Fighting Bad Forensics
PCAST
The 2016 PCAST (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology) report evaluated the scientific validity of forensic feature-comparison methods used in criminal courts — including bite mark, firearms, footwear, and hair analysis. It found that many of these disciplines lacked the rigorous empirical foundation needed to reliably connect evidence to suspects, and called on courts to raise the bar for admissibility. The report is a landmark reference for attorneys, researchers, and advocates challenging the use of junk science in criminal proceedings. Many disciplines have paid lip-service to addressing concerns raised by the 2016 PCAST report without making meaningful changes to guard against misleading “scientific” evidence.
NAS Report
The 2009 National Academy of Sciences report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States delivered a sweeping critique of the forensic science field, finding that — with the exception of DNA analysis — most forensic disciplines lacked the scientific research needed to validate their methods or establish error rates. It exposed systemic problems including inconsistent lab standards, inadequate oversight, and the risk of cognitive bias among examiners. The report remains a foundational resource for challenging the admissibility and reliability of forensic evidence in criminal cases.
O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702
This Georgia code section represents Georgia’s formal adoption of federal rule 702 (the Daubert standard) for criminal cases. For many years Georgia used the much more permissive Harper standard, so it is important for defense practitioners to challenge expert testimony and so-called scientific evidence even if similar evidence/testimony has been allowed in Georgia in the past.
O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702 (f) reads: “It is the intent of the legislature that, in all proceedings, the courts of the State of Georgia not be viewed as open to expert evidence that would not be admissible in other states. Therefore, in interpreting and applying this Code section, the courts of this state may draw from the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); and other cases in federal courts applying the standards announced by the United States Supreme Court in these cases” (emphasis added).
This is an uncommonly powerful statement from the legislature that practitioners should be using verbatim when the State tries to introduce an expert who has been discredited in another jurisdiction or relies on an area of “science” (like bitemark evidence) that has been completely debunked. It is a clear and unequivocal statement that Georgia courts will not be a dumping ground for junk “evidence” or junk “science.”
Fighting for Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation Enables Dreams (RED)
RED is an organization offering a Restorative Justice and Pre-trial Diversion program for eligible Defendants. They have a shockingly high success rate. Find out if they are available in your jurisdiction.
Fighting Prosecutorial Misconduct
Protect Ethical Prosecutors (PEP)
PEP is an organization fighting prosecutorial misconduct and working to end total prosecutorial immunity.
Fighting Government Experts
Garrett Discovery
Garrett Discovery is an excellent team of experts who are essential to defending cases where a wide range of technological issues are involved.
Bruce Willis
Bruce Willis is an excellent expert with many years of experience in forensics, criminal investigations, crime scene investigation, and medical examiner/coroner instruction. Cullen Law is happy to provide his contact information upon request.
