Flawed forensic science sees wrongful convictions

Kirk Odom was convicted of a 1981 rape and robbery after a woman identified him as her attacker and an FBI specialist testified that hair on her nightgown was similar to hair on Odom's head.

But DNA testing 30 years later affirmed what Odom long had maintained: The hair wasn't his; neither was the semen left on a pillowcase and robe. A felony conviction that imprisoned him for decades was overturned in 2012 by a judge who declared it a "grave miscarriage of justice."

"I was hoping that I was going to go home that day," said Odom in an interview, recalling his trial in Washington, D.C. Instead, "they sentenced me to 20 to 66 years in prison."

Pre-DNA era

His experience is just one example of flawed forensic science from the pre-DNA era, a simmering problem that now appears far more widespread than thought initially. The Innocence Project, which works to exonerate the wrongly accused, has identified 74 overturned convictions in which faulty hair evidence was a factor.

Now, a new disclosure by the FBI that experts gave erroneous testimony on hair analysis in more than 250 trials before 2000 suggests that number could rise dramatically.

Defense lawyers say the latest revelations — on top of established concerns about bite-mark identification and arson science — confirm fears about the shortcomings of old-fashioned forensic techniques and could affect thousands of cases. Advancing technologies have put such techniques under more scrutiny, including from judges, and highlighted the limits of once-established practices.

"There are forces converging at the moment that are finally bringing some recognition to the failings of many venerable techniques," said Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the Innocence Project.

Microscopic hair analysis, which involves comparing hair specimens through a microscope, has for decades been an established FBI practice and passed along at seminars to hundreds of state-level examiners.

But critics say the technique lacks objective standards.

Although this kind of evidence may be used to include or exclude individuals who could be a potential source of hair, critics note that there's no way to conclusively know how common or rare the specimen is because no national database of hair specimens exists. A 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences described as "highly unreliable" testimony purporting to identify a particular defendant through hair analysis.

The FBI still considers microscopic hair analysis valid but also has acknowledged its scientific limitations and uses it now in conjunction with more scientifically reliable DNA testing.

Still, no one knows how many defendants have been wrongly convicted because the existence of flawed testimony — often just one element of a prosecution — does not establish innocence.

"What it does mean is that those cases need to be looked at very closely to see what role hair played in the case?" said Norman Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Home at the time

Odom, 52, always maintained his innocence, saying he was home asleep at the time the assault occurred. But the hair evidence and eyewitness identification proved persuasive, and Odom spent more than 20 years in prison before being released on parole in 2003.

The big break came when the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, which has focused attention on the flawed science and ultimately established Odom's innocence, reopened his case after the earlier exoneration of another local man because of faulty hair evidence.

DNA testing on evidence pulled from storage showed that the hair on the woman's garment could not have come from Odom. The conviction was thrown out — a relief for a man who had been a registered sex offender and whose travel had been hampered.

When the call came that he had been cleared, Odom was on a nighttime plumbing job, "and I just yelled out in happiness. It was a very joyful moment."

Original report here

(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here