Radley Balko has a piece up on his blog that takes issue with an
interview that Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood gave to the
Jackson Free Press last week. Hood’s recollections and
characterizations about his office’s efforts — or lack of them — as
well as his personal comments about pending legislation are
disingenuous at best. His claim about what unethical pathologists,
including Dr. Hayne, can and have done to affect the outcome of a case
is specious. His position about Dr. West — that he doesn’t defend the
man’s work — is belied by his office’s position in several matters,
including the Leigh Stubbs and Tami Vance case, which was just
remanded by the Mississippi Supreme Court to the trial court for a
post-conviction hearing on, among other issues, Dr. West’s
malfeasance. The AG’s office defended West’s work in their pleadings;
I expect that they will defend it at the hearing.
You can read more here:
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/10/17/jim-hood-and-that-other-guy/
Tuesday, October 25, 5:30 p.m.
“MISSISSIPPI INNOCENCE”
The award-winning documentary, prepared by Ole Miss filmmakers and spotlighting the success of the Law School’s Innocence Project in freeing two Noxubee County men wrongfully imprisoned after murder convictions, will be shown and discussed by principal characters in the cases. After the screening there will be a panel discussion moderated by civil rights and defense attorney Rob McDuff — and including former Supreme Court Judge Fred Banks, Radley Balko of The Huffington Post, Campbell Robertson of The New York Times, and Joe York, director of “Mississippi Innocence.”
For more information about the film, please visit:
www.mississippiinnocencefilm.org
First Posted: 9/1/11 07:43 AM ET by Radley Balko on the Huffington Post
On Aug. 9, The Huffington Post reported on the case of Leigh Stubbs, a Mississippi woman serving a 44-year sentence for assault and drug charges. Stubbs was convicted in large part due to the testimony of Michael West, a disgraced bite mark specialist. Though West has been largely discredited, prosecutors and state officials in Mississippi (and to a lesser extent in Louisiana) continue to defend convictions won based on his testimony.
Click here to read more »
by Radley Balko of Huffington Post
Read article on Huffington Post here.
August 29, 2011
A widening scandal involving two longtime expert witnesses may become an issue in Mississippi’s race for attorney general this fall. Incumbent Attorney General Jim Hood has long defended two prolific but controversial forensic specialists who have come under fire in recent years: medical examiner Steven Hayne and forensic dentist Michael West.
West has testified in about a hundred cases over the years, and Hayne has testified in thousands. Critics have alleged for years that the two are guns for hire, willing to say on the witness stand whatever prosecutors need in order to win a conviction.
Click here to read more »
Relying on Scientific Research on Memory and Identification, Court Says Standard Set by U.S. Supreme Court 30 Years Ago Must Be Revised
(Trenton, NJ – August 24, 2011) — Today the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a landmark decision requiring major changes in the way courts are required to evaluate identification evidence at trial and how they should instruct juries. The new changes, designed to reduce the likelihood of wrongful convictions by taking into account more than 30 years of scientific research on eyewitness identification and memory, require courts to greatly expand the factors that courts and juries should consider in assessing the risk of misidentification.
“Today the New Jersey Supreme Court has said that the legal architecture set by the U.S. Supreme Court 30 years ago to evaluate identification evidence must be renovated. This is a decision that will ultimately affect every state and federal court in the nation,” said Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. “The court has recognized the tremendous fallibility of eyewitness identifications, and based on the most thorough review of scientific research undertaken by a court, has set up comprehensive and practical guidelines for how judges and juries should handle this important evidence.”
Click here to read more »
