Focusing on retinal hemorrhages, this motion cites research showing no proven correlation between shaking and retinal hemorrhage, as well as studies documenting other (non-shaking) causes of retinal hemorrhage.
Civil rights complaint about problems with facial recognition technology – pgs. 9-12 collect research about errors with when images are of low quality, angles are different, resolution is bad; pgs. 12-15 collect research showing facial recognition algorithms are racially biased; pgs. 15-16 collect data about jurisdictions that have banned use of facial recognition technology because […]
Amicus brief from the Innocence Project explains genotyping software, similar software programs used in courts that were shown to be unreliable, and why defense access to the software source code is necessary.
This amicus brief from the Legal Aid Society explains how probabilistic genotyping software works, why it’s unreliable, and why the defense has to be granted access to the software’s source code to present a full defense
Argues that the likelihood ratio produced by STRMix software is unreliable because “the program’s code relies upon information that is subjective and can vary to an impermissible degree depending on the individual analyst and laboratory.” Explains factors that impact the reliability of probabalistic genotyping software, including threshold levels (what the lab considers data vs. noise), […]
Filed by the Innocence Project, this brief details research demonstrating that hair microscopy evidence does not meet the standards of reliable scientific evidence, as well as research showing how persuasive forensic testimony is to juries.
Based on forensic reports on latent fingerprint matching, this motion argues that fingerprint analysts can only accurately testify in terms of exclusion, rather than that two prints are a “match,” from a “common source,” or that any individual is “the source” of a latent fingerprint.
Testimony of defense expert on issues surrounding Shaken Baby Syndrome diagnoses
Amicus Brief – Courts should exclude “criminal profiling” and non-scientific “crime scene analysis” evidence
Summarizes research on accuracy of “criminal profiling” evidence over forty years, concluding profilers are no “better than bartenders at predicting the traits and features of offenders.” Also provides an overview of cases nationwide excluding criminal profiling evidence and finding that its major premise is faulty and essentially propensity evidence.
This hearing challenges the validity and reliability of STRMix DNA mixture analysis. Government witness: John Buckleton (creator of STRMix); defense witness: Nathan Adams (explains likelihood ratios, impact of number of contributors on the program’s output, problems with STRMix implementation