The U.S. Supreme Court considers another case about a defendant’s right to confront forensic scientists on the stand, and San Francisco officials face allegations that they deliberately mislead state inspectors who were investigating the city’s crime lab. Here’s a roundup of this week’s forensics news:
For the third time in four years, the U.S. Supreme Court will
consider how laboratory report
s should be presented in criminal courts. This time, the issue is whether a state can allow an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing conducted by
another analyst who has not appeared
as a witness at the trial.
A controversial new DNA interpretation method was accepted in a UK court.
A secret court transcript implicates the San Francisco Police Department and the District Attorney’s Office in deliberately attempting to hide problems in the city’s troubled crime lab.
A North Carolina man whose conviction was based on the testimony of a discredited State Bureau of Investigation blood spatter analyst may receive a new trial.
The FBI opened a New Mexico Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory to allow local law enforcement to access the FBI’s high-tech digital forensic investigation tools.
An opinion piece in the Hartford Courant argues that insufficient resources, not the scientists, are to blame for a Connecticut crime laboratory’s problems.
Leave a Reply
Thank you for visiting us. You can learn more about how we consider cases here. Please avoid sharing any personal information in the comments below and join us in making this a hate-speech free and safe space for everyone.