According to the Innocence Project fact sheet, there have been 240 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. As you may imagine, a large number of these exonerations are due to improper forensic science techniques. Many State Crime labs are coming under scrutiny for using poor DNA testing methods. Others forensic scientists and expert witnesses have engaged in misconduct which has led to wrongful convictions.
The most recent DNA forensic laboratory under scrutiny is the Houston, Texas crime lab. I read a Houston Chronicle article which discusses the potential misconduct of crime lab analyst, Joseph Chu, during the muder trial of Charles D. Raby. Chu testified on forensic DNA test results of nail scrapings of the victim, saying they were inconclusive. Multiple experts have stated that Chu's testimony is inconsistent with the forensic DNA analysis.
In the case of Charles D. Raby, it appears that this man's conviction was based largely on the expert testimony of Joseph Chu. This is one man's opinion, albeit expert. The defense should have had the forensic dna analyzed by their own independent laboratory.
When insanity cases are argued in court, the suspect gets psychoanalyzed by two phsycologists. One of then represents the prosecution, and one testifies for the defense. They both describe their findings, and the jury decides who's story is more credible. Why is it that the jury accepts the prosecution's expert witness testimony as fact without considering that an independent forensic dna testing laboratory may report different findings?
