey Oswald, and guess who called it into question? Yup. William A. Tobin.

Curiouser and curiouser, no?

Re:How can I ever avoid reasonable doubt now?

[twifosp]

Maybe universal CCTV is the answer. If your entire life is recorded, then criminal charges will be easier to determine.

Given the context of your post (which I did not quote) I realize this statement was probably tongue in cheek, but I felt the need to respond anyway.

CCTV systems are used to investigate crimes. But they rarely actually catch the criminal act themselves. Instead it's used to connect people, places, and times. Would you like to be linked to criminal activity just because you happened to be in two wrong places at the wrong times? If a linked crime happens in 2 areas, the probability goes up that all the people recorded in that area are suspects. This also increases your probability to be charged with a crime you did not convict. Even if you are acquitted in the end, the mere charge of a crime in today's societies comes with negative consequences. Even if you are proven innocent, you suffer reputation damages, probably wife and kids, and most assuredly your job.