Cases Involving Microscopic Hair Analysis Under Review

 

August, 7 2013 – In an unprecedented agreement between the Department of Justice and the FBI and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, more than 2000 criminal convictions based on microscopic hair analysis will be reviewed.  This historic review has already found 27 death penalty cases in which FBI forensic experts may have provided exaggerated scientific testimony regarding hair analysis.  Forensic DNA has proven that the “matches” declared between a suspect’s hair and hairs found in a crime scene investigation were significantly overstated and, in many cases, flat-out wrong.  DOJ has agreed not to raise procedural objections, such as statute of limitations or appellate and procedural default, in response to petitions of defendants wrongfully convicted based upon exaggerated reports of matches in hair comparisons.  The 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report on forensic science found microscopic hair analysis “highly unreliable.”  The report was also highly critical of bitemark analysis, toolmark and firearm analysis, fingerprint analysis, and other disciplines that rely solely upon the subjective eye of the analyst.

“The government’s willingness to admit error and accept its duty to correct those errors in an extraordinarily large number of cases is truly unprecedented.  It signals a new era in this country that values science and recognizes that truth and justice should triumph over procedural obstacles,” said Peter Neufeld, Co-Director of the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law.  “Unfortunately hair analysis is only one of many flawed forensic practices that are still used that pose the threat of infecting criminal trials across the nation.  We need leadership in Washington to ensure scientific rigor and greater oversight over forensics to prevent these miscarriages of justice.”  

It’s unfortunate this “junk” science was allowed into trials as evidence in the first place.  Defense lawyers have been raising these complaints since the 70’s.  However, with the 2009 NAS report, the weight of science has brought the FBI to this change in position.  Credit must be given to the leaders in the Department of Justice and FBI for challenging their previous testimony and for actually pursuing justice in these cases.  However, it must be noted that this would not have happened but for the insistence, persistence, and hard work of criminal defense lawyers, NACDL, and the Innocence Project.

“This review is an example of our judicial system at its best — prosecutors and defense lawyers working together to see that justice is done,” said David Koropp, an attorney working pro bono for the Innocence Project.  “Determining whether erroneous forensic evidence may have been used in criminal cases is vital to maintaining the integrity of our criminal justice system.   The FBI is to be commended for the leadership position it has taken to help ensure that only scientifically valid evidence is used to identify and convict criminal defendants.”

 

 

Mark Prothero, partner at Hanis Irvine Prothero specializing in criminal defense

JOIN HANIS IRVINE PROTHERO IN CELEBRATING THEIR 10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY!

JOIN HANIS IRVINE PROTHERO IN CELEBRATING THEIR 10th ANNIVERSARY!

WHEN: Saturday August 17th from 7:00pm until midnight

WHERE: Mick Kelly’s Irish Pub at Riverbend Golf Course

LIVE MUSIC from THE STILL GOT IT BAND

Hors D’Ouvres and Appetizers

No-Host Bar

But bring a food or clothing donation for the KENT FOOD BANK and have a drink on HIP!

 

10 Year Anniversary Party750

New Boating Under the Influence Law Increases Consequences

 

August 7, 2013 – No one likes drunk boaters.  On top of sometimes being very obnoxious, they are always a threat to the pleasure and safety of other boaters and their guests.  Too often we’ve heard of tragic accidents with serious injuries and fatalities cause by someone too intoxicated to be operating some fast-moving, two-ton watercraft.With all the people who own and operate boats in our local community, there is some very important news.  The State Legislature revisited the State’s Boating Under the Influence (BUI) law, RCW 79A.60.040, and made some significant changes all boaters need to be aware of.  The changes go into effect on July 28th.  With lots of hot, sunny, good-boating weather to come, it is smart to be aware of these changes. 

Stiffer Consequences & New Marijuana Provision

It has previously been a misdemeanor if you are convicted of BUI, with a maximum penalty of up to 90 days in jail and a $1000 fine.  The legislature increased the severity of the crime to a gross misdemeanor, just like a DUI, with a maximum penalty of 364 days in jail and a $5000 FINE.

BUI can be committed by operating a boat while your breath or blood alcohol content is .08 or higher.  Like a DUI with marijuana, BUI can be committed by operating a boat while the THC concentration of 5.0 or higher. Also like a DUI, BUI can be committed if one is under the influence of, or affected by, intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any other drug, or any combination thereof.  It does not matter if the operator has a prescription for the drug they have taken.

Implied Consent

The new law also adds an “implied consent” provision.  That means that if you operate a boat in Washington waters, you are giving your consent for law enforcement to obtain a sample of your breath or blood if they have reason to believe you may be operating a boat under the influence.  You have the right to refuse such a test, but not without a price.  The penalty for a refusal is a $1000 fine. Furthermore, your refusal may be used against you in a criminal trial as evidence of guilt.

Be Careful Out There

Drinking alcohol while a passenger in a boat is still allowed.  Open containers of alcohol are still allowed in boats (not cars).  But the person operating the boat must stay in control of his or her ability to operate the boat.  And they must stay within the legal limits of consumption.  I would advise that it probably won’t take much to raise the suspicion of law enforcement and bring on the request of a breath or blood test.  I would also advise that the safest way to enjoy an afternoon of boating is to make sure you have a responsible, competent, sober designated boat operator.  Although the temptation to join in the fun may be strong, a BUI, or even worse, an accident, will take that away, and potentially a lot more under the new law. My final bit of free legal advice – do NOT drink and operate a boat.

 

MARK W. PROTHERO

Mark Prothero, partner at Hanis Irvine Prothero specializing in criminal defense

Who should get custody? Thinking about the Children in Divorce or Paternity Matters

Who should get custody? Thinking about the Children in Divorce or Paternity Matters

Disputes over custody are complex and can be very emotional, especially when children are involved. Understandably, parents will often over-simplify the situation with questions like: “Will the court give me custody? The children want to live with me.  They tell me this all the time.” Unfortunately, custody disputes are not that simple. The court must rule in the “best interest” of the child(ren).  Determining their “best interest” is left to the discretion of the court.

Public policy, the law, and the courts want children to foster relationships with both parents. Yet, the number of people asking about sole custody is astonishing. The court does not regularly award sole custody, which is generally viewed as not in the best interests of the child.

RCW 26.09.191 covers factors that the court will consider in deciding to limit the noncustodial parent’s time with the children. Factors include: a) willful abandonment that continues for an extended period of time or substantial refusal to perform parenting functions; (b) physical, sexual, or a pattern of emotional abuse of a child; or (c) a history of acts of domestic violence or an assault or sexual assault which causes grievous bodily harm or the fear of such harm. Legal interpretation is required to fully understand the application to specific cases.

Family law disputes tend to put one party’s word against the other party’s. Therefore, one must have concrete facts and evidence to support claims against the opposing party. To sort out the discrepancies between conflicting stories, the court may order the placement of a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). A GAL is an individual appointed by the court to represent the best interests of the child. The GAL will conduct an investigation and recommend actions for the court to take in the best interests of the child. The court will give the report as much evidentiary weight as it sees fit. From my experience, the GAL reports weigh heavily on the courts final decision.

I hope this information provides some context on the complex process of custody disputes. Many family disputes can be resolved if the parties keep their emotions in check and take into account how they want their children to know how they handled their differences. Resolution by the involved parties is the best case solution in family law cases. Resolution by lawyers and judges acting in the best interests of the child but who have limited knowledge of a particular family’s history can provide suboptimal outcomes.

As I said earlier, disputes over custody are complex and can be very emotional. The legal process in court and the drafting and entering of pleadings can be an intricate process. If you are faced with these issues, I recommend that you consult with an experienced family law attorney to determine the best course of action.

Jorge Ramos is a family law attorney with the Kent law firm of Hanis Irvine Prothero, PLLC. He can be reached at (253) 520-5000 or by email at jramos@hiplawfirm.com.

photo of Jorge Ramos

HIP wishes Mark Albertson a fond farewell

Mark Albertson recently left the practice of law and accepted a position as a Trust and Estate Planning Officer.  This is a great opportunity for Mark where he will teach estate planning workshops and consult with financial advisors.  Mark has been a great leader in the estate planning field for many years and will continue to be a great resource to the attorneys at HIP Law.  With this change, Patrick Hanis will lead the Estate Planning department, with fellow attorneys Brian Hanis and Dennis Shanlian.  We expect the transition to be as seamless as possible.  Mark left with these words, “It is with mixed emotions that I go.  I have enjoyed working with you and all of my clients, and I will miss you all.  Additionally, Hanis Irvine Prothero has been a wonderful place to work.  The attorneys here are incredibly competent and caring people with the highest ethical standards.  I will miss working with everyone here.”  We look forward to continuing to assist you with your Estate Planning, Probate, or other legal needs.  Please contact Patrick Hanis or his assistant, Steven Bash, with any questions.

photo of Mark Albertson