

How the courts trap people who were convicted by bad forensics - hotgoldminer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/11/17/how-the-courts-trap-people-who-were-convicted-by-bad-forensics/

======
wmeredith
"the purpose of forensics is to solve crimes"

I agree with this article, I think it's a good one. But here's my nit: the
purpose of forensics isn't to "solve crimes", it's to get convictions, which
isn't the same thing. That's a huge part of the problem.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Shouldn't the purpose of any forensic investigator be to get to the truth and
provide evidence of it? Why is a conviction the measure of success?

~~~
wmeredith
An outsider would think so, but the DA and police force are motivated by
convictions and conviction rate. The incentive is in the wrong place.

------
rayiner
It helps to have some background before assuming that the government will keep
an obviously innocent person in jail just because they missed a deadline.

The justice system errs heavily on the side of letting people go. For every
person exonerated with DNA evidence, there are tons of people who quite likely
are guilty but got off for procedural reasons. E.g. just because a warrant was
invalid doesn't mean that the murder weapon recovered from the suspect's car
doesn't go to proving guilt.

At the trial stage, a procedural defect is enough to torpedo a conviction.
After the trial and appeals are done, however, a conviction is assumed to be
valid. Nonetheless, there are outs. Even after a conviction, 28 U.S.C. 2254
(the habeas corpus law), lets you attack a conviction. It puts up hurdles,
though, such as deadlines, to force prisoners to bring their claims in a
timely manner.

But, and the article doesn't mention this, there's the ultimate out: under
McQuiggin v. Perkins, if you can prove "actual innocence" (i.e. that no
reasonable juror would've convicted you in light of your new evidence), you
can overcome the hurdles in the habeas procedure.

What trips up people at this stage, though, is that the overwhelming majority
of habeas petitioners aren't actually innocent. They might have new evidence
which at trial could've created reasonable doubt, but their convictions are
still supportable on the basis of the other evidence that was presented. It's
hard for people to think of it this way, but ultimately the justice system has
to be based on probabilities. If someone is pronounced guilty after being
indicted by a grand jury, tried, and exhausting his appeals, he's probably
guilty. You can draw the line wherever you want, but you do have to draw a
line, somewhere, or else give up on the idea of putting people in prison at
all.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> The new evidence must actually prove innocence, not just be of the nature
> that, at trial, would've allowed you to lawyer yourself out of a conviction.

That seems to be the problem, no? Proving innocence is close to impossible.
How do you prove a negative? From the inside of a prison cell?

There is obviously a concern that discrediting an expert would create a
resource problem if every defendant he testified against could get a new
trial, but isn't that exactly what is necessary to get prosecutors to ensure
their experts are credible?

~~~
rayiner
Sorry, I clarified in my edits. The "actual innocence" standard doesn't
require you to prove a negative. But it for require creating more than mere
doubt, and has to go to substantive rather than procedural issues.

------
simonh
But hey, at least you've got a written consititution. That must avoid a lot of
awkward nitpicky arguments about interpretation and individual rights versus
governmental powers, right?

~~~
mikecb
Nitpicky arguments are great. It means that both parties are maneuvering
closely on each side of a well defined line.

