<![CDATA[forensic science commission - Philip D. Cave]]> https://www.court-martial.com/blog/tags/forensic-science-commission/ Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:45:09 GMT en-us <![CDATA[Blazing moment]]> https://www.court-martial.com/blog/blazing-moment/ https://www.court-martial.com/blog/blazing-moment/ Sat, 09 Oct 2010 19:52:07 GMT Thanks to CrimProfBlog here is a link to an interesting post on Grits for Breakfast, with potential for relevance in a court-martial tried under the UCMJ, with examiners from USACIL and DCFL, etc. There was an astonishing moment yesterday at a breakout session on fingerprint examination at theTexas Forensic Science Seminar, at which Department of…

]]> Thanks to CrimProfBlog here is a link to an interesting post on Grits for Breakfast, with potential for relevance in a court-martial tried under the UCMJ, with examiners from USACIL and DCFL, etc.

There was an astonishing moment yesterday at a breakout session on fingerprint examination at theTexas Forensic Science Seminar, at which Department of Public Safety fingerprint examiner Bryan Strong (who seemed like a really nice guy so I hate to pick on him) was describing how his division implemented the ACEV method of fingerprint examination in ways that may violate the state and prosecutors’ obligations under Brady v. Maryland.

blah, blah.

Anyway, Mr. Strong described what happens when the first examiner finds a match but the verifying analyst doesn’t agree. In such instances, he said, they notified their supervisor and all of them conferred to make a decision. A defense attorney in the crowd asked what seemed to me an obvious question: When two examiners originally disagreed but a supervisor resolved the issue in favor of a match, was that disagreement recorded in the final report? No, replied Strong, only the conclusion. At this, the audience began to murmur and fidget.

Does this issue have relevance to Blazier and/or similar cases. The rest of the piece is an interesting, and continuing, criticism of fingerprint comparison evidence.

]]> <![CDATA[Congressional action on forensic labs]]> https://www.court-martial.com/blog/congressional-action-on-forensic-labs/ https://www.court-martial.com/blog/congressional-action-on-forensic-labs/ Sun, 09 May 2010 23:03:03 GMT The American Academy of Forensic Sciences has made some recommendations to Congress for legislation to reform forensic laboratories that obtain federal funds directly or through an organization (such as DoD) that receives federal funding. Preliminary Outline of Draft Forensic Reform Legislation – 5/5/10. Thanks GR. In addition, Innocence Project announces that: The American Statistical Association…

]]> The American Academy of Forensic Sciences has made some recommendations to Congress for legislation to reform forensic laboratories that obtain federal funds directly or through an organization (such as DoD) that receives federal funding.

Preliminary Outline of Draft Forensic Reform Legislation – 5/5/10.

Thanks GR.

In addition, Innocence Project announces that:

The American Statistical Association announced today that it was endorsing the recommendations outlined in last year’s groundbreaking National Academy of Sciences report on forensic science.

It would appear that USACIL would be covered as being funded by an organization that takes federal money – a lot of federal money.

]]>