By Lynn Garcia and Leigh Savage From time to time, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issues a decision that causes stakeholders in the criminal justice system to take a collective pause. Michael Morton’s case is a good example of this.1 The San Antonio Four case is another.2 More recently, the Court of Criminal Appeals issued a landmark decision in Ex Parte Chaney, a bite mark case with national significance.3 All of these cases involved convictions for which certain scientific evidence and related testimony was offered at trial. At trial, attorneys and judges believed the testifying scientists or medical experts based their analysis on sound scientific principles. But when viewed today with a better understanding of the limitations of certain forensic disciplines, the testimony offered at trial is unsupportable. In all of these cases, key scientific experts subsequently recanted critical testimony, admitting what they originally said at trial is invalid. Combined, the defendants in these three cases spent more than 100 years incarcerated. These cases raise important questions for all of us. How can our criminal justice system separate quality scientific evidence and related testimony from subjective speculation, and how can we prevent unreliable and/or invalid evidence from being introduced in the first instance? The answers to these questions are complex, but the Texas Legislature has taken significant steps over the past decade or so—more than any other state in the country—to address these questions proactively. The 79th Texas Legislature took one of its first significant steps with the creation of an oversight body—the Texas Forensic Science Commission—tasked with ensuring the integrity and reliability of forensic science in Texas criminal courts. The commission is a nine-member panel consisting of seven scientists and two lawyers (one defense attorney and one prosecutor) appointed by the governor that investigates allegations of negligence and misconduct in Texas crime laboratories. The commission also accredits crime laboratories, licenses forensic analysts, and adopts administrative rules with regard to the admissibility of certain forensic analyses. Through its investigative work and administrative rulemaking authority, the commission has addressed many areas of concern and responded to questions about the reliability of certain forensic analyses. The following describes how the commission’s activities affect the admissibility of certain forensic evidence by providing a road map for navigating applicable statutes and caselaw in combination with the administrative rules promulgated by the commission, and further describes the efforts underway both locally and nationally to continue ensuring the integrity and reliability of forensic science in our courts. Road Map to Forensic Admissibility in Texas Threshold Question: Does Article 38.35 TCCP Apply to the Evidence? Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.35 sets forth certain exemptions to the forensic analysis definition.8 Examples of forensic disciplines exempt from the definition of forensic analysis by statute include latent print examination, tests on breath specimens, and digital evidence.9 The commission also exempts certain types of forensic analyses from the accreditation requirement through administrative rulemaking.10 Examples of disciplines exempt from accreditation oversight through the commission’s administrative rulemaking authority include sexual assault nurse exams, forensic anthropology, crime scene reconstruction, fire scene investigation, and voice analysis.11 A complete list of forensic disciplines subject to and exempt from accreditation requirements, either by the statutory definition of forensic analysis or by administrative authority of the commission, can be found in Texas Administrative Code §§ 651.5, 651.6, and 651.7.12 If there is an exemption for a particular type of forensic analysis, admissibility is assessed under Texas Rules of Evidence Rule 702 and related caselaw. If there is no exemption, the parties should ensure the entity performing the forensic analysis was accredited at the time the analysis was performed. The following is a quick reference list of disciplines that must be performed in an accredited laboratory. However, note that disciplines may be added to this list over time through administrative rulemaking or statutory changes. Parties should check the commission’s website, txcourts.gov/fsc/, before retaining an expert to perform forensic analysis.
Crime Laboratory Accreditation Forensic
Analyst Licensing Recent CCA Decision: Rhomer v. State In a concurring opinion, Judge Barbara Hervey emphasized the importance of Texas’ exclusionary rule for forensic evidence pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.35 as a first step in any forensic admissibility determination.20 This concurring opinion is extremely helpful to stakeholders in describing the various issues that should be considered when admitting forensic evidence. Rules of Evidence and Related Caselaw National Forensic Science Initiative Local Forensic Science Initiative As lawyers, navigating the ever-changing world of forensic science as it collides with our legal system is understandably daunting. The commission and its staff are committed to serving the legal community by ensuring it is equipped with the right resources to prevent the unreliable or invalid forensic evidence that leads to wrongful convictions from entering Texas courtrooms. LYNN GARCIA serves as the Texas Forensic Science Commission’s director and general counsel. She assists the commission with investigations, provides legal advice, tracks developments in legislation relevant to the FSC’s mission, ensures compliance with the Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act, and represents the commission at conferences and stakeholder meetings. LEIGH SAVAGE serves as the Texas Forensic Science Commission’s associate general counsel. She manages the commission’s crime laboratory accreditation and forensic analyst licensing programs, advises the commission on the interpretation and application of commission regulations and state laws, and serves as a liaison to crime laboratories and forensic analysts subject to the commission’s jurisdiction. {Back to top} Which of the following accurately characterizes trends in the Texas justice system quizlet?Which of the following accurately characterizes trends in the Texas justice system? The poor are more likely to commit violent crimes than members of the middle and upper classes.
Which of the following is the role that the Texas state legislature plays in the criminal justice system quizlet?Which of the following is the role that the Texas state legislature plays in the criminal justice system? -specifying procedures for law enforcement and courts to follow.
Which of the following allows police to seize and then keep or sell any property they allege is involved in a crime?Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.
Is the official absolution of a false criminal conviction and release from incarceration?Exoneration refers to the court taking back a defendant's criminal conviction, vindicating the defendant with the official absolution of a guilty verdict. Exoneration requires the reversal of a criminal conviction through a display of innocence, a flaw in the original judgment, or other legality.
|