This morning's (Raleigh) News and Observer has a disturbing story about a man who is serving 23 years for a crime he likely didn't commit.
In 2006, Jemaul Green was convicted of accidentally shooting 10-year-old Christopher Foggs. The prosecution relied heavily on analysis of two bullets by SBI specialist Patti Desmond, who concluded they came from the same gun. And yet, new evidence has come out that suggests the bullets Desmond examined came from two different guns.
Desmond took no photographs. She scribbled down the measurements of the lands and grooves - the raised portions between the lands - on each bullet.
Desmond's examination gnawed at David Sutton, a Greenville lawyer who represented Green's girlfriend in charges stemming from Christopher's death.
Sutton wanted to see what Desmond saw. This spring, Sutton asked a former FBI crime lab analyst to photograph the bullets under a microscope.
Butt to butt, amplified seven times, the bullets look starkly different.
Several independent analysts believe that Desmond either doesn't know anything about firearm analysis--or worse, may have falsified the evidence.
Green has claimed for the last four-plus years that Christopher's brother, Taybron Raheem, accidentally shot Christopher in the midst of an argument between two groups of teens. The judge wouldn't allow evidence of Raheem's possible involvement into evidence, but might have changed his mind had he known about the contrasts between Desmond's testimony in court and her lab report on the bullets. Desmond's report said the bullets were "consistent" with Green's gun, and prosecutors shouldn't rule out any other type of gun. However, in court, Desmond testified that she was absolutely certain they came from Green's gun.
The independent analysts the N&O interviewed looked at the pictures Sutton's FBI friend took. To a man, they said that the lands and grooves had different widths--making it impossible to tell if they came from the same gun. One analyst said that the most benign interpretation of Desmond's actions is that she accidentally measured the same bullet twice.
More disturbing, to my mind, is that Desmond didn't take any pictures. The SBI doesn't have cameras for its analysts' microscopes, even though the N&O found they'd be very cheap compared to the other equipment analysts use. If those microscopes had cameras, the pictures would be almost DNA-level exculpatory evidence.
The N&O also found that SBI firearms analysts' training is so poor that some of them aren't allowed to testify in court.
In July, a judge in Wilson County forbade analyst Ron Bakis from being qualified as an expert during a murder trial after a defense attorney argued he wasn't experienced enough. Two days later, the judge also blocked testimony from his supervisor after questioning the supervisor's knowledge of the case.
Bakis, who has an economics degree and no science background, testified during the July hearing that he is still in training as a firearms examiner, according to a transcript.
I've said before and I'll say it again ... the situation at the SBI is so serious that a period of court supervision is the only way I can think of to clean up the mess. The current situation is nothing less than a fundamental violation of the rights of those accused of crime.
Update: Since this is on the rec list, I thought I'd call everyone's attention to the N&O's excellent series on issues at the SBI. This is the last of four stories in that series, and most of them make for horrifying reading.