zlacker

>>YeGobl+(OP)
Powerful article. What strikes me as a layman (non-lawyer, non-law enforcement), is how prevalent these methods of forensic science have become, without any solid scientific basis backing them up - such as peer reviewed studies with quantifiable evidence. You'd think that in order for the state to take the life of a human being, you'd need to prove it using means that are more thoroughly vetted than "[one doctor] who in 1971 suggested the cause might be violent shaking" (emphasis mine).

>>GlumWo+lb
I’m sure the dozens of TV shows don’t help this either. Law and Order is never wrong and their science and methods are flawless. Obviously I’m being sarcastic, but I think it clouds the jury’s thought process

>>jdechk+Jc
Yup. Known as the CSI effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect

>>ceejay+Oi
I was on a jury last month, an assault and battery case in which the identification of the rusty-colored substance on the grip of a handgun could easily make a big difference. We convicted on the assault and acquitted on the battery because of the lack of the evidence, though I think most of us thought the defendant was guilty of both.

This was the second try at this case after a prior jury hung, but the two years between the charge and the second trial were not enough to get _any_ results back on the substance. Apparently the lead time required is such that they didn't bother to try. Here's how they explained that: "This isn't CSI."

>>hirund+rq
If two years is not enough lead time someone is not doing their job.

>>Aeolun+UX
Agree. I could understand if the expense of a DNA analysis sufficient to identify only the victim could be more than the county could afford for a battery case. But not trying to even identify it as blood, let alone human blood, just seems lazy. Here's what the prosecutor gave us in place of that: "If it smells like a skunk, it's a skunk, you don't have to see it." I was thinking that I smelled one and was looking at it.