A new study published in the Virginia Law Review found that forensic experts gave flawed testimony in the trials of 82 men, including four men convicted in Virginia in the 1980s.  Brandon L. Garnett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, and Peter Neufeld, cofounder of the Innocence Project, examined the trial transcripts of 137 people during whose trial’s forensic experts had testified on behalf of the prosecution and who were later exonerated through testing of DNA evidence. In these 137 trials, Garnett and Neufeld found that 60 percent contained flawed forensic expert testimony. However, Garnett and Neufeld’s study did not suggest that the flawed testimony was necessarily the source of the wrongful convictions.

The four Virginia men whose trial transcripts were examined in the study are Willie Davidson II, who was cleared of a 1980 rape; Earl Washington Junior, cleared of capital murder and a 1982 rape; Edward Honaker, cleared of a 1984 rape; and Tony Webb who was cleared of a 1988 rape.
 
One of the most common errors that can lead to a wrongful conviction is mistaken eyewitness identification.  Mistaken eyewitness identification coupled with flawed forensic expert testimony results in many wrongful convictions.  One possible solution that Peter Marone, the Director of Technical Services at the Virginia Department of Forensic Science, offers is the standardization of methods and technology.   

For a more detailed summary of the report, please click here .

To read the full text of the report, please click here .  Once the page has loaded, click download and follow the instructions to save it to your computer.

     In an article published in the March 2009 issue of the Virginia Law Review, Brandon L. Garrett and Peter J. Neufeld conclude that in the majority of trials of innocent people who were later exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing, forensic analysts testifying for the prosecution provided invalid testimony at trial. Garrett and Neufeld located and reviewed trial transcripts for 137 of the 156 DNA exonorees in whose trials forensic analysts had testified. They found that in 82 cases or 60% of the trials, forensic analysts provided “invalid” testimony, meaning they had presented conclusions that either misstated empirical data or that were entirely unsupported by empirical data. This invalid testimony did not come from a small group of analysts –not just the “bad apples”–but from 72 different analysts from 52 laboratories, practices, or hospitals in 25 states.
    
      Garrett and Neufeld’s study revealed that the analysts’ invalid testimony fell into two basic categories. The first is “the misuse of empirical population data” by presenting non-probative evidence as inculpatory, by discounting exculpatory evidence, or by presenting inaccurate statistics. For example, in the case of Gary Dotson, who was wrongly convicted of rape and aggravated kidnapping, the analyst presented inaccurate statistics when he testified that Dotson was included in 11% of the population that could have been the source of the semen found on the victim, whereas in reality 100% of the population could have been the source of the semen. The second main type of invalid testimony is “making conclusions regarding the probative value of evidence that are unsupported by empirical data.” This includes the presenting of statistics or other statements without backing them up with data or making a conclusion that evidence originated from the defendant even if there is no empirical data to permit such a conclusion. In the case of Timothy Durham, who was wrongly convicted of rape and robbery, the analyst said that the specific color of hair found at the crime scene belonged to “about 5 percent of the population” when in reality no empirical data exists on the frequency of hair color.
    
      In their study of the trial transcripts, Garret and Neufeld found that defense counsel rarely cross-examined analysts concerning invalid testimony and rarely retained their own experts, because funding is often denied for defense experts. Prosecutors presented the invalid accounts of forensic evidence during their closing arguments. If the defense challenged the evidence, judges seldom provided relief. Garrett and Neufeld believe that our criminal justice system is simply not well suited to preventing this kind of unscientific testimony. Based on the results of their study, they recommend that the scientific community issue nationally enforceable standards for written reports and testimony to ensure that forensic science in criminal cases is presented in a way that maintains the integrity and fairness of the criminal process.

On July 15, 2008, MAIP hosted its first annual awards luncheon.  The winner of our Champion of Justice award was former Virginia Governor Mark Warner.  MAIP honored Governor Warner for his extraordinary contribution to the cause of justice.

[Click here photographs from the event]

The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project (MAIP) commends Governor Tim Kaine on his decision to grant full pardons to Arthur Lee Whitfield and Victor “Bo” Burnette.  

“We are relieved that the governor recognized the need to correct the miscarriage of justice that occurred in these two men’s cases,” said Shawn Armbrust, Executive Director of MAIP. (more…)