As an intern at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I had the chance to work on the case the article discusses, discrediting Shaibani, but chose a different case instead.
It's pretty disturbing how easily questionable scientific conclusions masquerade as absolute, undeniable fact. When you have dueling experts, I really don't think that the common jury has the capacity to assess which is more credible. We use experts in matters that are beyond the common knowledge of jurors, so how are those same jurors supposed to assess the strength of the science?
This is what happens when people in the sciences are employed to reach a specific conclusion. This is no different than talking about "scientific consensus" with regards to, say anthropocentric global warming. Instead of formulating your hypothesis after research and experimental design, you start with your conclusion and try to work backwards. When "experiments" are performed in this manner, it's almost amazing how the pieces always seem to fit into place...
And yes, it's amazing how easy it is to dupe just about anyone with some jargon and a few pretty pictures (shiny objects work also).
In the Ochoa case which Balko and Koppl linked, the Orange County DA asked (an understatement) the Sheriff's Department Crime Lab to falsify evidence. That fact was apparently brought to the attention of the court in sworn testimony by the forensic specialist.
I think none of the reforms Balko and Koppl suggest would address that situation except very indirectly.
What would address it, prosecuting the involved DAs for suborning perjury or falsifying evidence, hasn't happened. It probably won't happen. They are free to do it again, and probably will.
That should strike fear and loathing into the hearts of even the most ardent proponents of "law and order".
What would address it, prosecuting the involved DAs for suborning perjury or falsifying evidence, hasn't happened.
Thats a start. Cops and prosecutors "testilie" all the time. They coined the word. They getaway with it because "charging them would ruin their careers".
Prison would be a good career choice for me?
Nifong should be in prison.*
*After a trial a long way away from his jurisdiction.
State of Wisconsin v. Plude
It's pretty disturbing how easily questionable scientific conclusions masquerade as absolute, undeniable fact. When you have dueling experts, I really don't think that the common jury has the capacity to assess which is more credible. We use experts in matters that are beyond the common knowledge of jurors, so how are those same jurors supposed to assess the strength of the science?
And yes, it's amazing how easy it is to dupe just about anyone with some jargon and a few pretty pictures (shiny objects work also).
I think none of the reforms Balko and Koppl suggest would address that situation except very indirectly.
What would address it, prosecuting the involved DAs for suborning perjury or falsifying evidence, hasn't happened. It probably won't happen. They are free to do it again, and probably will.
That should strike fear and loathing into the hearts of even the most ardent proponents of "law and order".
Thats a start. Cops and prosecutors "testilie" all the time. They coined the word. They getaway with it because "charging them would ruin their careers".
Prison would be a good career choice for me?
Nifong should be in prison.*
*After a trial a long way away from his jurisdiction.