November 4, 2024
5 minimum read
Laws must also respond to changes in science.
What was once fair under the law can become unfair as the science changes. The law must respond to protect due process.
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon shakes hands with Kitty Menendez’s sister, Joanne Vandermolen, after announcing his decision to recommend a possible retrial for Eric and Lyle Menendez. . The brothers are in prison for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez.
It’s been an amazing few weeks in the world where science and law intersect. Robert Roberson’s execution was delayed because no one but the Supreme Court of Texas and the United States knew that the medical theory on which he was convicted (shaken baby syndrome) was originally based on bad science. This is because they are aware of this. The life sentences without parole for Lyle and Eric Menendez, who were convicted of murdering their parents, have also been questioned, as researchers at the time found that the effects of their childhood abuse on their mental health. Because I didn’t understand it.
While the law aims to provide a fair process in a timely manner, science seeks to discover the truth over time. This means that what was once fair can become unfair. What was right in the past may be unjust today. Roberson and the Menendez brothers are victims of that very divide.
In both cases, scientific understanding changed several years ago. Shaken baby syndrome was questioned in the early 2010s, years before psychologists identified a link between childhood abuse trauma and violence. But all three are having trouble getting their cases reopened. An essential principle of science is that it can change as research accumulates. It is a principle that the law hardly understands. This failure threatens the constitutional guarantee of due process.
About supporting science journalism
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. Currently subscribing. By subscribing, you help ensure future generations of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape the world today.
The cases of Mr. Roberson and Mr. Menendez are not unusual. The history of law has many stories of what we once thought to be scientific truths, which judges and juries used to make decisions in civil and criminal cases, only to later realize that the science was wrong. There are plenty of examples listed. In 2004, Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for the 1992 arson murders of his family. At the time of his execution, the forensic science that linked him to the fire had been completely invalidated. In a 2015 press release, the FBI reported that its ongoing investigation into non-DNA-based microscopic hair identification had errors in 90% of cases. Similarly, prosecutors’ use of a dubious theory known as comparative bullet lead analysis was ultimately abandoned after scientific reports revealed its statistical basis to be false. To this day, courts continue to admit bite mark identification testimony, even though people who claim to be bite mark experts cannot even agree on whether a bite mark was caused by a human or a dog. And what we know about firearm identification and fingerprints is changing, and many convictions may be based on things that are no longer true.
When science changes, society changes rapidly. Scientists once said that butter was bad for you and margarine was better. Then we found out how bad margarine was and started eating butter again. With lives at stake, justice requires us to make swift changes. In fact, the Constitution’s guarantee of due process is so important that it is enshrined in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, stating that “life, liberty, and property” shall not be deprived without “due process.” We promise.
The law has never been a sophisticated consumer of science, but it needs to become one. There are two important things that the U.S. legal system needs to do to ensure due process when scientific evidence is part of a criminal prosecution.
Judges should be the “gatekeepers” to bad science entering the courtroom. This is how the Supreme Court interpreted the rules of evidence. Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals They must go the extra mile to meet this obligation. In fact, their failure to meet this responsibility means that defendants are wrongly convicted, and future courts will be called upon to correct these miscarriages of justice.
For example, the use of pre-1995 arson investigations and the scientific literature supporting non-DNA hair identification and bite marks are clearly insufficient to be admissible in court, much less to support a conviction. It is. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a scathing report on the state of forensic medicine. In 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology reviewed scientific research on several areas of forensic pattern matching evidence, including DNA, latent fingerprints, bite marks, firearms, hair, and footwear, and concluded that DNA profiling is not solely scientific. I found proof. Fingerprints barely give a passing grade.
Second, the law should provide a mechanism for post-conviction relief based on changing understandings of science. This, of course, includes cases where the court initially made a wrong decision. This can be done, for example, through judicial interpretation of the Due Process Clause or through legislative action. Texas has just such a law in place, but enforcement has so far been weak. Under Texas law, “relevant (and admissible) scientific evidence is currently available and was not available at the time of the convicted person’s trial because, even after the exercise of reasonable care, If it could not be ascertained…’, a petition for habeas corpus may be considered. Before or during the trial of a convicted person. ” In other words, a convicted person like Roberson can ask the court to reconsider the case because the scientific evidence has changed.
California has a similar law that allows for challenges to “false evidence” presented in court. False evidence is defined as including “an expert opinion that has been contradicted by the expert who originally gave the opinion at a hearing or trial, or that has been undermined by subsequent scientific research or technological advances.” Masu. Other states are following suit.
But unless enforced by the courts, these efforts will be illusory at best and unconscionable at worst. Roberson has been on death row for 20 years, and the Menendez brothers were sentenced more than 28 years ago. Despite what we now know about shaken baby syndrome, the state of Texas denied Roberson’s appeal. The time it took to reconsider the Menendez brothers’ convictions far exceeds the time needed for the science of abuse, trauma, and violence to change.
American law has traditionally provided mechanisms to ensure that everyone has a fair day in court. Impartiality requires the opportunity to hear cases in light of the best science currently available. And when the stakes are particularly high, as in the Roberson and Menendez cases, people with criminal convictions reopen their cases when their understanding of the science that posed their danger changes. should have continuing rights. Such an outcome allows fairness and truth to align to ensure justice is done.
This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the author. scientific american.
