skepticalcommunity.com

RCC

Today during a trial I asked a Forensic "Scientist" if he knew what double blind testing was.

He honestly had no idea.

Abdul Alhazred · "If I turn in a sicko will I get a reward?"

jj · Annoyed Truthteller

xouper

clarsct · Humor Impaired

jj · Annoyed Truthteller

Goshawk · She Who Does Not Necessarily Have To Be Obeyed

Wow.

Just out of curiosity I looked up the degree requirements for forensics at a randomly Googled university.

If he'd gone to Penn State, he would have gone through (among other things) 20 credits in chemistry, 8 to 12 credits in physics, and 8 credits in life sciences...somehow all without learning what double blind testing was.

Wow.

RCC

DrMatt · Music doesn't melt in your ear, it explodes in your brain

Well. Honestly, double blinding is a specific protocol for what scientists routinely call controls--a control for experimenter's bias. Where measurements are automated and done by machine, DBT might not always seem necessary.

It's difficult to apply DBT to the phases of the moon or to a titration. But a forensic scientist should have specific knowledge not only of controls but of DBTs and should have the ability to explain them in detail to a court and a jury, as full understanding of them enhances confidence in correctly-obtained results, or may be used to shed doubt on improperly obtained results.

The most seasoned practitioners of DBTs generally forget the importance of beginning them with a totally not-blinded test, to capture essential sociologic data about the participants.

jj · Annoyed Truthteller

DrMatt · Music doesn't melt in your ear, it explodes in your brain

If you're going to ask that, bring your own expert in. In Federal courts at least, jurors are expressly forbidden from looking things up in a library or on-line during the trial.

jj · Annoyed Truthteller

Cool Hand · Non-conformist son of a bitch

Forensic scientists and the prosecutors who call them to testify can be really stupid sometimes. A few years ago I defended a guy against charges in an indictment for First Degree Rape and First Degree Burglary. The state's theory of the case was that my guy broke into a 28-year-old woman's home thorough a window in her bedroom and raped her while she was asleep (they claimed she apparently slept through the 220 lb man crawling through a small window, landing on her bed, and pulling her underpants off and entering her and having sex with her).

Anyway, throughout the trial, beginning with the jury selection questioning process, throughout the defense's opening, it was obvious that the fact that these two people had had sexual relations that night/early morning was not in dispute. We fully admitted they had had sex. The only issue was whether it was consensual or not. Period.

Despite this, the prosecutor had brought in from out of town a state expert rape kit analysis expert to prove....wait for it....that this man had had sex with the accuser that night. D'oh! We didn't dispute that fact, dumbshits. I admitted it explicitly and quite candidly in voir dire and in opening statements. Nevertheless, the state dutifully and unthinkingly called that witness to the stand.

Thereafter ensured a good hour of incredibly dry, dull, boring testimony about rape kits, how they work, what they show, and what procedures they followed in this case. Finally, the dramatic conclusion was stated. This man had had sex with this woman! Wow.

I didn't really have any point to make on cross examination of this state's witness, because she hadn't said anything that we didn't already admit to. Sex was never the issue. Consent was. Nevertheless, I thought it might look like we were rolling over and giving up if I didn't ask her at least something. So I drew on my experience in cross examining a DNA expert in another case, and I asked pretty irrelevant stuff about alleles and DNA in general. I wanted to demonstrate to the jury that I was no stranger to this stuff, and also to see if the expert might say something dumb I could seize on. She didn't. Finally, I asked the only thing relevant to this case that came from this witness, on direct or cross examination.

"Dr. Y, all this rape kit testing you've been testifying about in this case, none of it can tell you anything at all about whether these two people had consensual sex or not, can it?"

She looked at me with a puzzled expression, as if I were asking if the moon were made of green cheese.

"Well, no," she replied.

"Thank you, Dr. Y. No more questions, your honor."

Ha ha. The state looked really stupid. They just wasted an hour and fifteen minutes of trial time, including the jury's.

Later, in chambers, the judge was actually mad at me. He asked me why I made the state bring that witness in from out of town and have her testify (he was concerned about the state's budget for the courts, and how I was wasting it). Why didn't I just stipulate to what she would say? I was taken aback. I told the judge that the state never disclosed to me that that witness was expected to testify, and by Ed, I didn't stipulate to what she was going to say because they never asked me to. Incredibly, he was mad at me. Shit, I just crossed the witness for about 15 minutes. The state was stupid enough to bring her in from out of town and examine her on the stand for an hour. Not my problem. I didn't make them do that. They were perfectly capable of being idiots without my help. Besides, the defense isn't required to stipulate to anything. The defense has no burden of proof whatsoever.

No worries, however, as the accused herself was the best witness for the defense. Her story was terrible, full of holes, and just wasn't plausible.

The jury acquitted my guy of all charges.

Moral of the story: before anyone goes bashing criminal defense attorneys for what they do, check to see how stupid and foolish prosecutors can be too (of course this was before the Michael Nifong disaster that brought that particular issue to the forefront).

CH

clarsct · Humor Impaired

Well.

I have had my opinion changed on the idea that all lawyers are scum.

Now I am convinced that merely 97% of them are scum.

I say, I say...that was a JOKE, son.

In all reality, if any of us were in trouble with the law, we'd more than likely look for a good defense attorney.
Dad ran a Towing service. More than one person accused us of preying on the misfortunate and padding our bottom line. But, in reality, we were charging a fair price for a necessary service. How the fuck else were you getting your broken-ass car home?

Sometimes defense attorneys can go too far, sometimes prosecutors can go too far, too. We're only human, after all.

Geni · Anti-homeopathy illuminati member