A federal judge ordered a new trial yesterday citing flawed scientific evidence in an arson case.

In a 69-page decision, US District Judge Nancy Gertner wrote that by the time James Hebshie went to trial in 2006, it had been widely reported that people had been convicted, and perhaps even executed, on flawed arson evidence.

Yet, she said, Hebshie’s lawyers failed to challenge evidence presented at his trial, even though they had been warned by another lawyer and scientific experts that there were problems with arson expert testimony, laboratory analysis, and canine evidence being offered.

A canine handler was wrongly allowed to testify to “an almost mystical account’’ of the capabilities of Billy, an accelerant-detection dog, and make unsubstantiated statements about the dog’s accuracy, Gertner wrote.

“Questionable theorizing about arson, about Billy’s mystical prowess, and the generic laboratory results were presented as ‘science’ to the jury, and, as a result, Hebshie was convicted,’’ Gertner wrote. She added that much of the evidence should have been excluded and that, if it had, jurors may have acquitted Hebshie.

Salem attorney Jeanne M. Kempthorne began representing Hebshie after his conviction. “There wasn’t any evidence against him,’’ she said. “It was just so deficient.’’

She added: “You have investigators who apply principles of science in a shoddy manner, and you have prosecutors and, unfortunately, defense lawyers who aren’t probing hard enough to see whether there is any real content to the opinions that these so-called experts are proffering. And that is an everyday problem.’’



Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/16/citing_flawed_evidence_us_judge_orders_new_trial_in_taunton_arson_case/