If ever more evidence was needed that scientific evidence in criminal cases needs to be scrutinized more than it is, we have the story of Annie Dookhan, a chemist with the state of Massachusetts who is heading off to prison for at least three years.
Ms. Dookhan was a real go-getter, running tests at three times the rate of her colleagues. The only problem is she wasn't running the tests. She tampered with evidence, forged signatures and lied about her qualifications as an expert. All in all, at least 40,000 cases have her fingerprints on them.
Auditors found that she was analyzing samples at a rate vastly superior to her fellow analysts but that didn't raise any red flags. Even after she was suspended after admitting she forged another analyst's initials on paper work she continued to testify in court. Finally, over a year after she was caught falsifying documents, she confessed to investigators that she "screwed up big time."
Prosecutors were asking for a sentence of between five and seven years but the judge handling the case, Carol S. Ball, thought a sentence of three to five years was more appropriate because Ms. Dookhan was, according to the judge, "a tragic and broken person undone by her own ambition."
That may be well and good but it doesn't even begin to address the people whose lives were turned upside down by Ms. Dookhan's actions. While the New York Times article takes the obligatory paragraphs to list how bad some of the defendants were, there is precious little space spent on the other victims of her crimes.
But the bigger question is whether or not we've learned our lesson on scientific evidence. It is ironic that in the civil courts, where money is the only issue, that scientific evidence is treated much more seriously than it is in the criminal courts. While civil trials often come down to a battle of the experts on the interpretation of medical or scientific evidence, in the criminal courthouse the judge usually waves off any challenge to the evidence claiming any questions go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence.
So, instead of holding the state to its burden to prove that evidence was obtained and tested according to scientific protocols, the courts punt and let the jury make the decision. Judges would rather risk a few innocent folks getting convicted than do their jobs as gatekeepers of scientific evidence. It's more about judicial economy and not raising red flags that could affect other cases than it is about ensuring that the due process rights of criminal defendants are protected.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that most judges come to the bench straight from the prosecutors' office.
It is time that scientific evidence in criminal trials was treated with the same degree of seriousness as it is in civil court. If this means the courts should provide more funding so that criminal defendants can afford to have evidence re-tested or to retain outside experts, then so be it. We should all be much more concerned with protecting the rights of a criminal defendant than in protecting the bottom line of an insurance company.
If we can't trust the outside auditors, if we can't trust the internal reviews, if we can't trust the analysts, then who can we trust when it comes to scientific evidence in the criminal courthouse?
Showing posts with label scientific evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scientific evidence. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
At least it's not a needle
Police arrest suspect. Police take suspect to jail. Police take suspect's fingerprints when he is booked in for identification purposes. Police collect other scientific evidence for use in solving cold cases.
What's wrong with this picture?
According to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and four of his fellow justices, not a damn thing. You see, there's nothing overly intrusive about it. Just take a giant Q-tip and roll it around inside someone's mouth and you have instant DNA sample. No one is getting strapped down. Nothing is being injected in someone's body. And, best of all, now you have a DNA sample you can enter into a database to see if your new guest is implicated in any other crimes that have gone unsolved.
It is so strange, at times, to agree with Antonin Scalia. But, when it comes to Fourth Amendment issues, his goofy textualist philosophy generally works in favor of the accused. Justice Scalia wasn't concerned with the intrusiveness of the collecting of the sample. He didn't care if it was convenient. Justice Scalia had a problem with the fact that the sample would be used as evidence in investigating other crimes.
Oh, did I forget to mention the samples in question were taken without a warrant?
Yesterday the Nine in Robes decided by a vote of 5 to 4 in Maryland v. King, 569 US ___ (2013), that there was no need for the government to obtain a warrant to collect a DNA sample from someone arrested for a crime. Not convicted, mind you, just arrested.
The decision raises questions on various levels. First, since when do we equate a DNA sample to a booking fingerprint? The purpose of fingerprinting those arrested and jailed is for identification purposes. Down the road, should that person be convicted and find themselves on the wrong side of the iron bars again, that fingerprint card from the first arrest and conviction can be compared to the new card to identify those folks who have prior convictions are who are subject to enhanced sentences.
The fingerprints are also loaded into statewide and nationwide data bases that allow law enforcement agencies to compare fingerprints found at the scene of a crime to those taken of folks charged or convicted of various crimes.
The DNA evidence in this case would constitute scientific evidence that could be used against the arrestee in any other case in which there is a hit on his sample. The sample isn't being used for identification purposes, it's being used for investigative purposes. It is being obtained without the slightest showing of probable cause.
This decision, and all the other 5 to 4 decisions in matters concerning our rights under the Bill of Rights, raises questions about the reverence judges pay to the principle of stare decisis. If we are going to use these cases decided by one vote as precedent on which to base our rights, shouldn't we be concerned that in this vast democracy, a right was defined by one person who was not elected and is not accountable to the citizenry?
Furthermore, if a case is decided by but one vote, what does that tell us about the strength of the precedential power of that case? Knowing that the same facts could just have easily led to a different decision if the composition of the court was changed by one justice, should we rely upon those decisions to the same extent we rely on unanimous (or near-unanimous) decisions?
There is nothing magical about the nine who sit in Washington. They are men and women who have decided, based on nothing more than their own political beliefs, that they each know the correct method of interpreting a document written in the late 19th century - a document whose authors could never have imagined how much things would change over the course of 200 years.
Who's to say that Justice Scalia's textualism is any better than the idea that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are living documents that must change with the times? And where does the doctrine of original intent fit in? Does it really make sense to try to analogize the items of our modern society to the items at hand in 1800?
What's wrong with this picture?
According to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and four of his fellow justices, not a damn thing. You see, there's nothing overly intrusive about it. Just take a giant Q-tip and roll it around inside someone's mouth and you have instant DNA sample. No one is getting strapped down. Nothing is being injected in someone's body. And, best of all, now you have a DNA sample you can enter into a database to see if your new guest is implicated in any other crimes that have gone unsolved.
It is so strange, at times, to agree with Antonin Scalia. But, when it comes to Fourth Amendment issues, his goofy textualist philosophy generally works in favor of the accused. Justice Scalia wasn't concerned with the intrusiveness of the collecting of the sample. He didn't care if it was convenient. Justice Scalia had a problem with the fact that the sample would be used as evidence in investigating other crimes.
Oh, did I forget to mention the samples in question were taken without a warrant?
Yesterday the Nine in Robes decided by a vote of 5 to 4 in Maryland v. King, 569 US ___ (2013), that there was no need for the government to obtain a warrant to collect a DNA sample from someone arrested for a crime. Not convicted, mind you, just arrested.
The decision raises questions on various levels. First, since when do we equate a DNA sample to a booking fingerprint? The purpose of fingerprinting those arrested and jailed is for identification purposes. Down the road, should that person be convicted and find themselves on the wrong side of the iron bars again, that fingerprint card from the first arrest and conviction can be compared to the new card to identify those folks who have prior convictions are who are subject to enhanced sentences.
The fingerprints are also loaded into statewide and nationwide data bases that allow law enforcement agencies to compare fingerprints found at the scene of a crime to those taken of folks charged or convicted of various crimes.
The DNA evidence in this case would constitute scientific evidence that could be used against the arrestee in any other case in which there is a hit on his sample. The sample isn't being used for identification purposes, it's being used for investigative purposes. It is being obtained without the slightest showing of probable cause.
This decision, and all the other 5 to 4 decisions in matters concerning our rights under the Bill of Rights, raises questions about the reverence judges pay to the principle of stare decisis. If we are going to use these cases decided by one vote as precedent on which to base our rights, shouldn't we be concerned that in this vast democracy, a right was defined by one person who was not elected and is not accountable to the citizenry?
Furthermore, if a case is decided by but one vote, what does that tell us about the strength of the precedential power of that case? Knowing that the same facts could just have easily led to a different decision if the composition of the court was changed by one justice, should we rely upon those decisions to the same extent we rely on unanimous (or near-unanimous) decisions?
There is nothing magical about the nine who sit in Washington. They are men and women who have decided, based on nothing more than their own political beliefs, that they each know the correct method of interpreting a document written in the late 19th century - a document whose authors could never have imagined how much things would change over the course of 200 years.
Who's to say that Justice Scalia's textualism is any better than the idea that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are living documents that must change with the times? And where does the doctrine of original intent fit in? Does it really make sense to try to analogize the items of our modern society to the items at hand in 1800?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)