EthicalDilemmasinForensicScience
CaseBackground: JohnR.Epcot(JR)wasconvictedofmurderandisnowondeathrowforthedeathsofhiswifeattheirfamilyhomeinJasper,Texas.FireoccurredonJuly4,2004inJasper,Texas.JRwasarrestedandchargedinthedeathonAugust15,2004.AjuryconvictedJRofcapitalmurderonAugust25,2006.Hewassentencedtodiebylethalinjection.
TexasCourtofAppealaffirmedtheconviction.AmotionforrehearingwasdeniedonMarch25,2006.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdeniedapetitionforwritofcertiorari.JRfiledapetitionforwritofhabeascorpusinstatecourt.TheTexasCourtofCriminalAppealsdeniedthepetitionforrelief.
Twoyearslater,JRfiledasubsequentpetitionforwritofhabeascorpusinstatecourt,attachingastatementchallengingboththemedicaltestimonyandthefireinvestigation.TheStateresponded,attachingastatementfromasnitchinthejailthatJRhadconfessedthathesetthefiretokillhiswifeinordertocollectinsurance.TheTexasCourtofCriminalAppealsdeniedthepetition,findingthattheapplicationdidnotmeetthelegalrequirementsforaclaimofnewlydiscoveredevidenceofactualinnocence.
Reviewofthetrialdocumentsindicatesthattheconvictionwasbasedon(a)eyewitnesstestimony(b)confession,(c)medicaltestimonyand(d)forensicarsoninvestigation.
Eyewitnesstestimonyindicatedthatdespitetheneighborspleas,JRrefusedtogointothehouseinanyattempttorescuehiswife,demonstratedneitherremorseforhisactionsnorgrievedherlossandthatfurthermorehewasmoreworriedaboutthelossofpropertyincludingthedamagetohiscarthanthelossofhislovedone.
MedicaldoctorstestifiedthatthewellestablishedburnssufferedbyJRweresosuperficialastosuggestthatthesamewereselfinflictedinanattempttodivertsuspicionfromhimselfandthatfurthermorebloodgasanalysisatalocalareahospitalshortlyafterthefirerevealedthatJRhadnotinhaledanysmoke,contrarytohisstatement.
Thekeytestimonywasprovidedbythefireinvestigatorwhotestifiedthatalthoughhedidnotdemonstratedetectableaccelerants,thepatternatscenewasconsistentwiththeuseofaccelerantsincludingthepresenceofVpattern,floorpatterns,crazedglass,spalling,andtheburnintensity.
CaseReview: Onreviewofbothmedicalandscientificevidence,asanexpertforStateyourealizethatthescientificunderstandingregardingfiresciencehaschangedwiththeadventofnewtechnologyandobservationsbasedoncontrolledburns.Forensicpathologistcannotanymorepredict
whetheraninjuryisselfinflictedbasedonthedegreeoftheburn.Also,negativebloodgasescannotruleoutthatJRhadinfactinhaledsmoke.Additionally,basedoncurrentunderstanding,thereisnoscientificbasistoconcludethatthewidthofVpattern,floor
patterns,crazedglass,spallingorthemultipleoriginoffireareproofthatanaccelerantwasused.
Questions:
1. Asascientistwhatresponsibilitydoyouhavetoalertthestakeholderswhenscientificunderstandinghaschangedortechnologyhasadvanced.Whenmightsucharesponsibilityapply?
2. Whatshouldbethescopeofalaboratorysdutytocorrecterrorsinanaccreditedcrimelaboratory?
3. Howfarbackdoesthisdutygo?Shouldthelaborthescientistevaluatecasesgoingback5years,10years,20years?
4. Isitpossibletodefinethescopeofcorrectiveactioninawaythatmaximizespotentialimpactandminimizescost?Shouldcostbeconsideredatall?Howdoesalaboratorymakethatdetermination?
5. CanyourelateexamplesofhowsuchissueshavebeenaddressedincrimelaboratoriesinTexas?
6. Whatarethemajorethicaldilemmafacingforensicscientiststoday?7. Whatisethicalbehaviorandasscientistshowcanweencourageethicalbehavioramongall
stakeholdersinTexas?
