Innocence Project website:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/?gclid=CJ6_kpCsqZoCFQRkswod0gHU0w
The Innocence Project was created in 1992 by two men from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University to assist prisoner that could be proven innocent with DNA testing. To this day, 238 people in the U.S. have been exonerated, 17 of these men were on death row. The average years these men spent in prison were 12 years each. Twelve years is too many years for an innocent man to spend in prison.
The Innocence Project is closely run by full-time attorneys and clinic students at Cardoza School. Their goal is to free the increasing number of innocent people that are in prison with the break through of DNA, and to bring reform to the system. Many of the men in prison were convicted on misidentification, false confessions, government misconduct, informants/snitched, invalidated or improper forensic science, and bad lawyering.
Most of these reasons for incarceration are self explanatory, but a few are need more detail. Government misconduct includes fraud or misconduct on the behalf of the prosecutors and/or police departments. Informants/snitches are often paid to testify, testified in an exchange for release, or have testified in several cases that they overheard a conversation or witnesses the crime. Invalidated or improper forensic science includes hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark comparisons and footwear comparisons which haven’t been subjected to a rigorous scientific evaluation as DNA has, and has sometimes been improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony causing a conviction of an innocent person.
There are innocent people in prison and someone needs to assist these persons in their release. People in prison are believed to be in prison because they had committed a crime against society, but there are those people who shouldn’t be in prison and the real perpetrator is still in the community that thought they were being protected. The innocent people in prison need someone to believe in them, and this is just the project to do so. This is proof that even though forensic science has come a long way, mistakes can still be made, but these mistakes can be corrected as well.
Video of a man exonerated thanks to the Innocence Project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DSS18Prxmo&feature=PlayList&p=262A9897FBDA015A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Fingerprints, and inexact science
The question that was sought at the turn of the twentieth century was whether or not fingerprints are really unique, and whether or not smudges should be used in court as evidence against a suspect. According to an article in the LA Times, Henry Faulds was a Scottish doctor who was the first to propose using fingerprints to solve crimes. But fingerprints have since been abused and misread by fingerprint examiners since.
Faulds was the first person to use a fingerprint to solve a crime, even though minor. Someone had broken into his laboratory and stole bottles of alcohol. He discovered a fingerprint on a vile, and discovered the burglar. In 1905, a man was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of an elderly couple. The fingerprint was a smudge in blood and there was no other evidence to suggest that the man was the killer. Faulds stepped forward and said that using a partial print to prove that someone committed the crime is not enough, especially to prove that the person killed another. In other words, just because a print was left behind doesn’t mean that person committed the crime. Other evidence should be presented.
Is fingerprints an exact science? The article addresses the fact that no one has yet researched such an assumption. It has been assumed that fingerprints are unique for centuries. In fact, ancient Babylonians would press their prints in wet clay tablets as their signature. But can these prints really be used, without a shadow of a doubt, to convict someone? Fingerprint experts conclude that their findings are exact, but we are humans and there needs to be room for error.
In fact, several agencies have been shut down pending investigation. The agencies’ laboratories are under investigation because of the wrongful conviction of several different people based on fingerprints alone.
What do you think? Are fingerprints an exact science?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-felch20-2009mar20,0,1810975.story
Faulds was the first person to use a fingerprint to solve a crime, even though minor. Someone had broken into his laboratory and stole bottles of alcohol. He discovered a fingerprint on a vile, and discovered the burglar. In 1905, a man was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of an elderly couple. The fingerprint was a smudge in blood and there was no other evidence to suggest that the man was the killer. Faulds stepped forward and said that using a partial print to prove that someone committed the crime is not enough, especially to prove that the person killed another. In other words, just because a print was left behind doesn’t mean that person committed the crime. Other evidence should be presented.
Is fingerprints an exact science? The article addresses the fact that no one has yet researched such an assumption. It has been assumed that fingerprints are unique for centuries. In fact, ancient Babylonians would press their prints in wet clay tablets as their signature. But can these prints really be used, without a shadow of a doubt, to convict someone? Fingerprint experts conclude that their findings are exact, but we are humans and there needs to be room for error.
In fact, several agencies have been shut down pending investigation. The agencies’ laboratories are under investigation because of the wrongful conviction of several different people based on fingerprints alone.
What do you think? Are fingerprints an exact science?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-felch20-2009mar20,0,1810975.story
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Crime Scene Technicians
Nothing in life is better than one’s own experience. I have explained the different forensic techniques and the technology that is used by scientists to capture offenders, but I have yet to explain what really happens at a crime scene. This is where my personal experience at crime scenes has come in. Each crime scene is different, and with that, different techniques are utilized. Let me share my experiences with the real CSIs.
I have had the opportunity to attend several ride-a-longs on behalf of the Sacramento Police Department, and the volunteer program that I am a part of. The real CSIs are nothing like one may see on the hit show. These CSIs don’t carry a firearm, they are not dressed in high heels and slacks; these CSIs are dressed in a uniform similar to what police officers wear, and to top it off, they wear a bullet proof vest and combat boots. They strickly do the field work, but every once and a while they will process for fingerprints on items collected at a scene. They do not process for DNA, hairs, for bugs, and the like.
One is not sure what to expect at a scene: an un-cooperative victim, the suspect not in custody, police have already cleared the scene. When the crime is not a major crime, i.e. homicide, the police are very rarely on the scene. The only times there were still officers on the scene during my ride-a-longs was when there was an attempted murder, a murder, and a robbery at a restaurant; otherwise, once the police officers gather witness/victim statements and have cleared the scene, they will leave, and the CSIs take over. When the CSIs need police assistance, they radio for it.
There are hundreds and hundreds of pictures that are taken during a CSIs shift. There are more pictures than there us physical evidence collected. The scene must be documented, items photographed in place before collection, and any injuries sustained by the victim and suspect. Collecting evidence from a scene is an extremely tedious job. At a homicide that occurred in the early morning of November, the night shift began their documentation of evidence, and the day shift then took over. I was allowed to assist and observe how a crime scene was processed. It took the entire eight hours to document the scene (pictures, video, and sketch), collect the evidence, and log the items into the data base.
Even though the real CSIs may not be as glamorous as seen on TV, or be able to solve a crime in an hour, they are an extremely important part of the police division. More crimes have been solved since the CSIs have veered away from dual responsibility (CSI and an officer at the same time). It’s tedious, hard work, but someone has to do it.
I have had the opportunity to attend several ride-a-longs on behalf of the Sacramento Police Department, and the volunteer program that I am a part of. The real CSIs are nothing like one may see on the hit show. These CSIs don’t carry a firearm, they are not dressed in high heels and slacks; these CSIs are dressed in a uniform similar to what police officers wear, and to top it off, they wear a bullet proof vest and combat boots. They strickly do the field work, but every once and a while they will process for fingerprints on items collected at a scene. They do not process for DNA, hairs, for bugs, and the like.
One is not sure what to expect at a scene: an un-cooperative victim, the suspect not in custody, police have already cleared the scene. When the crime is not a major crime, i.e. homicide, the police are very rarely on the scene. The only times there were still officers on the scene during my ride-a-longs was when there was an attempted murder, a murder, and a robbery at a restaurant; otherwise, once the police officers gather witness/victim statements and have cleared the scene, they will leave, and the CSIs take over. When the CSIs need police assistance, they radio for it.
There are hundreds and hundreds of pictures that are taken during a CSIs shift. There are more pictures than there us physical evidence collected. The scene must be documented, items photographed in place before collection, and any injuries sustained by the victim and suspect. Collecting evidence from a scene is an extremely tedious job. At a homicide that occurred in the early morning of November, the night shift began their documentation of evidence, and the day shift then took over. I was allowed to assist and observe how a crime scene was processed. It took the entire eight hours to document the scene (pictures, video, and sketch), collect the evidence, and log the items into the data base.
Even though the real CSIs may not be as glamorous as seen on TV, or be able to solve a crime in an hour, they are an extremely important part of the police division. More crimes have been solved since the CSIs have veered away from dual responsibility (CSI and an officer at the same time). It’s tedious, hard work, but someone has to do it.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Class v. Individual Characteristics
Within forensic science, there are two types of characteristics, class and individual. These are forms of physical evidence that become crucial to solving a crime. With the use of new technology, the scientists are able to determine if a known sample of a small fiber, paint chip, or shoe pattern is consistent with the unknown sample found at the scene. When individual characteristics are determined, the suspect has been linked to the scene.
Physical evidence establishes that a crime has been committed, establishes the key elements of the crime, links the scene to the victim, the victim to the suspect, and the suspect to the scene. Besides DNA, the next best evidence would be individual characteristics. But first, the evidence must be classified with class characteristics, which is more general.
Class characteristics are general characteristics that define a category of items or objects, but are not alone sufficient to define individuality. An example would be a shoe print in the dirt. The print is lifted for comparison. There are hundreds of different shoes in the world, with hundreds of different sole patterns. Class characteristics allow the scientists to narrow the pattern down to specific shoes. The FBI has created a shoe and tire database for such purposes. Once the laboratory has narrowed the pattern to one shoe pattern, they are able to address the issue of whether or not it was the print found at the crime scene.
Individual characteristics are exceptional characteristics that may establish the uniqueness of an object. These unique markings are accidental, or unintentional, characteristics resulting of wear and random markings on the item during manufacturing. The way in which a person walks creates a wear pattern that is unique only to them on the soles of their shoes, along with normal wear of the shoes. This is what the scientists look for when doing a comparison. Scientists are matching up the individual characteristics of the known sample (suspect’s shoe) and unknown sample (print at the crime scene).
With such evidence, the scientists are able to state that the suspect’s shoe was without a doubt, the shoe that was found at the crime scene. This places the suspect at the scene, which is what is needed to prove that the suspect could have committed the crime. Class and individual characteristics can also be found in fingerprints, on a spent bullet, a prying tool, and tread patterns of an automobile.
Physical evidence establishes that a crime has been committed, establishes the key elements of the crime, links the scene to the victim, the victim to the suspect, and the suspect to the scene. Besides DNA, the next best evidence would be individual characteristics. But first, the evidence must be classified with class characteristics, which is more general.
Class characteristics are general characteristics that define a category of items or objects, but are not alone sufficient to define individuality. An example would be a shoe print in the dirt. The print is lifted for comparison. There are hundreds of different shoes in the world, with hundreds of different sole patterns. Class characteristics allow the scientists to narrow the pattern down to specific shoes. The FBI has created a shoe and tire database for such purposes. Once the laboratory has narrowed the pattern to one shoe pattern, they are able to address the issue of whether or not it was the print found at the crime scene.
Individual characteristics are exceptional characteristics that may establish the uniqueness of an object. These unique markings are accidental, or unintentional, characteristics resulting of wear and random markings on the item during manufacturing. The way in which a person walks creates a wear pattern that is unique only to them on the soles of their shoes, along with normal wear of the shoes. This is what the scientists look for when doing a comparison. Scientists are matching up the individual characteristics of the known sample (suspect’s shoe) and unknown sample (print at the crime scene).
With such evidence, the scientists are able to state that the suspect’s shoe was without a doubt, the shoe that was found at the crime scene. This places the suspect at the scene, which is what is needed to prove that the suspect could have committed the crime. Class and individual characteristics can also be found in fingerprints, on a spent bullet, a prying tool, and tread patterns of an automobile.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Outside the Lab
When one thinks of Forensic Science, the lab comes to mind. What if I told you that Forensic Science could be applied outside of the lab? It is all part of the criminal investigation process and the reconstruction of the crime scene. The evidence found at the crime scene tells a story that allows Forensic Investigators to reconstruct how the crime occurred.
Reconstruction is the formulation of a best theory of a set of events, based on the consideration of all the available evidence and information. In order to reconstruct the crime scene the sequence of events must be understood. Patterns help to establish one’s understanding: blood patterns, glass fracture patterns, track and trail patterns, gunshot residue patterns, trajectory patterns, fire burn patterns, and modus operandi.
Blood makes a predictable pattern due to its make-up, viscosity, density and other physical properties when it exits the body: low, medium, and high velocity. Low velocity is created only by the pull of gravity; if the person is stationary than the blood will pool; if the person is moving, the blood droplets could tell investigators the direction the person was moving. Medium velocity blood droplets are smaller than low velocity and more numerous: approximately 4 mm in diameter. These droplets occur when an object hits pooled blood. High velocity droplets are even smaller than medium velocity and more numerous: approximately 1 mm in diameter to fine mist. This pattern is typical of gunshot wounds and explosions. Blood spatter pattern is the most common type of reconstruction pattern.
Gunshot residue patterns allow investigators to determine the distance of the shooter. When a firearm is discharged, the force of expanding gases disperses materials from the firearm. Depending on the distance, different characteristics will appear. If the wound is a contact wound, one will see blast destruction such as tearing of the clothes or skin and soot and powder inside the garment or the wound. As the shooter moves further away, then the appearance of soot (smudging) around the wound becomes less dense; tattooing on the skin, which are powder particles embedded in and under the skin, begin to loosely adhere to the surface the further the distance.
Because of these predictable patterns, Forensic Investigators can predict the sequence of events while at the scene. Such patterns could also lead to the body if one was not found at the primary scene. To be thorough, the Investigators will perform experiments in the lab to give corroborative evidence: physical evidence that differs from but strengthens or confirms other evidence.
Reconstruction is the formulation of a best theory of a set of events, based on the consideration of all the available evidence and information. In order to reconstruct the crime scene the sequence of events must be understood. Patterns help to establish one’s understanding: blood patterns, glass fracture patterns, track and trail patterns, gunshot residue patterns, trajectory patterns, fire burn patterns, and modus operandi.
Blood makes a predictable pattern due to its make-up, viscosity, density and other physical properties when it exits the body: low, medium, and high velocity. Low velocity is created only by the pull of gravity; if the person is stationary than the blood will pool; if the person is moving, the blood droplets could tell investigators the direction the person was moving. Medium velocity blood droplets are smaller than low velocity and more numerous: approximately 4 mm in diameter. These droplets occur when an object hits pooled blood. High velocity droplets are even smaller than medium velocity and more numerous: approximately 1 mm in diameter to fine mist. This pattern is typical of gunshot wounds and explosions. Blood spatter pattern is the most common type of reconstruction pattern.
Gunshot residue patterns allow investigators to determine the distance of the shooter. When a firearm is discharged, the force of expanding gases disperses materials from the firearm. Depending on the distance, different characteristics will appear. If the wound is a contact wound, one will see blast destruction such as tearing of the clothes or skin and soot and powder inside the garment or the wound. As the shooter moves further away, then the appearance of soot (smudging) around the wound becomes less dense; tattooing on the skin, which are powder particles embedded in and under the skin, begin to loosely adhere to the surface the further the distance.
Because of these predictable patterns, Forensic Investigators can predict the sequence of events while at the scene. Such patterns could also lead to the body if one was not found at the primary scene. To be thorough, the Investigators will perform experiments in the lab to give corroborative evidence: physical evidence that differs from but strengthens or confirms other evidence.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
DNA
Video Link: https://www.findthemissing.org/how_it_works_video/NamusVideo640.htm
DNA has become an important piece in how society views forensic science. Again, due to popular culture, it is believed that every case must have DNA present; if a jury does not hear DNA evidence presented in court, the suspect may go free because the case was not solid without DNA evidence. DNA, in addition to gaining a conviction, can identify a missing person, deceased or alive. The Criminal Justice System utilizes DNA to its advantage.
DNA is the abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid, and is the fundamental building block for all living organisms (DNA Initiative). With the exception of identical twins, each person’s DNA is unique. DNA is a powerful tool for the Criminal Justice System. In combination with Locard’s Principle, a suspect will leave something at crime scene and take something away, DNA can link a suspect to the victim, victim to the suspect, and both to the crime scene. All that is needed is blood, bone, hair, or other body tissues and products.
Even with the smallest piece of DNA, the forensic laboratory can now create a profile of the perpetrator or missing person. The profile is formally called DNA fingerprinting or DNA typing (DNA Initiative). With the unknown sample from a scene and a known sample from the suspect, the laboratory can compare the two and either confirm suspicions or exclude an individual. Usually a range is given: the suspect’s DNA matches the unknown sample by 1:1.5 billion. This proves that the suspect is the only one who could have committed the crime, or the decomposed body is that of the missing girl.
In addition, to help solve cold cases or to exonerate those of innocence, a DNA database has been created. These databases are found at local, State, and national levels. Individuals convicted of felonious crimes must submit a DNA sample. The sample is entered in CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) where it will remain for any further crimes that an individual may commit (DNA Initiative).
http://www.dna.gov/
DNA has become an important piece in how society views forensic science. Again, due to popular culture, it is believed that every case must have DNA present; if a jury does not hear DNA evidence presented in court, the suspect may go free because the case was not solid without DNA evidence. DNA, in addition to gaining a conviction, can identify a missing person, deceased or alive. The Criminal Justice System utilizes DNA to its advantage.
DNA is the abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid, and is the fundamental building block for all living organisms (DNA Initiative). With the exception of identical twins, each person’s DNA is unique. DNA is a powerful tool for the Criminal Justice System. In combination with Locard’s Principle, a suspect will leave something at crime scene and take something away, DNA can link a suspect to the victim, victim to the suspect, and both to the crime scene. All that is needed is blood, bone, hair, or other body tissues and products.
Even with the smallest piece of DNA, the forensic laboratory can now create a profile of the perpetrator or missing person. The profile is formally called DNA fingerprinting or DNA typing (DNA Initiative). With the unknown sample from a scene and a known sample from the suspect, the laboratory can compare the two and either confirm suspicions or exclude an individual. Usually a range is given: the suspect’s DNA matches the unknown sample by 1:1.5 billion. This proves that the suspect is the only one who could have committed the crime, or the decomposed body is that of the missing girl.
In addition, to help solve cold cases or to exonerate those of innocence, a DNA database has been created. These databases are found at local, State, and national levels. Individuals convicted of felonious crimes must submit a DNA sample. The sample is entered in CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) where it will remain for any further crimes that an individual may commit (DNA Initiative).
http://www.dna.gov/
Thursday, February 26, 2009
NAS Forensic Report
On February 18, 2009, The National Academy of Sciences published a congressionally mandated forensic science report that had been researched by the Nation Research Council. The conclusion: the field of forensic science was grossly deficient (New York Times); whether it was in regards to the poorly funded laboratories or the poorly trained “expert” scientists that run the lab. The main concentration of the report was focused on the unreliable and inaccurate forensic methods and the interpretation of such methods by the poorly trained scientists.
The report touches on the subject of following scientific principles when examining evidence from a crime scene. These rules are put in place in order to keep bias out of the scientists’ interpretation of such evidence. The report states that “the law’s admission of and reliance on forensic evidence in criminal trials depends critically on (1) the extent to which forensic science discipline is founded on a reliable scientific methodology, leading to accurate analysis of evidence and proper reports of findings and (2) the extent to which practitioners in these forensic science disciplines that rely on human interpretation adopt procedures and performance standards that guard against bias and error” (NAS Report, pg. 81). Basically, not all people who have careers in such scientific disciplines abide by these rules. They allow their own bias to influence how they will interpret the evidence presented to them for examination.
One way to keep such biases from occurring is to make all scientific laboratories independent of the police department. This would allow the director to have an equal voice, whereas before the director had to report to the head of the agency. Being independent from a law enforcement agency would allow the laboratories to set the priority of cases, and the scientists aren’t given an opportunity to be swayed by the police department.
All results for scientific methods should have the uncertainty of the measurements taken included within the report. This would allow for one in court to show with more accuracy and confidence that such an instrument or DNA profile would match with the evidence. Along with such reporting, the use of terminology used in reports and courts by forensic scientists may have a profound effect on the trier of fact (i.e. judge or jury); such terms as “match," “similar to," “consistent with," and “cannot be excluded as a source of.” The use of such terms may affect the way the trier of fact interprets and evaluates the evidence presented to them. No consensus on the meaning of the terms has been reached.
The report has been published to point out all the bad aspects of forensic science in order to bring it to the attention of society. Due to popular culture, we believe scientists can’t make a mistake because science provides hard, undeniable facts. We forget that forensic scientists are humans, science is imperfect, and humans make mistakes.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589#toc
The report touches on the subject of following scientific principles when examining evidence from a crime scene. These rules are put in place in order to keep bias out of the scientists’ interpretation of such evidence. The report states that “the law’s admission of and reliance on forensic evidence in criminal trials depends critically on (1) the extent to which forensic science discipline is founded on a reliable scientific methodology, leading to accurate analysis of evidence and proper reports of findings and (2) the extent to which practitioners in these forensic science disciplines that rely on human interpretation adopt procedures and performance standards that guard against bias and error” (NAS Report, pg. 81). Basically, not all people who have careers in such scientific disciplines abide by these rules. They allow their own bias to influence how they will interpret the evidence presented to them for examination.
One way to keep such biases from occurring is to make all scientific laboratories independent of the police department. This would allow the director to have an equal voice, whereas before the director had to report to the head of the agency. Being independent from a law enforcement agency would allow the laboratories to set the priority of cases, and the scientists aren’t given an opportunity to be swayed by the police department.
All results for scientific methods should have the uncertainty of the measurements taken included within the report. This would allow for one in court to show with more accuracy and confidence that such an instrument or DNA profile would match with the evidence. Along with such reporting, the use of terminology used in reports and courts by forensic scientists may have a profound effect on the trier of fact (i.e. judge or jury); such terms as “match," “similar to," “consistent with," and “cannot be excluded as a source of.” The use of such terms may affect the way the trier of fact interprets and evaluates the evidence presented to them. No consensus on the meaning of the terms has been reached.
The report has been published to point out all the bad aspects of forensic science in order to bring it to the attention of society. Due to popular culture, we believe scientists can’t make a mistake because science provides hard, undeniable facts. We forget that forensic scientists are humans, science is imperfect, and humans make mistakes.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589#toc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)