The Texas Forensic Science Commission announced it will study pri­or crim­i­nal con­vic­tions to deter­mine whether mis­takes were made using dis­cred­it­ed foren­sic tes­ti­mo­ny. The Commission will employ DNA test­ing to review cas­es in which micro­scop­ic hair fibers were used to con­vict peo­ple of rape, mur­der, rob­bery, and oth­er crimes. It has recent­ly been estab­lished that it is impos­si­ble to match a hair under a micro­scope to a spe­cif­ic per­son. Forensic experts can make an ​“asso­ci­a­tion” between a sam­ple of hair evi­dence and a hair from a sus­pect. The state’s review is part of a nation­al effort by the FBI and the Justice Department to iden­ti­fy false con­vic­tions due to improp­er hair com­par­isons. Arthur Eisenberg, a Texas sci­ence com­mis­sion­er, said, ​“We have a moral respon­si­bil­i­ty to find out… We want to make sure con­vic­tions are based upon respon­si­ble foren­sic evi­dence. And we want to make sure there aren’t cas­es where undue weight has been put on that evi­dence.” Such review came too late for Claude Jones, who was exe­cut­ed in Texas in 2000. At his tri­al, an expert said there was a match between a hair from the crime scene and Jones. DNA test­ing lat­er showed the hair belonged to the victim.

(Y. Berard, ​“Forensic sci­ence com­mis­sion to review con­vic­tions based on hair sam­ples,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, August 11, 2013). See Innocence and Arbitrariness.

Tags
Citation Guide