Criminal conviction review

December 22, 2023

So far, I haven’t succeeded in interesting the WA attorney general in setting up a Criminal Conviction Review Commission. Even where new facts or new science emerges after a case, there seems to be no onus on the state to correct the conviction. And yet WA has had cases of a lab failing to meet standard DNA protocols. It has had one case where some evidence appeared to indicate time runs backwards. . It would probably be better if CCRC’s were composed of jurists from another state. It was concerning to see a judge the other day say that the probability involved in deciding beyond reasonable doubt should not be confused with statistical probability. In one case I was involved in many years ago, I asked if a numerical result should be given to include the possible experimental error. ie. was a result of 2.05% plus or minus 0.05% over the legal value of “two per cent”? I was told two is two. Several people lately have said there needs to be better understanding of the pluses and minuses of scientific evidence by courts. It can spell the difference between an interrupted life for the accused or no interrupted life.

For more on this topic, P&I recommends:

Giving science clout at court, and beyond

Juries seem either to love forensic scientists or just be baffled by them (or by the spin put on their findings by cunning counsel). Some judicial officers have been somewhat slower to embrace them with potentially disastrous consequences, not just in judge-alone trials, but when evidence is ruled inadmissible and does not go to the jury.