More Ideas for Attacking "Junk" Science

Here is an excellent article at http://www.clpex.com/Information/Draft-McMurtrie_final.pdf - lots of footnotes, "also discusses other areas, notably Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis and Shaken Baby Syndrome, where petitioners have successfully raised post-conviction claims based upon new developments in forensic science."

The article, called "SWIRLS AND WHORLS: LITIGATING POST-CONVICTION CLAIMS OF FINGERPRINT MISIDENTIFICATION AFTER THE NAS REPORT, is by Jacqueline McMurtrie. It begins:

The National Research Council of the National Academies’ recent report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (“NAS Report”), was heralded as “‘a blockbuster that will completely change the legal landscape regarding forensic evidence.’”1 As the NAS Report notes, “[t]he number of exonerations resulting from the analysis of DNA has grown across the country in recent years, uncovering a disturbing number of wrongful convictions—some for capital crimes—and exposing serious limitations in some of the forensic science approaches commonly used in the United States.” Those of us in the legal community representing individuals claiming they are innocent and that their convictions were based on flawed forensic science awaited the report with great anticipation.
It is undisputed that people are convicted for crimes they did not commit. To date, there have been 255 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. A study of the first 200 exonerations identified 113 cases (57 percent) where forensic evidence was presented against the defendant during the original trial. As DNA technology has continued to improve, individuals convicted on the basis of
other types of expert forensic testimony—including comparisons of bite marks, hairs, voiceprints, earprints, and fingerprints—were freed when post-conviction DNA tests proved the earlier forensic identifications wrong. However, DNA testing cannot provide a remedy for all wrongful convictions because in the vast majority of cases the perpetrator does not leave biological material at the crime
scene and, therefore, there is no evidence to test.
Hence, non-DNA forensic evidence will continue to play a critical role in the criminal justice system, and the work of forensic science practitioners is “widereaching and important.”7 This Article’s focus on fingerprint evidence may at first glance appear to be an inquiry in search of a problem. It is true that only one of the 255 post-conviction DNA exonerations involved an erroneous fingerprint
identification.8 However in 2004, the highly publicized Brandon Mayfield case (discussed in Part IV infra) brought national attention to the question of whether latent fingerprint identifications are reliable. Other documented cases of fingerprint misattributions are less renowned, but exist. In the end, it is impossible to assess the prevalence of error of latent fingerprint identifications. First, no records document how many criminal prosecutions in federal and state courts in the United States are based totally or partially on fingerprint evidence.10 Second, fingerprint misattributions go largely unnoticed, as there is “[n]o mechanism for recording, compiling, reviewing, or analyzing [the] cases.”