Justice Will Review Two Dozen Capital Cases Due to Flawed FBI Testimony

An expert witness testifies at a trial to provide evidence in his or her field. Over the course of several decades beginning in the late 1970s, witnesses with the FBI went further, suggesting that particular evidence—hair-match analysis—was a stronger indicator of guilt than the science supports. They tried, in other words, to help prosecute the case.

Now, in an apparently unprecedented move, the Department of Justice has agreed to review 120 convictions that may have been influenced by the agents’ exaggerated testimony. In 27 of those cases, the convicted individuals were sentenced to death.

If so, the department will assist the class of prisoners in unprecedented ways, including waiving statutes of limitations and other federal rules that since 1996 have restricted post-conviction appeals. The FBI also will test DNA evidence if sought by a judge or prosecutor.

As many as 21,000 cases may have been affected by similar testimony. The Innocence Project, one of the groups that worked with the Department of Justice on the issue, explained why the cases are being reconsidered.

In 1992, Willie Jerome Manning was convicted of killing two students in Mississippi, in part based on an FBI expert’s testimony that hair fragments found in the victims’ car were from an African-American male. Manning’s capital sentence was stayed after the Justice Department acknowledged the flaws in that testimony.

There is other evidence suggesting Manning’s guilt, prosecutors noted in the aftermath of the stay. The review of the 27 other capital cases, however, could end up casting serious doubt on capital punishment on the whole. “Some opponents have long held that the execution of a person confirmed to be innocent would crystallize doubts about capital punishment,” the Post writes. “But if DNA or other testing confirms all convictions, it would strengthen proponents’ arguments that the system works.”

Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Post accessed some of the reviews of testimony that were conducted after the discovery of flawed analysis 16 years ago. One, the case of Texas v. Benjamin Boyle, describes the ways in which the testimony provided at trial overstated the science of the hair analysis match.

Testimony given that microspectrophotometry is a ‘spectral fingerprint’ which determines ‘what kind of dye is in that fiber’ and ‘means they have the same dye.’ All 3 are incorrect. Testimony is over-stated as to specificity of microspectrophotometry.

Boyle was executed on April 21, 1997.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: