#402 Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science - Tool Mark Analysis

Wrongful Conviction

Lava for Good Podcasts

True Crime

4.6 • 5.7K Ratings

🗓️ 30 October 2023

⏱️ 38 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

The notion that tools leave a unique mark on a surface is commonly presented to unsuspecting juries. But, it turns out that it's not necessarily the case at all.

Josh Dubin talks about Tool Mark Analysis with Tim Requarth, a freelance journalist who often writes about the intersection between science and criminal justice and a lecturer in science and writing at New York University.

Kate Judson, Executive Director of the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences, updates Josh Dubin's Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science.
Learn more and get involved.

“Forensic Science Put Jimmy Genrich in Prison for 24 Years. What if It Wasn’t Science” By Meehan Crist and Tim Requarth https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-crisis-of-american-forensics/https://cifsjustice.org/donate/https://opd.ohio.gov/law-library/innocence/wrongful-conviction-project www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/junk-science

Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Hey folks, Kate Judson here. I'm a lawyer and the executive director of the Center for
0:05.6	Integrity and Forensic Sciences. We're back with another episode of Junk Science, a series
0:12.2	we first released in 2020, but these stories are just as relevant as ever. This episode
0:18.6	is about toolmark evidence, which includes the long-used practice of matching ammunition
0:24.0	to specific firearms. For decades, ammunition matching has been seen as a highly reliable
0:30.8	way to link a suspect to a crime scene, but the actual reliability of this type of evidence
0:38.0	is increasingly being questioned. Just recently in June of 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland
0:45.8	ruled that ballistic matching may only be represented in court by experts as consistent
0:52.8	or inconsistent with the gun in question. Like other courts in the past few years, they
1:02.4	see an issue with this type of evidence, something we'll explore in more detail later in
1:07.2	the episode. This ruling could have huge consequences for wrongful conviction actions
1:12.7	in Maryland and beyond. While it doesn't automatically reopen cases, lawyers and wrongfully
1:19.1	convicted people can use it to petition courts for relief.
1:29.0	It's Valentine's Day, 1991. You don't usually observe the greeting card holidays. You
1:35.7	think they're kind of silly, and besides most of the time, you and your partner are both
1:40.7	busy working. You're always buried in your client's cases, and your partner is often
1:46.2	on call, running back and forth to the hospital to treat patients.
1:51.4	Your friends are always remarking that you're the classic power couple, but sometimes it
1:56.0	seems like it's all power and not so much a couple. So this year, you make dinner, put
2:02.6	out a tablecloth, and even light a candle. At the end of dinner, you do the dishes, and
2:08.5	your partner takes out the trash. The TV is on low in the background, but something
2:14.6	makes your ears perk up. You glance over and see the newswoman reporting from a parking
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Lava for Good Podcasts, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Lava for Good Podcasts and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.