Ed Shaw Law - No Nonsense Legal Advice
Call 800-507-0352 To Schedule A Consultation
Call
To Schedule A Consultation
Offices in St. Cloud and Brainerd, serving all surrounding areas
Coronavirus Impact and Assurance: Yes! We are still open for business!

For the last year, thanks to the hard work of all of our staff, and you, our clients, no one who works at this office has gotten Covid while working here, and we have not spread a single case to any of our clients, while getting all of our client's legal needs taken care of. With the spread of vaccination the end is in sight, normal times where we can meet our clients in person in the office are just around the corner.

During the transition we will be having some in person, in office appointments for clients who have already been vaccinated, and for whom the CDC recommended period of time has passed since their last shot. Of course, for anyone who would prefer a phone or video appointment for safety, convenience, or any other reason those types of appointments are always available.

For our clients who have not yet completed the vaccination cycle phone and video appointments are of course available, and, with the return of warm weather we will again be offering outside appointments under the tent right outside our front door. For all appointments, masks will continue to be required.

Through the transition safety of all staff and clients will continue to be our top priority, we look forward to seeing you soon.

Please see our blog for more info on pandemic response.

Experts question the value of forensic evidence

| Oct 30, 2019 | Criminal Defense

Minnesota residents who watch shows like ‘CSI” on television may be surprised to learn that questions have been raised about the validity of forensic evidence and the qualifications of the experts who provide it. After studying the way hairs, fingerprints and fibers are gathered and processed, a panel of scientists, academics and legal experts found problems with virtually every technique and concluded that the interpretation of forensic evidence is often based on subjective factors rather than science. Their findings were published in 2009 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

The NAS report was especially critical of blood pattern analysis. This is a technique forensic experts use to determine the sequence of events at a crime scene based on blood drips, smears and splatter. The NAS experts found little in the way of solid science to back up BPA and discovered that its practitioners often lacked accreditation and proper training. Findings such as these are particularly worrying for groups advocating for criminal justice reform because juries tend to find this kind of evidence extremely convincing.

Other experts have studied the same data and reached similar conclusions. The scientific value of forensic evidence was questioned in a 2016 report released by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and BPA was branded ‘scientifically unsupportable” by the Texas Forensic Science Commission in 2018.

Attorneys with experience in criminal cases may rely on experts of their own to diminish the impact of forensic evidence. Former forensic scientists might cast doubt on the qualifications and experience of prosecution experts, and academics may inform juries about studies that question the scientific rigor of crime scene investigations. Attorneys might also cite these scientific uncertainties during plea negotiations to encourage prosecutors to reduce the charges against their clients in order to avoid the risks of arguing before a jury.

Image
FindLaw Network