Unreliable Forensic Science — Innocence Network
You are here: Home › Brief Bank › Unreliable Forensic Science

Unreliable Forensic Science

Melendez-Diaz, Luis v. Massachusetts (2008)

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel: Innocence Network
Case Number: 07-591
Position: Arguing that crime laboratory reports are "testimonial" within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, and hence inadmissible unless presented by live testimony of the author subject to cross-examination under the confrontation clause.
Issues: Unreliable Forensic Science

Jones, Christopher D. v. State of Wisconsin (2010) (2010)

Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Counsel: Innocence Network by Jerome F. Buting
Case Number: 2009 AP 2835-CR
Position: Firearm and toolmark evidence are no longer sufficiently reliable to be admissible as evidence.
Issues: Unreliable Forensic Science

Souliotes, George v. Evans (2009) (2009)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Counsel: Bob Barr & Innocence Network by Cooley, Godward & Kronish LLP
Case Number: 08-15943
Position: Advances in scientific research in arson cases support Souliotes’ claim of actual innocence and he exercised due diligence in bringing claim forward.
Issues: Unreliable Forensic Science

Bullcoming, Donald v. State of New Mexico (2010)

Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Counsel: Innocence Project, Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number: 09-10876
Position: The prevalence of wrongful convictions based on faulty forensic science, and the rash of crime lab scandals around the nation, have shown that the unchecked use of forensic evidence does not come without a price and therefore the reliability of a forensic report can be assessed only through confrontation of the analyst who prepared the machine, conducted the tests, and drafted the report.
Issues: Unreliable Forensic Science

Siller, Thomas v. State of Ohio (2008)

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District
Counsel: Innocence Network
Case Number: 08-90865
Position: New trial should be granted where conviction rested on snitch testimony and fraudulent forensic science.
Issues: New Evidence of Innocence Unreliable Forensic Science

Ford, Glenn (2007)

Court: Louisiana trial court
Counsel: Innocence Network by Sidley Austin
Position: Challenges to unsound forensic sciences should be basis for granting a new trial.
Issues: Unreliable Forensic Science

Louis, Quentin, Wisconsin v. (2010)

Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District III
Counsel: Wisconsin Innocence Project
Case Number: 2009AP2502-CR
Issues: New Evidence of Innocence Unreliable Forensic Science