Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 21, 2019)
A10 OREGON East Oregonian Saturday, December 21, 2019 Nonprofi t trying to help lawyers become more scientifi cally literate By JAKE THOMAS Oregon Capital Bureau SALEM — When Janis Puracal began reviewing evi- dence used to convict Nich- olas McGuffi n of killing his girlfriend, she recalled how it didn’t add up. In 2011, a jury con- victed McGuffi n, a resident of Coquille, of manslaugh- ter after his girlfriend Leah Freeman turned up dead. In 2014, the Oregon Innocence Project took up his case. P u r a - cal, then an attor- ney with the group, noticed how the prosecu- Puracal tor’s timeline of events didn’t fi t with other evidence or alibi witnesses. She eventually found what would be key — a tech- nical report documenting a DNA analysis in the case. Puracal had an independent expert look at the report’s raw data. The expert discovered that another man’s DNA was on Freeman’s shoe, which could have proven McGuf- fi n’s innocence and pointed to another suspect. But this information hadn’t been dis- closed by prosecutors. “Certainly, when we saw it I was complete fl oored,” said Puracal. “I couldn’t believe it was exculpatory evidence that hadn’t been reported. That was a big deal.” Earlier this month, a judge found that the evidence should have been disclosed at trial and overturned McGuf- fi n’s conviction, who was later released from prison. The victory is the most high-profi le yet for the Foren- sic Justice Project. A small Portland-based nonprofi t founded by Puracal last year, the Forensic Justice Project is dedicated to helping defense lawyers understand, fi nd and challenge scientifi c evidence introduced during trials. The use of DNA analysis EO Media Group fi le photo The director of the Oregon State Police forensic lab in Bend performs part of the process in examining evidence in a screening room at the lab in 2015. and other forensic evidence have been increasingly used in courtrooms and is often depicted in TV dramas as indisputable proof of guilt or innocence. But Puracal said that DNA testing or even the use of fi ngerprints and older techniques are far from fl awless. “A lot of people just think that forensics work like they do on TV, right?” said Pur- acal. “It gets magic answers in half an hour and solves cases.” Since founding her non- profi t, Puracal has been involved in cases across the state. Now, it could be poised to have a bigger impact on the state’s criminal justice system. In November, the Ore- gon Offi ce of Public Defense Services signed a two-year, $600,000 contract with the Forensic Justice Project to provide case support and training to public defense lawyers across the state. Public defense attorneys can already request funding for forensic experts or anal- ysis from the Oregon Offi ce of Public Defense Services. The training offered by the Forensic Justice Project will help them ask the right ques- tions and identify potential problems in the evidence. “Specifi c forensic issues can be complex, and the sci- ence is frequently moving the needle on what is admis- sible scientifi c evidence,” Eric Deitrick, the offi ce’s general counsel, said in an email. “It’s incredibly chal- lenging for already overbur- dened public defense attor- neys to keep up with new and changing forensic issues.” Aliza Kaplan, a profes- sor at Lewis & Clark Law School and counsel for the Forensic Justice Project, said that only a few states have similar organizations. She said that the training will teach defense lawyers how to read technical reports, question experts and bet- ter understand scientifi c evi- dence. She said that’ll require them to bridge a gap in their legal education. “Most of us joke that we went to law school to get away from science,” she said. ‘This is a serious problem’ Forensic evidence has been used in some form for centuries and is often based on the theory of transfer that “when two objects meet, some evidence of that meet- ing can later be found and verifi ed.” In the late 1800s, a fi ngerprint was fi rst used to solve a crime and doctors examined the victims of Jack the Ripper for wound pat- terns. But in recent decades such methods have been questioned. Marc Brown, chief dep- uty defender for the Public Defense Offi ce, pointed to the case of Brandon May- fi eld, an Oregon attorney who in 2004 was arrested by the FBI over allegations he was involved in fatal train bombings in Spain. His arrest was based on digital images of partial, latent fi n- gerprints found at the scene. Subsequently, the FBI deter- mined that the fi ngerprints didn’t match. Mayfi eld was exoner- ated and the FBI apolo- gized. Brown said the case prompted a closer look at forensic evidence. The National Academy of Sciences said in a 2009 study that local forensic science facilities were understaffed and underfunded and they worked with no established standards. The study also found that with the exception of DNA analysis, no method could consistently link suspects to evidence. “The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientifi c studies to deter- mine its validity,” the study found. “This is a serious problem.” A 2016 report by the Pres- ident’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology called for standards forensic methods. The next year, Kaplan and Puracal published their own paper that described wrongful convictions based on faulty forensic evidence, including one case where a dog hair was mistaken for a suspect’s. The paper also mentioned the case of Phil- lip Scott Cannon, who was convicted of murder in 2000 in Polk County. He spent 11 years in prison before a court found that an expert mistak- enly matched lead in the bul- lets found in the victims to lead in an ammunition box in Cannon’s home. Kaplan and Puracal con- cluded that despite the two national studies, defense lawyers still weren’t chal- lenging questionable forensic evidence. They are unsure how many cases in Oregon involve questionable foren- sic evidence. Brown also said it’s hard to gauge how many cases deserve scrutiny in Oregon because of the state’s fragmented public defense system. Puracal said that there’s no way to know how many cases like this are out there unless someone goes out and looks for them. “That’s what we’re doing,” she said. Good science in the courtroom Puracal said that one prob- lem that frequently comes up is expert testimony that goes beyond what the science sup- ports. She said that some- times experts seem wedded to a conclusion or aren’t up to date on the science. She said that’s particularly important for DNA analysis. She said that the amount of DNA that can be tested for has gotten smaller. While useful, she said smaller amounts opens up the pos- sibility of contamination or multiple people’s DNA get- ting mixed. “The jury gets captivated by forensic science,” said Puracal. “You come in with an expert and it’s impressive and the jury will defer to that expert. And that means that we need to make sure that good science is com- ing into the courtroom and not leading to wrongful convictions.” Brown said that the earlier studies of forensic evidence questioned long-established “comparison analysis” using evidence as bite marks, tire tracks or footprints to prove a suspect’s guilt. He said that while less of this evidence is being used in Oregon courts, there are still problems. He said there’s no statewide stan- dard for how fi ngerprints are used. He pointed to a 2016 appeals court case involv- ing a woman who was con- victed of burglary on a single fi ngerprint left on a bottle. The bottle — and the fi nger- print evidence — was dis- carded by police and the case remains under appeal. Puracal said that the Forensic Justice Project will focus on cases involv- ing DNA as well as diagno- ses of abusive head trauma, commonly known as shaken baby syndrome. She said that experts will often testify that they are certain a child was abused rather than injured by an accident. “We know that a baby could be abused,” she said. “But the problem is that the science doesn’t tell us that this baby was abused and not injured by some accident or some disease or disorder.” 299 NEW 2020 $ TACOMA TRD OFF ROAD DBL CAB 4X4 PER MONTH Stk# 20H134. MSRP $39,232. Sale $38,482. $2,999 down = $299 mo. 3yr/12,000 mile year lease. On approved credit. No security deposit required. Plus $650 lease acquisition fee. Plus tax, title, $75 doc fee & added dealer accessories. See dealer for details. Offer expires 01/06/20. $ NEW 2020 RAV4 XLE AWD 249 PER MONTH Stk# 20H184. MSRP $33,843. $2,999 down = $249 mo. 3yr/12,000 mile year lease. On approved credit. No security deposit required. Plus $650 lease acquisition fee. Plus tax, title, $75 doc fee & added dealer accessories. See dealer for details. Offer expires 01/06/20. NEW 2020 4RUNNER SR5 PREMIUM 4WD $ 359 PER MONTH Stk# 20H152. MSRP $43,444. $2,999 down = $359 mo. 3yr/12,000 mile year lease. On approved credit. No security deposit required. Plus $650 lease acquisition fee. Plus tax, title, $75 doc fee & added dealer accessories. See dealer for details. Offer expires 01/06/20.
