
This opinion piece was published in the Houston Chronicle under the names of several authors, but the Amarillo Globe-News version simply mentions Jeff Blackburn, so I am assuming he is the author. “Stop presenting ‘junk science’ in capital trials” Blackburn says. You can find the heart of his argument pasted at the end of my remarks.
The focus here is on Texas, but the problem is nationwide. In the most recent Curtis Flowers trial, one ballistics expert testified that he could say with 100% certainty that the gun stolen from Doyle Simpson’s car was the murder weapon. A second expert restricted himself to the obvious: the evidence didn’t lend itself to 100% certainty about anything. All any competent ballistics expert could say for sure was that the evidence found at the crime scene was consistent with the .380 pistol allegedly stolen from Mr. Simpson’s car, but the shell casings could also have come from a similar weapon.
Blackburn concentrates on expert witnesses who don’t know what they are talking about; but a lot of expert testimony is biased in favor of the prosecution because that’s where the money is. Indigent defendants rarely have the money to hire their own experts and most capital defendants are indigent.
In Blackburn’s opinion, the Cameron Todd Willingham case isn’t primarily about the execution of an innocent man; it’s about junk science.
Do we really have to choose here? (more…)




Jeffrey Miron’s op-ed in the Los Angeles Times


