FEATURED POST

Iran Execution Trends Six Months After the New Anti-Narcotics Law

Image
IRAN HUMAN RIGHTS (MAY 28, 2018): On Monday, May 10, 2018, Iran Human Rights (IHR) reported the execution of Kiomars Nasouhi, a prisoner sentenced to death for drug offenses. This execution is the first drug-related execution registered by IHR since the latest amendment to the Anti-Narcotics Law was enforced on November 14, 2017.
According to reports by IHR, at least 77 people, among them three juvenile offenders have been executed between January 1. and May 20, 2018. Four were hanged in public spaces. Of the reported executions 62 were sentenced to death for murder, seven for Moharebeh (being an “enemy of God”), seven for rape, and 1 for drug offenses. For comparison, it is reported that during the same period in 2017, at least 203 people were executed, 112 were executed for drug offenses. The significant reduction in the number of executions in 2018 seems to be due to a temporary halt in drug-related executions as the number of executions for murder charges were nearly the same as …

In a Landmark Decision, Texas Forensic Science Commission Issues Moratorium on the Use of Bite Mark Evidence

Today the Texas Forensic Science Commission issued a landmark decision recommending a moratorium on the use of bite mark evidence in future criminal prosecutions in Texas until the technique can be scientifically validated. The Commission also and ordered a review of every conviction in Texas where the unreliable forensic technique was used. The decision was in response to a request by the Innocence Project to investigate the forensic practice that has contributed to at least 24 wrongful convictions or indictments.

“For far too long courts have permitted this incredibly persuasive evidence that is cloaked in science, when in fact there has been no scientific research to substantiate the practitioners’ claims that it is possible to identify someone from a bite mark,” said M. Chris Fabricant, Director of Strategic Litigation for the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. “By recommending a moratorium on further use of this unscientific evidence in Texas prosecutions, the Texas Forensic Science Commission has taken a giant step in purging unscientific and unreliable bite mark evidence from court rooms nationwide.”

Before reaching its decision, the Commission conducted six-month investigation and a held day-long hearing in November where it heard from experts on all sides of the debate. During the hearing, it was revealed that Dr. Adam Freeman, the president-elect of the American Board of Forensic Odontologist (ABFO), and Dr. Iain Pretty conducted a study of board certified forensic dentists where they asked to analyze photographs of 100 injuries, and in most cases, the practitioners were unable agree on which injuries were even bite marks.

Despite the fact that for decades courts have permitted forensic dentists to testify in criminal trials, there is a complete lack of scientific support for claims that a suspect can be identified from an injury on a victim’s skin. This was noted in the National Academy of Science’s groundbreaking 2009 report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, which found, “no evidence of an existing scientific basis for identifying an individual [through bite mark comparison] to the exclusion of all others.” Unlike the National Academy of Sciences’s report, however, the Commission specifically found that bite mark evidence should not be admitted as evidence.

In addition to recommending a moratorium barring prosecutors from using bite mark analysis in future prosecutions, the Commission ordered a review of past cases where the forensic practice was used. The Commission will appoint a panel of experts, including forensic dentists, to review transcripts of the cases. The American Board of Forensic Odontology pledged to help identify these convictions and stated that there are nine ABFO members practicing in Texas who will assist in this process.

The Innocence Project urged the Commission to investigate the use of bite mark analysis on behalf of Steven Mark Chaney. After a thorough investigation by the Dallas District Attorney’s Conviction Integrity Unity, Chaney was released in October after wrongly serving 28 years for the murder of John Sweek based on the discredited testimony of two forensic dentists. The case is now before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which must review the uncontested findings of the lower court reversing Chaney’s conviction. In addition to the Innocence Project, Chaney is represented by Julie Lesser, exoneration attorney of the Dallas Public Defender’s Office and the Southern Methodist University Innocence Clinic.

Source: Innocence Project, February 12, 2016

- Report an error, an omission: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com - Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

Most Viewed (Last 7 Days)

After 21 Years on Death Row, Darlie Routier Still Says She's Innocent of Murdering Her Young Sons

Oklahoma: Death row inmate in Tulsa bank teller's murder found dead at state penitentiary

Florida seeks death penalty for Miami mom whose baby died from scalding bath

Alabama prison system sees steep rise in suicides

California: Jury recommends death penalty for serial killer

Kentucky Supreme Court rules death penalty IQ law is unconstitutional

Belarus: Unprecedented Supreme Court decision to suspend death sentences

Texas: White supremacist gang members sentenced to death for killing fellow supremacist inmate

North Carolina: Man’s mental condition, past cited in capital resentencing

Texas: Gustavo Tijerina-Sandoval formally sentenced to death for murder of Border Patrol agent