Some Judges Still Allowing Disputed Forensic Evidence

Analysis of bite marks, latent fingerprints, burn patterns in arson investigations, footwear patterns and tire treads was once considered sound. It is now being denounced by lawyers and scientists who say it has not been studied enough to prove its reliability and in some cases has led to wrongful convictions. Even so, judges nationwide continue to admit such evidence regularly,

When New Research Proves Courtroom ‘Experts’ Wrong

Many wrongful convictions are based on forensic testimony and science later exposed as flawed. A California statute this year laid out the terms for granting relief to defendants challenging ‘expert’ evidence—but striking the right balance between evolving scientific research and trial pressures remains a challenge, says a UC law professor.

Decades Later, TX Couple Exonerated in Daycare Sex Case

Fran and Dan Keller served 21 years in prison for one of Austin’s most notorious and lurid cases — the alleged sexual abuse of children in their daycare center in 1991. They were freed in 2013 based upon errors in physical evidence used against them but had awaited the official declaration of innocence that came this week.

Flawed Forensics: Wrong by a Hair

The FBI has acknowledged that at least 13 individuals in Wisconsin were convicted as a result of flawed evidence involving hair and fiber, according to Wisconsin Watch. Such errors –a factor in one-fifth of all DNA exonerations— add fuel to the burgeoning national debate over the validity of forensic evidence.