Convicted Rapist Exonerated By DNA 26 Years Later

[Rhino]

Texas Frees Rape Convict Exonerated By DNA After 26-Year Term
Thursday, January 03, 2008

DALLAS — A man convicted of raping a woman in 1981 and sentenced to life in prison has been cleared by DNA evidence and will be released, according to attorneys who have helped free 14 other wrongfully convicted inmates in Dallas County.

Charles Chatman, 47, is expected to be released Thursday after spending more than 26 years behind bars, said Natalie Roetzel of the Innocence Project of Texas.

"I never lost hope," Chatman told The Associated Press. "I always believed I would get out. I didn't know when or how, but I kept believing."

Chatman would be the 15th inmate convicted in Dallas County and later exonerated by DNA evidence, the most of any prosecuting office in the nation, according to the Innocence Project....http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319785,00.html

[DesertFox]

I'm wondering how well they can actually read DNA evidence. If it's at the same level as Al Gore reads the evidence of global warming, all this hoopla becomes more evidence of fetid corruption in the system.

On the other hand, if there really are this many miscarriages of justice, ....

[PrezLeefun]

Nice story.... and apparently there are some good lawyers. Thumbs up for real science.

[Beowulf]

I'm wondering how well they can actually read DNA evidence. If it's at the same level as Al Gore reads the evidence of global warming, all this hoopla becomes more evidence of fetid corruption in the system.

On the other hand, if there really are this many miscarriages of justice, ....
DNA evidence is 99.99% accurate and no one disputes it that I know of except maybe a defense attorney disputing the .01% at trial. No other evidence is that solid. If some innocent people are being exonerated because of it then I'm fine with that.

[DesertFox]

So am I -- but you missed my point, which was about corruption. Stalin once said that it doesn't matter who votes in an election; what matters is who counts the votes. Same here. If you have an Al Gore doing the science -- or, more to the point, reporting it out -- izzit science? I don't think so.

[PrezLeefun]

I get what you are saying DF, but I doubt that is the case in this instance.

[DesertFox]

Why do you doubt it? This Innocence Project reminds me very much of the ACLU, though I of course could be way off base on that.

[Rhino]

They didn't do the testing. They never do.

[DesertFox]

But they're wired in. They know who does do the testing. They would know which lab to send a sample to and which lab not. They would have their operatives placed in just the right spots to influence such decisions.

Have you read Witness? There's much more to all this than most folks even dream.

[Rhino]

They don't send the samples out. The prosecutor does. And they use independent, certified labs. A court would likely not accept any evidence otherwise.

[Rhino]

And I found out why the numbers are higher there.

Because Dallas has long outsourced most of its lab work, it’s one of the few jurisdictions in the country where biological evidence has been preserved (despite the best efforts of the city’s prosecutors over the years). So testable DNA evidence exists for cases from well before DNA technology came into being. (Another argument for using multiple, independent labs in forensic testing.) Consequently, Watkins and the Texas Innocence Project can go back much further to investigate innocence claims than other jurisdictions.

So in the one county in America that has preserved DNA evidence going back to the 1980s, and in one of only a few where the district attorney’s office is an asset to innocence claims instead of a roadblock, we’re seeing much, much higher exoneration rates than we’re seeing in the rest of the country.http://www.theagitator.com/2008/01/03/the-best-prosecutor-of-2007/

[DesertFox]

They don't send the samples out. The prosecutor does. And they use independent, certified labs. So if the prosecutor thinks a certain way, and the key folks at the independent, certified labs also think that way --.

This is why it matters for people to read Witness. The Hiss case was tried the year before I was born, but the networks were never disassembled. By now they've metastasized throughout the govt and the state govts.

I'm not saying that that's happening here; I AM saying it's certainly possible, because those folks want to do whatever they can to weaken the system and put doubt about it in people's minds. Al Gore (and Bill Clinton) have shown how to do that right out in broad daylight, by corrupting the system.

[Eagle1]

sounds like one hell of a payday is heading to that guy

just a shame that the guy is always a predator and false accusations are seldom discovered

[Rhino]

So if the prosecutor thinks a certain way, and the key folks at the independent, certified labs also think that way --No. If the prosecutor thinks that way, and the tests at the independent, certified labs bear it out.....

Oversight is far stronger than it was in the days of Hiss.

[DesertFox]

You misinterpret. If the prosecutor is one who wants to subvert the system (think that way), and the key player at the independent lab is also one who wants to subvert the system (thinks that way) ...

[Rhino]

The prosecutor doesn't choose who does the test at the lab, and the results are independently verified. Those labs, and their methodologies, are heavily scrutinized. That's the only way they can maintain certification. I think you're grasping at straws here. Is it possible? Sure. But so is the chance that we bombed the World Trade Center.

[Lubbock]

My gripe is that prosecutors are so loathe to have the testing done after a conviction.

If a convicted "perp" has been maintaining his innocence from day one, and if he was convicted before DNA testing, or before the testing became as exacting as it is today, and if evidence exists that does or could retain DNA, then why not just TEST?

I sure as the devil don't want some innocent SOB sitting behind bars, serving hard time for a crime he didn't commit, or worse, sitting on death row.

That diminishes all of us.

On the other hand [and you have all heard me talk about this already], there is the Keith Coleman case in Virginia. Coleman was convicted of the brutal, brutal rape and murder of his sister-in-law; convicted before the advent of DNA testing as we know it. He was sentenced to death. He maintained from minute one that didn't do it. He hoodwinked a lot of good people into believing he didn't do it. [I was NOT one of those people who was hoodwinked.]

The Commonwealth of Virginia had a truckload of evidence that held DNA, and they fought for more than ten years to keep that evidence from being tested.

I never understood that. Never understood it.

Coleman either did it, or he didn't.

If he didn't, let's exonerate him and get him off death row.

If he did it, let me push the plunger!

But test the damned evidence and learn the truth, for once and for all.

After . . . AFTER Coleman was executed, the Commonwealth finally tested, but not because they agreed to it.

Coleman did it.

Had I been the prosecutor [and the State Attorney General] who fought so hard to not test, I would have been deathly afraid of testing after Coleman was executed.

If the evidence is available, then these damned prosecutors should stop being such assholes and TEST.

[Rhino]

If a convicted "perp" has been maintaining his innocence from day one, and if he was convicted before DNA testing, or before the testing became as exacting as it is today, and if evidence exists that does or could retain DNA, then why not just TEST?Two reasons.

1. Cost.

2. Embarassment.

[DesertFox]

Not grasping at straws at all. It not only could happen, it HAS happened and is still happening. Did you know that the people who set up Yalta on our side were Communists? Not sympathizers, not fellow travelers, not Lefty liberals, but actual, real communists? Why is it any harder to penetrate these labs than it was to penetrate Los Alamos? That actually happened.

Not at all grasping at straws. I've been rereading Witness and it has underscored for me, all over again, that we who pooh-pooh are doing just what they want us to do. I don't say this IS happening, but that it could very well be happening and bears looking into. It's the pattern that matters.

[Lubbock]

When a Prosecutor fights hammer and tong to prevent testing, you can believe one thing: it ain't the cost he's concerned about. That's secondary. Taxpayers pick up the cost, and the prosecutor could care less about the cost.

Embarassment is uppermost in the prosecutor's mind.

Embarassment and his conviction rate.

[DesertFox]

Yep.

But it ain't the same prosecutor now as 26 years ago.

[Rhino]

Not grasping at straws at all. It not only could happen, it HAS happened and is still happening. Did you know that the people who set up Yalta on our side were Communists? Not sympathizers, not fellow travelers, not Lefty liberals, but actual, real communists? Why is it any harder to penetrate these labs than it was to penetrate Los Alamos? That actually happened.

Not at all grasping at straws. I've been rereading Witness and it has underscored for me, all over again, that we who pooh-pooh are doing just what they want us to do. I don't say this IS happening, but that it could very well be happening and bears looking into. It's the pattern that matters.There's no pattern for DNA testing. In fact, I find no pattern at all in modern jurisprudence that matches what you say. And we don't have to look into it. The oversight is already there, and regurlarly audited, so it's already looked into. Labs have lost certification because of it. But, to my knowledge, no major case was ever affected as a result.

[Lubbock]

No, but it the same office.

And they all have the same mind-set.

[Rhino]

When a Prosecutor fights hammer and tong to prevent testing, you can believe one thing: it ain't the cost he's concerned about. That's secondary. Taxpayers pick up the cost, and the prosecutor could care less about the cost.Not at all true. Please find me one prosecutor that is not worried about his budget, and being called on it. You have to keep in mind, it's not just these isolated cases. If they start doing this, almost every convicted criminal will be demanding testing, and their lawyers will be suing for it. The costs would be enormous.

Embarassment is uppermost in the prosecutor's mind.

Embarassment and his conviction rate.Quite possibly. I wasn't listing them in order of significance.

[Rhino]

No, but it the same office.

And they all have the same mind-set.What's the same office? Was that in response to my post?

[Lubbock]

One point:

The Duke "Rape" Case.

If you recall, Nifong pressured the Lab to supress evidence that showed [either] six or sixteen contributors on the Whore's underpants.

The evidence was supressed, and then it all blew up in Nifong's face.

I just don't believe that a DNA lab can falsify results and get away with it.

In most of the cases that I've had knowledge of, it's not just one lab involved.

Most of the time, a prosecutor doesn't even know which lab will test, and most of the time, the defense gets a slice of the evidence for their own independent testing.

[DesertFox]

There's no pattern for DNA testing. In fact, I find no pattern at all in modern jurisprudence that matches what you say. Yes, there is. The ACLU has undertaken a campaign to challenge cases nationwide using DNA evidence. I don't have the link, but this was posted here quite awhile back. The OP discusses 26 cases overthrown. That means even more have been looked into. And THAT is a pattern.

And we don't have to look into it. We do if we want to find out if there are shenanigans going on. The oversight is already there, and regularly audited, so it's already looked into. And we don't know the politics of those who did the looking, do we? That's the point.

Labs have lost certification because of it. No doubt. I could be concerned over nothing, but this is just the sort of thing they do, those who want to tear down the system brick by brick.

[Lubbock]

Yep.

But it ain't the same prosecutor now as 26 years ago.

Response to DF's post.

[Lubbock]

Not at all true. Please find me one prosecutor that is not worried about his budget, and being called on it. . . .

Then they better start budgeting for the cost --build it into their budgets, because we're going to see more and more of this. [Oops. There goes a tax-hike.]

Further, what if the defense agrees to foot the cost for testing?

And I'm going to say this one more time: I --for one, do not want to see any innocent person jailed for an offense he didn't commit when a DNA test could prove him innocent.

[Rhino]

One point:

The Duke "Rape" Case.

If you recall, Nifong pressured the Lab to supress evidence that showed [either] six or sixteen contributors on the Whore's underpants.

The evidence was supressed, and then it all blew up in Nifong's face.

I just don't believe that a DNA lab can falsify results and get away with it.

In most of the cases that I've had knowledge of, it's not just one lab involved.

Most of the time, a prosecutor doesn't even know which lab will test, and most of the time, the defense gets a slice of the evidence for their own independent testing.They didn't falsify the results. They just didn't initially report them. If they had falsified them, we never would have seen the true results as we did. However, as part of the oversight system, the defense got the lab results, and the rest is history. Besides, the defense likely would have demanded the samples be tested by another lab as a cross-check anyway. That's standard practice for DNA evidence.

And they got caught, didn't they? I quite frankly never understood why they did this. They were guaranteed to get caught.

[Lubbock]

I didn't say the results in Duke was falsified. I said the results was supressed.

And Nifong lost his license to practice over it.

Falsify came later in the post, in reference to DNA testing in general.

[DesertFox]

As I understand all that, they got caught mainly because Nifong wasn't clever enough to just win the election and then "discover" that the white boys were innocent. He had to try to save face, too, like Joey Buttafuccuo when he pushed and pushed until the system pushed back and got his ass. Different kinds of cases, but ego was the stumbling block in both, IMO.

[Rhino]

Yes, there is. The ACLU has undertaken a campaign to challenge cases nationwide using DNA evidence. I don't have the link, but this was posted here quite awhile back. The OP discusses 26 cases overthrown. That means even more have been looked into. And THAT is a pattern.That's not a pattern of changing or falsifying the results of DNA tests.

We do if we want to find out if there are shenanigans going on. And we don't know the politics of those who did the looking, do we? That's the point.The certifying agencies, mainly.

No doubt. I could be concerned over nothing, but this is just the sort of thing they do, those who want to tear down the system brick by brick.Proving someone innocent, who really is, is not tearing down the system. On the contrary, it validates the system and insures the highest integrity possible.

[Rhino]

Response to DF's post.Got it. Thanks.

[Rhino]

Further, what if the defense agrees to foot the cost for testing?Not a bad idea at all.

[Rhino]

I didn't say the results in Duke was falsified. I said the results was supressed.

And Nifong lost his license to practice over it.

Falsify came later in the post, in reference to DNA testing in general.Yeah, I was still in that vein of debate. The crux seemed to be the integrity and accuracy of the DNA testing system, and I responded along those lines. What Nifong did was definitely bad, but it doesn't change the points I was making.

[Rhino]

As I understand all that, they got caught mainly because Nifong wasn't clever enough to just win the election and then "discover" that the white boys were innocent. He had to try to save face, too, like Joey Buttafuccuo when he pushed and pushed until the system pushed back and got his ass. Different kinds of cases, but ego was the stumbling block in both, IMO.Or he's just another idiot liberal. :lol:

[DesertFox]

That's not a pattern of changing or falsifying the results of DNA tests Which is not the pattern I was talking about.

Proving someone innocent, who really is, is not tearing down the system. On the contrary, it validates the system and insures the highest integrity possible. True, but you're assuming that there is nothing corrupted in the DNA testing system, which is precisely what I'm saying could be the case. If it is, then these DNA cases aren't proving anyone innocent and are indeed doing significant harm to the credibility of the system.

[DesertFox]

Or he's just another idiot liberal. :lol: :thumb:

[Rhino]

Which is not the pattern I was talking about.Okay. Sorry.

True, but you're assuming that there is nothing corrupted in the DNA testing system, which is precisely what I'm saying could be the case.Wait a minute!!! Didn't you just say you weren't talking about that????? :question:

If it is, then these DNA cases aren't proving anyone innocent and are indeed doing significant harm to the credibility of the system.It isn't.

[Lubbock]

Not a bad idea at all.

Okay, here's my question:

When the defense is agreeing to pay for testing, how can the prosecution NOT turn over the evidence to the defense for testing?

I've worked in the legal field for upwards of 30 years, but I've never been in a prosecutor's office. In fact, I've never had a lot of experience with criminal law. I'm getting more of it in the office I'm in now than in all of my years combined. I don't know a thing about the "rules of evidence" per se, but I was always under the impression that the prosecution had to produce exculpatory evidence.

How can a prosecutor not turn over eivdence that could exonerate a defendant? If DNA evidence is present --blood or semen especially, why is the defense not entitled to it?

That's something that I never understood about the Coleman case.

How could the prosecution hang on to that evidence for as long as they did while the Death Penalty Team was fighting tooth and nail to test it?

[Rhino]

Beats me. I don't know the details of the case. But you're right. It doesn't make sense.

[DesertFox]

Which is not the pattern I was talking about.Okay. Sorry. This has gotten lengthy, wot? :D

True, but you're assuming that there is nothing corrupted in the DNA testing system, which is precisely what I'm saying could be the case.Wait a minute!!! Didn't you just say you weren't talking about that????? :question: Nope. There I was talking about a pattern of the ACLU or some other such organization, trying to undermine the justice system. The pattern would be challenges brought all over the country based on DNA evidence. The method would be to corrupt the DNA testing system in a few places. Wouldn't be necessary for them all to be corrupt.

If it is, then these DNA cases aren't proving anyone innocent and are indeed doing significant harm to the credibility of the system. It isn't. You're assuming the system hasn't been corrupted. That assumption in the Forties allowed Alger Hiss and his gang to ruin the State Dept, which to this day is still ruined because no one wants to think it's even possible. But it happened, and now the CIA is also infested. Yet the damage done to State and to the CIA doesn't compare to the damage done by Earl Warren, who could well have been one of the corrupters I'm talking about. Damage the justice system and you wreak havoc in the country.

[Lubbock]

Beats me. I don't know the details of the case. But you're right. It doesn't make sense.

Maybe I can come back with an answer tomorrow. My boss gets back in town tonight.

As to this Black Helicopter thing DF has going on, I'm not going to get into it any further than to say, I don't think so . . .

:confused:

[DesertFox]

Read Witness, Lub. Whittaker Chambers, on Amazon. Then tell me what you think. It's a real story about America in the Forties, just before McCarthy. No black helicopters.

[Lubbock]

Thanks, DF. I am going to get the book. I have heard it discussed in other "circles" and like you, many recommend it.

I may come out with an entirely different view of the subject matter being discussed here.

My guess is, you can find the correlation and apply Witness to the field of journalism. How it went from a once honorable profession to the sewer it is today.

After all, the State Department was once an honorable institution when TJ was heading it up.

[DesertFox]

It's in Witness that a man observes that America's social classes no longer go by the old maxim, Rich guys = Republicans; middle guys = mixed; poor guys = Democrats. Nowadays (this was in the Forties) it's poor guys = Democrats; middle guys = Republicans; rich guys = Communists.

This owes to the Communist Long March thru the Educational Institutions begun in 1905 when Italian Commie Antonio Gramsci noted that that was the only way for Communism to insinuate itself into the fabric of the West. It's why the superrich today are Democrats, why the Ivy League and the cream of the colleges and universities tip so egregiously Left, why the press leans so Leftward (Communism recognized the power of the press from the start and always infiltrated there).

[cerberus]

Nope. There I was talking about a pattern of the ACLU or some other such organization, trying to undermine the justice system. The pattern would be challenges brought all over the country based on DNA evidence. The method would be to corrupt the DNA testing system in a few places. Wouldn't be necessary for them all to be corrupt. But you have shown no evidence that this is at all the case, even once. The ACLU, which you seem to be obsessing over, isn't even involved. You allege something without proof in what is almost a blatant smear. I can see no reason NOT to test past evidence if it can get innocent people free.

You're assuming the system hasn't been corrupted. Damage the justice system and you wreak havoc in the country. You're assuming that it is systematically corrupted with no evidence to back up your claim. The burden of proof is on you to show some reason for this apparent borderline paranoia other than some book you read about a subject that has no direct connection to DNA testing or the criminal justice system at all.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Its good to see Cerb crawl out of his mother's basement every once in awhile considering the enormous willpower it must take just to unball himself from the fetal position.

[DesertFox]

But you have shown no evidence that this is at all the case, even once. The ACLU, which you seem to be obsessing over, isn't even involved. You allege something without proof in what is almost a blatant smear. Sunshine, have you even bothered to read this thread? If so, you don't read very well. I've made it plain from the beginning that I'm speculating. I use the ACLU for good reason: The ACLU had Communist beginnings. But I doubt you knew that.

You're assuming that it is systematically corrupted with no evidence to back up your claim. The burden of proof is on you to show some reason for this apparent borderline paranoia other than some book you read about a subject that has no direct connection to DNA testing or the criminal justice system at all. Read, THEN talk. Until you know what you're talking about, I have no patience for you.

[Beowulf]

Its good to see Cerb crawl out of his mother's basement every once in awhile considering the enormous willpower it must take just to unball himself from the fetal position.
:rotflmbo::rotflmbo::rotflmbo::rotflmbo::rotflmbo: :rotflmbo:

[Rhino]

Nope. There I was talking about a pattern of the ACLU or some other such organization, trying to undermine the justice system. The pattern would be challenges brought all over the country based on DNA evidence. The method would be to corrupt the DNA testing system in a few places. Wouldn't be necessary for them all to be corrupt.Okay. Now I get it. I still don't agree, but I get it. :D

You're assuming the system hasn't been corrupted. That assumption in the Forties allowed Alger Hiss and his gang to ruin the State Dept, which to this day is still ruined because no one wants to think it's even possible. But it happened, and now the CIA is also infested. Yet the damage done to State and to the CIA doesn't compare to the damage done by Earl Warren, who could well have been one of the corrupters I'm talking about. Damage the justice system and you wreak havoc in the country.Yes, I'm assuming the system hasn't been corrupted. And this isn't the forties. I understand your concerns. I just don't see any merit to them right now.

[Trevelyan]

And this is why I oppose the death penalty.

[Rhino]

I don't oppose it where DNA proves guilt, but I'm wavering on some others, particularly circumstantial cases.

[Lubbock]

Well, Rhino, the boss was back in the office today, but we were sooooooooo busy that I never had an opportunity to try to get an answer to our question.

Maybe Monday . . .

And . . . I'll tell you what's worse than circumstantial: eye witness.

I never used to believe that. I thought if a person saw something, they saw it. I've listened to enough Old Cops in my family tell horror stories about "Eye Witness" accounts and testimony, that I wouldn't hardly trust anything someone told me they saw when it comes to witnessing a crime.

[Riverboat]

This has gotten lengthy, wot? :DAnd quite instructive. I read every post from the top without losing interest or patience, until the phlegm coughed up by Cerberus hit the monitor.

The back-and-forth was civil and informative. If there were a Thread of the Month (or year) this would be it.

:claps:

[Beowulf]

And this is why I oppose the death penalty.

<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 622442" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>Rhino</TD><TD class=alt2>I don't oppose it where DNA proves guilt, but I'm wavering on some others, particularly circumstantial cases.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Trev, I'm with Rhino. Since DNA is 99.99% conclusive, I say if one is convicted on DNA evidence and the penalty is death then good. If DNA can exonerate conclusively then it can convict just as conclusively.

[Trevelyan]

Trev, I'm with Rhino. Since DNA is 99.99% conclusive, I say if one is convicted on DNA evidence and the penalty is death then good. If DNA can exonerate conclusively then it can convict just as conclusively.

Sorry, I misspoke. I should have said that this was one of the reasons I oppose the death penalty.

[dajoga]

And this is why I oppose the death penalty.

Not me...I would be a little cautious in some cases, but when the evidence is overwhelming, execute 'em, and do it in the public square and put the video of it on YouTube.

If Cho, had been caught gunning down the VA Tech students, you don't think he deserves execution?

How many non-rape cases have been overturned by DNA testing? More importantly, how many convictons since DNA available have been overturned? Most rape cases are a he said/she said debate if there's no DNA evidence.

DNA testing has greatly improved the accuracy of conviction.

Also, if someone is convicted wrongly, several things are true:

He/she was of the same race as the perp
He/she was in relative proximity to the crime scene
He/she didn't have a solid alibi.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

If Cho, had been caught gunning down the VA Tech students, you don't think he deserves execution?

You hit upon a good point dajoga ... I don't know many who WOULDN'T have shot him dead on the spot, but yet many of the same argue against the death penalty AFTER trial, conviction and sentencing to the same (death). Why is that?

I don't understand why STOPPING someone from continuing to pose a threat as they are in the commission of a fata crime is okay, but punishing them AFTER they've committed heinous crimes, have been allowed a trial, were convicted and sentenced to the death penalty and that is unthinkable?!

There is no logic behind this.

[Lubbock]

Rhino, I got an answer to our question, but an answer that I consider unacceptable: my boss said that once a person has been convicted, NEW evidence has to be introduced; then there is the appeals process: the appeal keeps going up and up to higher courts, and those courts are always reluctant to overturn a jury verdict [my comment is that no one is asking for a verdict to be overturned, just a piece of evidence examned that was not examined at trial]; and prosecutors are reluctant to open the flood gates for every defense attorney on the planet to start demanding DNA tesing [which is what you said: costs].

I don't think that any of that is a very good answer [or solution] to the conundrum of examining a piece of evidence that could exonerate the wrongly convicted, by using an EXAMINATION that was not available at trial.

AS TO DALLAS and this particular overturned conviction, or exoneration of the wrongly convicted:

Dallas has a new District Attorney. He's BLACK. And he's going to examine every old case possible where DNA is involved and could exonerate; he's also going to examine every case where a black man says he was railroaded by the police --looking for police misconduct.

In other words, he is apparently a Defendant's Prosecutor.

Look out Dallas. That light coming at you is a speeding freight train and your pocketbook is in peril.

[Rhino]

But a DNA analysis is new evidence.

[Lubbock]

My point exactly.

[Venus de Smilo]

Not grasping at straws at all. It not only could happen, it HAS happened and is still happening. Did you know that the people who set up Yalta on our side were Communists? Not sympathizers, not fellow travelers, not Lefty liberals, but actual, real communists? Why is it any harder to penetrate these labs than it was to penetrate Los Alamos? That actually happened.

Not at all grasping at straws. I've been rereading Witness and it has underscored for me, all over again, that we who pooh-pooh are doing just what they want us to do. I don't say this IS happening, but that it could very well be happening and bears looking into. It's the pattern that matters.

There's also an established pattern of misidentification and lying victims and witnesses that occurs in such cases as these, and juries that just plain don't like the defendant. There are also occasional jurisdictional patterns of railroading defendants as well as frequent incidental cases of prosecutorial misconduct or mistake.

The couple hundred people who have been released as a result of DNA testing would not be worth the risk of exposure of such a scheme. Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck are not my favorite people and they are indeed hard-core lefties, but there is no great benefit to leftist causes to be gained by such a scheme.

[Lubbock]

. . . There are also occasional jurisdictional patterns of railroading defendants as well as frequent incidental cases of prosecutorial misconduct or mistake. . . .

Which is what Dallas has a reputation for.

Always has had.

And my theory is, if more of the wrongly convicted, or the railroaded, were exonerated, it just might cause police departments and prosecutor's offices to clean up their acts.

The only thing worse than the guilty out running around loose is the innocent sitting behind bars.

[Venus de Smilo]

They didn't falsify the results. They just didn't initially report them. If they had falsified them, we never would have seen the true results as we did. However, as part of the oversight system, the defense got the lab results, and the rest is history. Besides, the defense likely would have demanded the samples be tested by another lab as a cross-check anyway. That's standard practice for DNA evidence.

And they got caught, didn't they? I quite frankly never understood why they did this. They were guaranteed to get caught.
It wasn't oversight that got the results to the defense. It was several discovery motions filed that put Nifong on record stating that he had no other knowledge, reports, evidence, etc., pertaining to lab results when, in fact, he had those results verbally from the lab director who did not include them in his final report or any report. They only got caught because of spectacular lawyering by a young lawyer who undertook to school himself on DNA analysis such that he was able to discover the truth within the raw data. The average schmuck would not have escaped the scam. Further, the lab director mischaracterized certain findings pertaining to false fingernails. One year, two dishonest judges, eleven defense lawyers, the attorney general and three state investigators later, the truth about the DNA came out. That wasn't "oversight", not hardly. There was no guarantee at all that they would get caught and people close to the case and others close to the legal community in Durham say it's by far not the first time. The laws in that state are from the dark ages and are made to order for prosecutors seeking to railroad people. Did you know that NC doesn't even have a speedy trial statute and it's not in their state constitution, and they've made habeas corpus and due process a joke through their calendaring and abysmal grand jury system? Further, the prosecutors control which judge will hear a case and if judges don't generally rule the way prosecutors want, the prosecutors can just freeze the judges right out of the calendaring scheme. Their grand jury system is deplorable and nobody in the state legislature gives a damn. Their state legislators are almost all former prosecutors and it's a wink-wink "we stick together, screw the citizens" criminal procedure system. The prosecutors in that state have a system that puts them in command with more power than I've ever seen before vested in the prosecution, and there are almost no checks and balances in place. It's a scary place. Nifong, who wanted to get elected so he could beef up his pension, played to the leftwing ilk and the black community who so wanted the rich, white boys to be convicted and sent to prison for forty years for being rich, white Duke students by taking the unprecedented step of engaging a lab outside the State Bureau of Investigation's lab to get another bite at the DNA apple. He found a lab that was hungry for a chance at garnering future government contracts and, as it turns out, was willing to forgo their usual procedures and reporting standards to show that they would play ball.

So I don't think DF's scenario is impossible, just extremely improbable given the complexities versus the rather obscure and nebulous end result.

[Rhino]

It wasn't oversight that got the results to the defense. It was several discovery motions filed that put Nifong on record stating that he had no other knowledge, reports, evidence, etc., pertaining to lab results when, in fact, he had those results verbally from the lab director who did not include them in his final report or any report.We may be arguing semantics. I consider that part of the oversight built into the system. Discovery motions are designed to prevent stuff like that.

[Venus de Smilo]

We may be arguing semantics. I consider that part of the oversight built into the system. Discovery motions are designed to prevent stuff like that.
I don't think you understand. NC has an Open Discovery law. Such motions should not be necessary. But for one extraordinary defense lawyer, the exculpatory DNA evidence would not have come to light, Nifong would still be the DA, those innocent young men would most probably be in prison, and the lab director would still be in his job ready to repeat his egregious breach of professional ethics and industry standards for the right price.

My point to you is that lab shenanigans are possible and untruthful results can be gleaned when science, an agenda, and malfeasant conduct intersect.

[Rhino]

I don't think we disagree. Such motions shouldn't be necessary, but the dangers you note make them necessary. They are part of the checks and balances (oversight) built into the system to prevent those dangers from becoming fact. And in this case, they did. Are you aware of any case where a conviction was obtained via falsified DNA evidence? I'm not. I'm not saying that there aren't any people out there who would want to do something like that, or that no one has tried. I'm saying that the system has enough integrity built into it to effectively prevent that from happening, at least so far.

[Venus de Smilo]

I don't think we disagree. Such motions shouldn't be necessary, but the dangers you note make them necessary. They are part of the checks and balances (oversight) built into the system to prevent those dangers from becoming fact. And in this case, they did. Are you aware of any case where a conviction was obtained via falsified DNA evidence? I'm not. I'm not saying that there aren't any people out there who would want to do something like that, or that no one has tried. I'm saying that the system has enough integrity built into it to effectively prevent that from happening, at least so far.
Not in NC, it doesn't.

Criminal procedures vary from state to state, sometimes quite dramatically. It's possible to do this in NC, and may be the case in some other states as well, although I doubt there are many. The more I followed the case, the more I learned about NC's criminal procedure, and the more SHOCKED I became. I am not exaggerating, Rhino. I could probably give you 5,000 words with footnotes on the subject. Built-in integrity? For one thing, it came down to ONE vote on the state bar disciplinary committee as to whether or not they should immediately move forward on the bar complaint against Nifong. Without the eyes of the nation on them, I doubt that they would have. The whole case was dumbfounding from every angle.

It's difficult for me to believe that this was the only case of its kind, given how easy it was to get away with. One person - just one - caught onto what was afoot.

As to your question as to whether there are any cases where somebody was convicted on falsified DNA, it appears there are hundreds. Try these for starters:

http://proliberty.com/observer/20060309.htm

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:sunvOCY-_SYJ:www.ncdsv.org/images/Nearly500militaryDNAcasesunderinvestigation.pdf+fa lsified+dna+convicted&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[Rhino]

Not in NC, it doesn't.Okay. Then please tell me when this has happened in NC.

Criminal procedures vary from state to state, sometimes quite dramatically. It's possible to do this in NC, and may be the case in some other states as well, although I doubt there are many. The more I followed the case, the more I learned about NC's criminal procedure, and the more SHOCKED I became. I am not exaggerating, Rhino. I could probably give you 5,000 words with footnotes on the subject. Built-in integrity? For one thing, it came down to ONE vote on the state bar disciplinary committee as to whether or not they should immediately move forward on the bar complaint against Nifong. Without the eyes of the nation on them, I doubt that they would have. The whole case was dumbfounding from every angle.No doubt. Yet the system found the discrepancy, hence my point. I share your disdain for the disciplinary proceedings that followed, but I wasn't debating that anyway.

It's difficult for me to believe that this was the only case of its kind, given how easy it was to get away with. One person - just one - caught onto what was afoot.Good point. While I would never claim that isn't possible, I, like you, doubt it. And quite a few convictions have been overturned based on DNA evidence. I have yet to see a case where the DNA evidence was deliberately forged, mishandled or witheld to get those original convictions. No one can rule that out 100%, but based on the track record so far, it is extremely unlikely. And based on the additional safeguards that get implemented almost every time cases like this come up, I consider the possibility in the future to be lessened rather than increased.

[Lubbock]

Rhino, Venus is right about North Carolina, and it's not just the criminal system that is convoluted. The civil courts are worse.

Long years ago, when I lived in Virginia, our office had a couple of cases that crossed paths with Carolina --and it's been so long ago now that I don't even remember what the cases were about or what the issues were, except one was a divorce, and I remember how many occasions the lawyers had to sit around scratching their heads and saying things like, "The law says what?" or, "The Judge did what"?

I remember very well that dealing with North Carolina was a real Dog and Pony Show.

[Venus de Smilo]

Okay. Then please tell me when this has happened in NC.

No doubt. Yet the system found the discrepancy, hence my point. I share your disdain for the disciplinary proceedings that followed, but I wasn't debating that anyway.

Good point. While I would never claim that isn't possible, I, like you, doubt it. And quite a few convictions have been overturned based on DNA evidence. I have yet to see a case where the DNA evidence was deliberately forged, mishandled or witheld to get those original convictions. No one can rule that out 100%, but based on the track record so far, it is extremely unlikely. And based on the additional safeguards that get implemented almost every time cases like this come up, I consider the possibility in the future to be lessened rather than increased.

Here's another:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-041020forensics,0,5107315.story

[Rhino]

That wasn't DNA.

[Venus de Smilo]

Rhino, I edited my post at 12:13 to include some examples for you. It has indeed happened hundreds of times......and those are just the ones who got caught. Given the number of known cases, it seems likely there are some, perhaps many, that remain undiscovered.

[Rhino]

Rhino, Venus is right about North Carolina, and it's not just the criminal system that is convoluted. The civil courts are worse.

Long years ago, when I lived in Virginia, our office had a couple of cases that crossed paths with Carolina --and it's been so long ago now that I don't even remember what the cases were about or what the issues were, except one was a divorce, and I remember how many occasions the lawyers had to sit around scratching their heads and saying things like, "The law says what?" or, "The Judge did what"?

I remember very well that dealing with North Carolina was a real Dog and Pony Show.Not what I was arguing. I said that so far, there have been no cases known where falsified DNA evidence resulted in a conviction. If you know of one, I would be happy to admit that I'm wrong.

[Venus de Smilo]

That wasn't DNA.
The Chicago Trib report wasn't about falsified DNA, but the others are. The Trib story is about a misleading serology testimony case and current lab deficiencies.

"Labs are supposed to be where science and the pursuit of justice merge, but too often they are a place where mistakes, omissions and a lack of rigor lead investigators down false trails that end in wrongful convictions. A Tribune investigation has found that across the country, forensic science is being undermined by unproven theories and experts who testify in a misleading fashion."

[Rhino]

As to your question as to whether there are any cases where somebody was convicted on falsified DNA, it appears there are hundreds. Try these for starters:

http://proliberty.com/observer/20060309.htmWilkerson: Was not convicted on DNA evidence.

Woodall: Was not convicted on DNA evidence.

Tuffish: Not enough information given, and I can find no record of the case.

Dotson: Was not convicted on DNA evidence.

Alejandro: You got me on that one. But I might also note that this lab is one of the labs that has had their oversight dramatically increased. That case also prompted independent testing, another safeguard I mentioned. That also leads me to believe the chances are less in the future. I never said anything was 100%.

I have an appointment, so I'll see about looking into the rest later.

[Venus de Smilo]

Okay. Then please tell me when this has happened in NC.

"No doubt. Yet the system found the discrepancy, hence my point. I share your disdain for the disciplinary proceedings that followed, but I wasn't debating that anyway."

The "system" did not find the discrepancy (which was in fact a fraud on the court). One lawyer out of a total of eleven defense lawyers found it, and that's only because these young men were able to afford hundreds of hours from the very best. Most can't. The attorney fees ran into the several millions. Could you afford that if your kid got arrested for a non-existent crime for which he was facing forty years?

My point about the state bar disciplinary committee is that the decision was entirely discretionary and there are no built-in mandates under which they must pursue a misconduct charge even when backed by irrefutable evidence of egregious malfeasance. The built-in safeguards that you imagine are managing the "system" are just that - imaginary.

"Good point. While I would never claim that isn't possible, I, like you, doubt it. And quite a few convictions have been overturned based on DNA evidence. I have yet to see a case where the DNA evidence was deliberately forged, mishandled or witheld to get those original convictions. No one can rule that out 100%, but based on the track record so far, it is extremely unlikely. And based on the additional safeguards that get implemented almost every time cases like this come up, I consider the possibility in the future to be lessened rather than increased."

I posted some cases above for you. Hundreds were convicted and sentenced based on falsified DNA evidence presented by the prosecution through testimony from lab "experts".

[Venus de Smilo]

Wilkerson: Was not convicted on DNA evidence.

Woodall: Was not convicted on DNA evidence.

Tuffish: Not enough information given, and I can find no record of the case.

Dotson: Was not convicted on DNA evidence.

Alejandro: You got me on that one. But I might also note that this lab is one of the labs that has had their oversight dramatically increased. That case also prompted independent testing, another safeguard I mentioned. That also leads me to believe the chances are less in the future. I never said anything was 100%.

I have an appointment, so I'll see about looking into the rest later.

Re Woodall:

"The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that Fred Zain, a police officer and serologist for the state of West Virginia, was such a hired liar. Upon Zain’s "expert" testimony, Glen Woodall was convicted and sentenced to serve 203 and 335 years in prison by a West Virginia judge. The serologist used blood analysis, hair analysis, victim identification and similarity of clothing as evidence. Zain told the court that the DNA was exclusively that of the defendant. As a result, only a conviction could follow. Fortunately for Mr. Woodall, he was able to obtain samples and sent these DNA samples to England. He also sent samples of his own DNA as well. The British laboratories reported that the DNA samples did not come close to matching Mr. Woodall’s own DNA.

Approximately 130 criminal cases fell under the microscopic review of Zain. Incredibly enough, the original analysis of Woodall’s DNA from Zain’s files matched the analysis from the British labs—Zain had provided the court with an erroneous sample. The West Virginia Supreme Court, in a special report on Zain’s misconduct, said that his behavior "overstated the results … reported inconclusive reports as conclusive … repeatedly altered test results…"
Once the 130 cases were reviewed by private labs using Restrictive Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) DNA testing or Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing, or both tests, all convictions were overturned.

Re Tuffish:

Mistaken eyewitness identification, coerced confession, unreliable forensic lab work (a.k.a. Zain’s specialty), law enforcement misconduct (Zain, again), and ineffective assistance of counsel remain the leading cause of wrongful conviction – which can lead to a life sentence or DEATH.
Zain’s career was over—or was it? Zain moved to Texas and presented his serologist and police credentials to Bexar County. He was hired as chief of physical evidence for the medical examiner in Bexar County, Texas. Zain continued to "protect and serve" the public in Texas by testifying and falsifying his DNA analysis reports in court.
A man named Tuffish was convicted and sentenced in Texas based upon more perjured testimony from Zain. See Tuffish v. State, 878 S.W. 2d 197 (Tex. App. 1994).
Thet costs of overturning convictions with DNA evidence in terms of lost years and public expense are huge, but necessary for justice to prevail. For this reason prosecutors argue that exculpatory DNA evidence should not be used in post conviction relief proceedings."

The Dotson case isn't relevant, I agree; it just happened to be inserted in the story - probably because Dotson was the first person ever to have his conviction overturned based on DNA.

Re Alejandro:

"In another case involving Zain, Gilbert Alejandro of Uralde County, Texas was picked up for sexual assault of a 50-year-old woman. The Uralde police canvassed the area until a "fit-to-suit" Mexican was found. Zane was borrowed from another counnty as an expert to conduct a DNA sample test. The DNA "could only have originated from Alejandro," stated Zain.
Later, after Alejandro’s trial, two jurors stated that they based their guilty verdict solely on Zain’s testimony. Alejandro would have been acquitted otherwise. Instead, he served four years before a private lab stated that the DNA sample could not have originated from Alejandro. On September 21, 1994, Alejandro’s charges were dismissed. Bexar County, Texas awarded the man $250,000. Once again it was discovered that Zain’s original results as found on his report stated that Alejandro, in fact, was not the person, but he had chosen to tell the court otherwise."

[Venus de Smilo]

Here's more on the ten year's worth of the Fort Gillem cases: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051121/news_1m21forensic.html

The last paragraph is quite ironic for any who are closely familiar with the Duke lacrosse case: "An audit by the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation concluded that the Fort Gillem forensic lab met all minimum criteria for a DNA lab, Grey said."

[Lubbock]

Not what I was arguing.

I know.

I wasn't arguing, either.

I was just throwing in a comment regarding North Carolina and their "legal system," and how convoluted it is to navigate and understand.

[Rhino]

The "system" did not find the discrepancy (which was in fact a fraud on the court). One lawyer out of a total of eleven defense lawyers found it, and that's only because these young men were able to afford hundreds of hours from the very best. Most can't. The attorney fees ran into the several millions. Could you afford that if your kid got arrested for a non-existent crime for which he was facing forty years?I think we're hung up on terminology. I consider the defense to be part of the system. Your point about affordability is well taken though.

My point about the state bar disciplinary committee is that the decision was entirely discretionary and there are no built-in mandates under which they must pursue a misconduct charge even when backed by irrefutable evidence of egregious malfeasance. The built-in safeguards that you imagine are managing the "system" are just that - imaginary.No argument about the disciplinary part, but that wasn't the system I was referring to.

I posted some cases above for you. Hundreds were convicted and sentenced based on falsified DNA evidence presented by the prosecution through testimony from lab "experts".They mentioned 130, but gave no details, so I can't really base a conclusion on that. I also imagine many of those cases, if not all, were pretty old. Many of the safeguards that I mentioned that are now in place, have been relatively recently introduced. I would never argue that there were not teething pains. The system has improved greatly, and I imagine it will continue to. At least, I sure hope that it would.

[DesertFox]

Nevertheless, that gives very strong credence to my concern about compromised science/DNA testing. Despite oversight.

[Rhino]

Re Woodall:

"The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that Fred Zain, a police officer and serologist for the state of West Virginia, was such a hired liar. Upon Zain’s "expert" testimony, Glen Woodall was convicted and sentenced to serve 203 and 335 years in prison by a West Virginia judge. The serologist used blood analysis, hair analysis, victim identification and similarity of clothing as evidence. Zain told the court that the DNA was exclusively that of the defendant. As a result, only a conviction could follow. Fortunately for Mr. Woodall, he was able to obtain samples and sent these DNA samples to England. He also sent samples of his own DNA as well. The British laboratories reported that the DNA samples did not come close to matching Mr. Woodall’s own DNA.

Approximately 130 criminal cases fell under the microscopic review of Zain. Incredibly enough, the original analysis of Woodall’s DNA from Zain’s files matched the analysis from the British labs—Zain had provided the court with an erroneous sample. The West Virginia Supreme Court, in a special report on Zain’s misconduct, said that his behavior "overstated the results … reported inconclusive reports as conclusive … repeatedly altered test results…"
Once the 130 cases were reviewed by private labs using Restrictive Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) DNA testing or Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing, or both tests, all convictions were overturned.According to this, DNA was not used to convict him. The judge considered DNA to be experimental, and would not allow it.

http://www.dna.gov/case_studies/convicted_exonerated/woodall

Tuffish:

Mistaken eyewitness identification, coerced confession, unreliable forensic lab work (a.k.a. Zain’s specialty), law enforcement misconduct (Zain, again), and ineffective assistance of counsel remain the leading cause of wrongful conviction – which can lead to a life sentence or DEATH.
Zain’s career was over—or was it? Zain moved to Texas and presented his serologist and police credentials to Bexar County. He was hired as chief of physical evidence for the medical examiner in Bexar County, Texas. Zain continued to "protect and serve" the public in Texas by testifying and falsifying his DNA analysis reports in court.
A man named Tuffish was convicted and sentenced in Texas based upon more perjured testimony from Zain. See Tuffish v. State, 878 S.W. 2d 197 (Tex. App. 1994).Again, I can't find a reference to that case anywhere.

AlejandroAs I said, you got me on that one. But, as I also noted, that was 17 years ago, and changes have been made since.

[Venus de Smilo]

I think we're hung up on terminology. I consider the defense to be part of the system. Your point about affordability is well taken though.

No argument about the disciplinary part, but that wasn't the system I was referring to.

They mentioned 130, but gave no details, so I can't really base a conclusion on that. I also imagine many of those cases, if not all, were pretty old. Many of the safeguards that I mentioned that are now in place, have been relatively recently introduced. I would never argue that there were not teething pains. The system has improved greatly, and I imagine it will continue to. At least, I sure hope that it would.

Rhino, the articles clearly demonstrate that DNA results have been falsified and those falsifications have resulted in convictions carrying lengthy prison sentences.

The state bar disciplinary commissions, state to state, are indeed considered part of the criminal justice system. They are, ostensibly, the check and balance for malfeasant lawyers.

The Duke case should be enough to exemplify that false DNA reports are still a reality.

It happened last year, not some distant point in the past you seem to think is the case. There is/was a recent lengthy investigation at Fort Gillem encompassing ten years' worth of courts martial cases of falsified DNA evidence. And there was Zain. Some 130 of his cases were overturned, exemplified by the several discussed in the article. Anyway, hundreds of cases of people serving hundreds of years in prison are not "no cases of falsification", certainly constitute a more serious matter than "teething pains", and last year isn't ancient history.

[Rhino]

Rhino, the articles clearly demonstrate that DNA results have been falsified and those falsifications have resulted in convictions carrying lengthy prison sentences.I've only seen one cited as an actual case, but admittedly, one is enough for your point to be valid. Now, where do we go from here? This all started with DF's comment, "...if there really are this many miscarriages of justice". I haven't seen "many", but for the sake of argument, I'll cede that point for now. Assuming the corruption is rampant, what is the point of this argument? Repeal the death penalty? I disagree with that.

[Venus de Smilo]

According to this, DNA was not used to convict him. The judge considered DNA to be experimental, and would not allow it.

http://www.dna.gov/case_studies/convicted_exonerated/woodall

Again, I can't find a reference to that case anywhere.

As I said, you got me on that one. But, as I also noted, that was 17 years ago, and changes have been made since.

LOL! Not in NC. There the system's forces work against a search for truth. Maybe the military is getting/will get it together, though.

Rhino, you can never remove the human factor from such processes, nor whatever temptations to do the wrong thing present themselves when the motive is powerful enough. The passage of time and access (not necessarily acquisition) to more and better resources is no guarantee that all is well as we see in some of these cases and saw in Durham last year.

[Venus de Smilo]

I've only seen one cited as an actual case, but admittedly, one is enough for your point to be valid. Now, where do we go from here? This all started with DF's comment, "...if there really are this many miscarriages of justice". I haven't seen "many", but for the sake of argument, I'll cede that point for now. Assuming the corruption is rampant, what is the point of this argument? Repeal the death penalty? I disagree with that.

There are far more than one. You simply dismiss them under some theory that because they aren't happening this moment or in the last year or two, they aren't valid examples, even though the fact that entities such as the U.S. military seem to think it's quite a real problem, given that they have an ongoing or very recent investigation into an admitted falsifier, and even though you simply asked for one example of one case of falsified DNA evidence resulting in a conviction. You also forget or completely discount what I've told you about what happened in Durham as to the viability of such a thing happening right now in our midst.

You ask what is the point. The point is simply that all is not so well in labs and no entity, public or private, is 100% trustworthy. I agree with DF about that and I've demonstrated why. They aren't the bastions of perfection we would like them to be. You maintain they are, no worries, and that such a thing as falsified DNA evidence has never happened and could never happen. It has and it does.

Your question about repealing the DP strikes me as odd. DF's concern is that the guilty are being freed, so I doubt he wants the DP repealed. I certainly don't.

[Rhino]

There are far more than one. You simply dismiss them under some theory that because they aren't happening this moment or in the last year or two, they aren't valid examples, even though the fact that entities such as the U.S. military seem to think it's quite a real problem and even though you simply asked for one example of one case of falsified DNA evidence resulting in a conviction.Not at all. I dismissed them because I haven't seen the cases. I've only seen the one. And since there were other discrepancies with that article, I don't think it at all unreasonable that I maintain a healthy degree of skepticism on cases that they have not cited, other than mentioning a number. I think I have clearly demonstrated that I'm willing to admit I'm wrong when the evidence calls for it. But I need to see the evidence first.

You also forget or completely discount what I've told you about what happened in Durham as to the viability of such a thing happening right now in our midst.I did not. The only thing I didn't address was the disciplinary part, which I said I was not attempting to argue.

The point is simply that all is not so well in labs. They aren't the bastions of perfection we would like them to be. You maintain they are, no worries, and that such a thing as falsified DNA evidence has never happened and could never happen. It has and it does.Please show me where I ever maintained that. I'm used to the libs trying to twist my arguments, but I find it disappointing with you. I never said the labs were perfect. I said there were safeguards in place to compensate for it, and protect from it. I freely admitted the case where it was shown that falsified DNA resulted in a conviction, and I never, ever said it could not happen. I said it was extremely unlikely. In fact, I said very early on that it was possible. Please do not engage in such dishonest debate tactics.

[Venus de Smilo]

Not at all. I dismissed them because I haven't seen the cases. I've only seen the one. And since there were other discrepancies with that article, I don't think it at all unreasonable that I maintain a healthy degree of skepticism on cases that they have not cited, other than mentioning a number. I think I have clearly demonstrated that I'm willing to admit I'm wrong when the evidence calls for it. But I need to see the evidence first.

I did not. The only thing I didn't address was the disciplinary part, which I said I was not attempting to argue.

Please show me where I ever maintained that. I'm used to the libs trying to twist my arguments, but I find it disappointing with you. I never said the labs were perfect. I said there were safeguards in place to compensate for it, and protect from it. I freely admitted the case where it was shown that falsified DNA resulted in a conviction, and I never, ever said it could not happen. I said it was extremely unlikely. In fact, I said very early on that it was possible. Please do not engage in such dishonest debate tactics.

Okay, extremely unlikely. In either case, you wanted one example. As to the examples, we must be reading different articles.

Oh, and I wasn't referring to the disciplinary action against Nifong in the Duke case. I was referring to the falsified DNA evidence....in NC....among other places where there are inadequate or no safeguards.

By the way, can you give me an example of an error-free, fraud-free lab?

[Rhino]

Could be. Let me check.

[DesertFox]

Well, my point was that the system may be corrupted. Venus how shown that that's not at all remote and in fact likely is a reality. If THAT's the case, then these dudes being released on DNA evidence may not be innocent after all, and releasing them and publicizing it as a miscarriage of justice is indeed damaging the system, as I imputed.

[Rhino]

Proliberty only mentioned a few specific cases, all of which I addressed. They mentioned 130 others Zain was involved in, but gave no further details of those. Of the ones I mentioned, they apparently erroneously claimed that two of them involved people convicted based on DNA evidence, when that was not the case. That tended to make me skeptical of their analysis on the others.

I haven't had the chance to review the The Virginian-Pilot article yet, as I stated earlier.

The Chicago Tribune article cited a man that was not convicted on DNA evidence, as you noted.

The San Diego article didn't mention any specific cases.

[Rhino]

Well, my point was that the system may be corrupted. Venus how shown that that's not at all remote and in fact likely is a reality. If THAT's the case, then these dudes being released on DNA evidence may not be innocent after all, and releasing them and publicizing it as a miscarriage of justice is indeed damaging the system, as I imputed.As I said before, I won't discount the possibility. However, since I presume that the prosecution in those cases would be just as concerned as you with validity, I imagine that they have gone to great lengths to insure themselves that the evidence is indeed real, whether that be via multiple tests or independent testing, or both. As such, I find the likeliehood to be extremely low that what you fear has indeed happened.

[DesertFox]

You got more confidence in prosecutors than I do.

[Rhino]

Okay. I reviewed the The Virginian-Pilot article. It appears to be essentially the same as the San Diego article, but with a bit more detail. I might note that the case they cite is not the one where the analyst admitted making a false entry. And if you review the details of that case, there is far more to it. The guy admitted to being on top of the girl when both had their pants off, and the evidence never indicated penetration anyway. It was a pubic hair, which could have explained the story either way.

http://www.dnalabsinternational.com/email_newsletter/vol_19_may_06/vol19_ref02.html

[Rhino]

You got more confidence in prosecutors than I do.Not a whole lot, but they have the most at stake, and are thus the most motivated to make sure it's correct. Just imagine what would happen to them if one of these guys was released on faulty evidence and they committed the same crime again. Baby!!!!!

[Venus de Smilo]

Okay. I reviewed the The Virginian-Pilot article. It appears to be essentially the same as the San Diego article, but with a bit more detail. I might note that the case they cite is not the one where the analyst admitted making a false entry. And if you review the details of that case, there is far more to it. The guy admitted to being on top of the girl when both had their pants off, and the evidence never indicated penetration anyway. It was a pubic hair, which could have explained the story either way.

http://www.dnalabsinternational.com/email_newsletter/vol_19_may_06/vol19_ref02.html

The only information relevant is that which addresses whether DNA evidence was falsified. Who was on top of whom, if indeed anyone was, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

There are many cases involved in the military lab set of cases. Mills admitted falsifying results. It doesn't matter which case he admitted to for purposes of our discussion. I guess I erred in thinking this was a macro idea/question we were discussing in connection with the cases and ramifications of, potential for, and conditions leading to falsification of DNA evidence. :D

[Rhino]

He admitted falsifying one entry. What that actually entails apparently has never been reported publicly. Since he was never charged with anything, I tend to doubt it was anything of great importance. Or maybe they're just taking their own sweet time. I don't know.

But back to what I was asking before. DF thinks no one should be released if DNA evidence exonerates them. Do you agree with that? I don't, though I'd be willing to entertain certain conditions in some cases. No two cases are exactly the same. However, if you had something similar to independent testing by two different labs unrelated to the case or the jurisdiction, then I would pretty much call that a slam dunk. That's just a for instance though. As I said, not all cases would be the same. The case of that Air Force guy would be one example of there being more to the story.

[Venus de Smilo]

Not a whole lot, but they have the most at stake, and are thus the most motivated to make sure it's correct. Just imagine what would happen to them if one of these guys was released on faulty evidence and they committed the same crime again. Baby!!!!!
I can see you haven't had the experience of working in a prosecutor's office.

What happens is that they indirectly blame the judge and/or the jury. Most of them try to rack up as many scalps as they can. Most are legit, but prosecutorial misconduct is more common than we hear about because most of it is explained away as "mistake" or is too minor or obscure for the other side to catch.

[Rhino]

:lol: Okay. I'll cede that. But They are very interested in preserving their own butts too.

[Venus de Smilo]

He admitted falsifying one entry. What that actually entails apparently has never been reported publicly. Since he was never charged with anything, I tend to doubt it was anything of great importance. Or maybe they're just taking their own sweet time. I don't know.

But back to what I was asking before. DF thinks no one should be released if DNA evidence exonerates them. Do you agree with that? I don't, though I'd be willing to entertain certain conditions in some cases. No two cases are exactly the same. However, if you had something similar to independent testing by two different labs unrelated to the case or the jurisdiction, then I would pretty much call that a slam dunk. That's just a for instance though. As I said, not all cases would be the same. The case of that Air Force guy would be one example of there being more to the story.
I generally do agree with the releases based on DNA evidence. I don't know the technical legal processes going on within the Innocence Project, such as what the protocols are or what criteria they use to decide whether to take a case, but I can pretty much guarantee that the lowest threshold of a showing of proof is what they would always want to put forward first and I doubt that the labs performing the exonerating tests get any extraordinary scrutiny. I know that Scheck and Neufeld are real hard-core lefties and are zealots advancing a cause as much or more than they are their "clients." So I'd like to see standards, protocols and careful measures designed specifically to ensure authenticity of test results implemented as the effort goes on, especially in older cases where witnesses, victims or their family members are gone and other evidence is lost. When the only ones left to stand up for the victim is the local prosecutor and his golfing buddy, the judge, nobody has a vested interest in making sure the testing procedures and analysis are impeccable such that the release is legitimate. I don't know enough about the testing process to say what those safeguards should be.

I would not be surprised to learn there's been a lab mistake in a case here or there that skewed the results in the defendant's favor in a way that created an illegitimate exoneration.

[Air Force Guy]

My mind goes immediately to the realization of how much power women hold over men (or held) in courts---with just 3 words, "he raped me" or "he beat me," they can put you away, effectively for life. One likes to believe that current DNA science would always exhonerate the innocent man but suppose no DNA samples exist on the woman (for one reason or another)? How much sobbing and fingerpointing would it take, absent of any other meaningful evidence, to have police cuff you and sit you in a cell until trial time (hefty bail keeps you in prison jammies)?

Even if exhonerated, you still likely have lost your job and your reputation... negative celebrity status. Did Tawanna Brawley get any jail time? Anyone ever hear of a woman serving time after "mistakenly" accusing a man? (ahem, Duke LaCrosse team)

[Rhino]

I generally do agree with the releases based on DNA evidence. I don't know the technical legal processes going on within the Innocence Project, such as what the protocols are or what criteria they use to decide whether to take a case, but I can pretty much guarantee that the lowest threshold of a showing of proof is what they would always want to put forward first and I doubt that the labs performing the exonerating tests get any extraordinary scrutiny. I know that Scheck and Neufeld are real hard-core lefties and are zealots advancing a cause as much or more than they are their "clients." So I'd like to see standards, protocols and careful measures designed specifically to ensure authenticity of test results implemented as the effort goes on, especially in older cases where witnesses, victims or their family members are gone and other evidence is lost. When the only ones left to stand up for the victim is the local prosecutor and his golfing buddy, the judge, nobody has a vested interest in making sure the testing procedures and analysis are impeccable such that the release is legitimate. I don't know enough about the testing process to say what those safeguards should be.I don't think the Innocence Project actually handles the testing, though I'd certainly agree with what you said.

[Venus de Smilo]

My mind goes immediately to the realization of how much power women hold over men (or held) in courts---with just 3 words, "he raped me" or "he beat me," they can put you away, effectively for life. One likes to believe that current DNA science would always exhonerate the innocent man but suppose no DNA samples exist on the woman (for one reason or another)? How much sobbing and fingerpointing would it take, absent of any other meaningful evidence, to have police cuff you and sit you in a cell until trial time (hefty bail keeps you in prison jammies)?

Even if exhonerated, you still likely have lost your job and your reputation... negative celebrity status. Did Tawanna Brawley get any jail time? Anyone ever hear of a woman serving time after "mistakenly" accusing a man? (ahem, Duke LaCrosse team)

All true and I agree. The system is heavily weighted toward the woman.

Perhaps the only benefit of idiotic shows like "CSI" is that people now expect there to be some physical evidence in such cases. When there isn't, they're more likely to acquit......unless there's a racial-politically correct-partisan-socio-economic-cultural agenda at work...such as in the Duke lacrosse case.

I haven't heard of a woman getting time for a false rape accusation, but I have heard of (rare) convictions, fines and probation for the relatively minor misdemeanor of filing a false police report.

All that needs to happen is to make the penalty for a false accusation of a crime the same as the penalty for the crime accused, and that'll put an end to most of such cases real quickly.

[Lubbock]

Venus, did you read the first part of the thread?

If so, going back to one of the issues that Rhino and I were wondering about, can you shed any light on the question of why Prosecutors and [apparently] the Courts are so reluctant to allow testing of evidence that holds DNA that could exonerate after conviction? [I didn't like the answer I got from my boss who practices a lot of criminal defense law. I thought the answer was imcomplete.]

I can think of a half dozen ways right off the top of my head to insure that results are valid and legitimate, not rigged.

Is it a fact that with today's high degree of techonolgy in the field, when DNA results are found, those results are indisputable?

[DesertFox]

DF thinks no one should be released if DNA evidence exonerates them. Um, no I don't. It was said early on (Twolf) that DNA evidence is 99.9% accurate. I said that corruption would make that accuracy useless. That's still my point, and Nifong is the best example.

[Rhino]

I sit corrected. Sorry if I misinterpreted that.

[Venus de Smilo]

I don't think the Innocence Project actually handles the testing, though I'd certainly agree with what you said.
Of course they don't do the testing, and I didn't say they did. Apparently I made a mistake in assuming that we both understood that we were talking about the labs......inasmuch as we're discussing labs (and their expert witness capacity in DNA evidence cases). It's those labs I'm speaking of that (I would like to see) be required to adhere to impeccable standards that are suitable to the import of what's at stake. I also would think my phrase "...I doubt the labs performing the exonerating tests..........." would make it clear that I was speaking of labs, not the Innocence Project, performing the tests.

[Venus de Smilo]

Venus, did you read the first part of the thread?

If so, going back to one of the issues that Rhino and I were wondering about, can you shed any light on the question of why Prosecutors and [apparently] the Courts are so reluctant to allow testing of evidence that holds DNA that could exonerate after conviction? [I didn't like the answer I got from my boss who practices a lot of criminal defense law. I thought the answer was imcomplete.]

I can think of a half dozen ways right off the top of my head to insure that results are valid and legitimate, not rigged.

Is it a fact that with today's high degree of techonolgy in the field, when DNA results are found, those results are indisputable?
No evidence is ever completely indisputable. That's what trials are for - to test the evidence, examine it, dissect it. But the playing field becomes lopsided when the lawyers, both prosecutors and defense lawyers, play fast and loose with the rules, presentation, context and characterization of evidence. DNA evidence is probably the most compelling physical evidence there is, but there are also cases where it's nearly irrelevant, depending on where and in what form it's found. Authenticated photographic/video evidence is equally profound.

Judges and prosecutors in particular are real big on res judicata, lol. Judges don't like the chaos of new trials, for one thing, and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of attempts to manufacture exculpatory evidence after a conviction has been entered, even though such evidence is presented by the defense as "newly discovered." Prosecutors rarely get a second bite at the apple, but the defense does, so it seems unfair to The People - not quite "cricket" - unless you consider the constitutional guarantees to the individual involved. Prosecutors don't want to give up something (a conviction) they already have anymore than anybody else wants to relinquish a "win" in exchange for re-fighting a battle they've already won, particularly when it can potentially make their office look bad unless they can cover up the misconduct or pass the blame for the error to someone else's shoulders. Where trials test evidence and are ostensibly a search for truth, a re-trial on a "convicted" case is the result of a search for error (such as overlooking exculpatory evidence) or misconduct, rocks that neither the prosecutor in particular nor the trial judge want kicked over.

[Venus de Smilo]

Rhino, I got an answer to our question, but an answer that I consider unacceptable: my boss said that once a person has been convicted, NEW evidence has to be introduced; then there is the appeals process: the appeal keeps going up and up to higher courts, and those courts are always reluctant to overturn a jury verdict [my comment is that no one is asking for a verdict to be overturned, just a piece of evidence examned that was not examined at trial]; and prosecutors are reluctant to open the flood gates for every defense attorney on the planet to start demanding DNA tesing [which is what you said: costs].

I don't think that any of that is a very good answer [or solution] to the conundrum of examining a piece of evidence that could exonerate the wrongly convicted, by using an EXAMINATION that was not available at trial.

AS TO DALLAS and this particular overturned conviction, or exoneration of the wrongly convicted:

Dallas has a new District Attorney. He's BLACK. And he's going to examine every old case possible where DNA is involved and could exonerate; he's also going to examine every case where a black man says he was railroaded by the police --looking for police misconduct.

In other words, he is apparently a Defendant's Prosecutor.

Look out Dallas. That light coming at you is a speeding freight train and your pocketbook is in peril.

Confidence in the jury system is the bedrock of our criminal justice system. A jury is a very serious body and is the trier of fact in a case (except bench trials, of course, and those are rare), not the judge. Overturning a conviction means second-guessing the jury and overturning the work they put into reaching a verdict. The more convictions are overturned, the less reliable juries are perceived as being, which undermines the entire criminal justice system and brings chaos.

Evidence is considered by the jury, as I said, not the judge. An appellate judge's job is to decide whether or not the new evidence would have been likely to make a difference in the jury's verdict. If the judge believes it's more likely than not that it would, he has to overturn the conviction/verdict and order a new trial in order to give the case to a new jury to consider the new evidence. The jury, not the trial judge nor the appellate judge, decides whether or not the prosecutor has proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt. There's no context at that point for evaluating it in terms of the prosecution's case. It has to be considered by a jury, and both sides get to examine the new evidence in front of the jury.

Defense lawyers spin, and convicts, their family members, friends, hirees, etc., can and do attempt to manufacture post-conviction exculpatory evidence. That's why its validity and potential is argued at the appellate level before a new trial order can be considered and a new jury ever sees it. Another reason is that it tends to be suspect just by its nature of lateness to the case.

Appellate judges can determine that the new evidence is so compelling that it undermines or is dispositive of all other inculpatory evidence. The judge can then decide that any remaining evidence, on balance, cannot sustain the original charge(s) the defendant was convicted of and then actually dismiss those charges, which frees the defendant. But if the new evidence is not dispositive of the conviction but more likely than not to impact a verdict, the appellate judge will/should overturn or set aside the conviction and order a new trial.

A defense lawyer has nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing more testing of evidence. Rest assured they would drive every DA's office in the country into the poorhouse and to a total distraction if they could receive post-conviction testing of evidence on demand.

[Venus de Smilo]

:lol: Okay. I'll cede that. But They are very interested in preserving their own butts too.
I forgot to ask: why the evil grin? And what is it that you cede?

[Rhino]

Of course they don't do the testing, and I didn't say they did. Apparently I made a mistake in assuming that we both understood that we were talking about the labs......inasmuch as we're discussing labs (and their expert witness capacity in DNA evidence cases). It's those labs I'm speaking of that (I would like to see) be required to adhere to impeccable standards that are suitable to the import of what's at stake. I also would think my phrase "...I doubt the labs performing the exonerating tests..........." would make it clear that I was speaking of labs, not the Innocence Project, performing the tests.I guess I sort of dovetailed what DF said earlier into what you posted, i.e. that the people wanting the tests could be involved with corrupting the process at the lab. They have standards for the labs to attain certification, but I don't know what they are. I know from reviewing other cases that the standards have been significantly tightened in recent years, though I'm certainly not opposed to further tightening. After all, consider what's at stake here. But as you and DF noted, no system is 100% foolproof. However, I think the attornies realize that as well, as multiple testing at different, unrelated labs has become somewhat of a norm, and even the de facto standard in some jurisdictions. Too many have been burned by lax testing in the past, or have heard of it, so they're being more careful than they used to be. That, coupled with the increased certification standards, is what makes me pretty comfortable with the system.

[DesertFox]

Venus has made this a HoF thread.

[Rhino]

I forgot to ask: why the evil grin?That's laughing, not an evil grin. This is evil grin: :evilgrin:

And what is it that you cede?That they indirectly blame the judge and/or the jury. That was amusingly true, hence the laughing. I imagine they would blame anyone they could.

[Wyatt_Junker]

If people are against the death penalty, they should likewise be against penalty of any kind.

If you're going to lockup some guy falesly accused for 20 to 35 years, only to be overturned, to me, that's far worse than the death penalty. I'd rather be chaired.

I think anti-death penalty dorks are overly emotional creatures. One part superstitious, another part afflicted with misplaced catholic guilt. They are maudlin suckers.

If we can't have a dp, then I don't want any laws. I don't want any punishment of any kind. I don't want traffic signs. They aren't in the perfect spot. I don't want rapists jailed even for a second. They could be innocent and ANY TIME taken unjustly away from a person's individual freedom is FAR WORSE than a mere death penalty. Its INCARCERATION fer freak's sake. And, to make it worse, you're alive while its all going on. At least with a dp, you can turn invisible and hide from the false shame and buggery.

No.

To be integrous, if you are against the dp, you also must be against all law, all form of punishment of any kind and all imprisonment. There must only be anarchy for it is the purest measure of a free society and no one will ever be falsely accused with a crime they did not commit.

(I don't really believe that, but the anti-dp'ers should to make logical sense. Anything else is merely annoying emotional sound coming out the end of a plastic kazoo.)

[Venus de Smilo]

If people are against the death penalty, they should likewise be against penalty of any kind.

If you're going to lockup some guy falesly accused for 20 to 35 years, only to be overturned, to me, that's far worse than the death penalty. I'd rather be chaired.

I think anti-death penalty dorks are overly emotional creatures. One part superstitious, another part afflicted with misplaced catholic guilt. They are maudlin suckers.

If we can't have a dp, then I don't want any laws. I don't want any punishment of any kind. I don't want traffic signs. They aren't in the perfect spot. I don't want rapists jailed even for a second. They could be innocent and ANY TIME taken unjustly away from a person's individual freedom is FAR WORSE than a mere death penalty. Its INCARCERATION fer freak's sake. And, to make it worse, you're alive while its all going on. At least with a dp, you can turn invisible and hide from the false shame and buggery.

No.

To be integrous, if you are against the dp, you also must be against all law, all form of punishment of any kind and all imprisonment. There must only be anarchy for it is the purest measure of a free society and no one will ever be falsely accused with a crime they did not commit.

(I don't really believe that, but the anti-dp'ers should to make logical sense. Anything else is merely annoying emotional sound coming out the end of a plastic kazoo.)
Anti-DPers are usually pro-choice, to boot.

Bizarre. It's okay with them to kill an innocent, defenseless infant, but it's a horror to kill a rabid murderer.

[Venus de Smilo]

Venus has made this a HoF thread.
Wow. Thank you for saying that.