Forensic uncertainty in Court affects everyone.

Michigan- That brings me to a case in Mason County Michigan in which 79th Judicial District Judge Peter J. Wadel excluded a blood test for lack of reliability under MRE 702. Statistically, the measurement had no meaning because the lab witnesses insisted that it represented a single or "absolute" value. It predicted nothing and was simply a statement from the prosecutor and crime lab. The judge's opinion and order can be found at http://www. nicholslawyers.com

Judge Wadel spent over 2 years analyzing whether or not the Michigan State Police Crime Lab could validly demonstrate controlled statistical analysis of its data and reliable application of that data to an uncertainty budget. Time and time again during the hearings, the lab director insisted that there was no uncertainty budget and that there will not be one unless the lab is forced to come up with one.

All we need to do is start looking to science to guide us in deciding whether a forensic measurement is sufficiently reliable under the principles of Daubert.

We stain people for life with a conviction because it is easier than measuring data and fully informing juries. "It's just a DUI." Eventually, the whole system will come tumbling down. People will stop abiding by judgments, verdicts and probation orders because no one has faith in a system that ignores science in favor of what is easier for government-paid lab technicians who work for the state police. If we hide behind "come on, you were presumed innocent" and "this is the best imperfect system in the world." Is it? I suggest to you that our arrogance could be our downfall.

Link: http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/970176