From ProPublica: He Was Convicted of Killing His Baby. The DA’s Office Says He’s Innocent, but That Might Not Be Enough.

Occasionally mass hysteria creates conditions where the public - and elected officials - become focused on a problem that in hind-sight was not as wide spread as it later proved to be. 

A couple decades ago that included shaken baby syndrome. 

Suddenly an increasing number of parents whose infant children suddenly died were being accused of causing their child's death by shaking them violently enough to cause fatal brain damage. Many were found guilty.

Soon after, questions emerged about whether these verdicts were based on bad science and were driven by zealous prosecutors looking for headlines (remember that we elect our district attorneys).

- See: Rethinking Shaken Baby Syndrome.

But reversing convictions is difficult to do. This article describes such an effort. It can be tough to prove one is actually innocent of a crime after conviction.

- Click here for the article.

Here's a bit of it: 

If Eaton concluded that a conviction was no longer supported by the evidence, she was expected to go back to court and try to undo that conviction. The advent of DNA analysis, and the revelations that followed, did not automatically free people who were convicted on debunked evidence or discredited forensics. Many remain locked up, stuck in a system that gives them limited grounds for appeal. In the absence of any broad, national effort to rectify these convictions, the work of unwinding them has fallen to a patchwork of law-school clinics, innocence projects and, increasingly, conviction-review units in reform-minded offices like Nashville’s. Working with only one other full-time attorney, Anna Hamilton, Eaton proceeded at a ferocious pace, recruiting law students and cajoling a rotating cast of colleagues to help her.

From Vox: Being sleep-deprived makes people much more likely to give false confessions

For our look on GOVT 2305 at civil liberties and the due process of the law. I'm unaware of appellate decisions - or anything from the Supreme Court - related to sleep deprivation.

- Click here for the article.

Why in the world would someone confess to a crime he didn't commit?
It's a baffling question that has long confounded the criminal justice system. Confessions are powerfully convincing evidence for juries — but false confessions are also relatively common. According to the Innocence Project, one in four people who have been exonerated for crimes they didn't commit confessed to that crime.

Psychologists have documented several reasons this might occur. The big one is that interrogating police officers can impose their suggestions on suspects: "We have evidence proving you were there!" "Your fingerprints were found!"
But there may be another reason people will confess even when they're innocent: They're exhausted.

Law enforcement "really needs to be super careful when a person is being interrogated after they have been up a long time," says Elizabeth Loftus, a co-author on a new study on sleep deprivation and false confessions in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

According to Loftus's study, the majority of false confessions occur when interrogations last more than 12 hours. That fact made her and her colleagues wonder: How much of a role does sleepiness play? Sleep deprivation, after all, is awful for the body and mind, decreasing our abilities of reason and judgment.

For items related to the Supreme Court and false confessions:

- Implications of a Supreme Court Ruling for False Confessions. 
- False and Coerced Confessions.
- Overturned Conviction Upheld in False Confession Case.

Odds and ends for today's 2306

- Tim Cole Commission begins work, optimistic for recommendations.

Richard Miles was just 19 years old when his nightmare began. In 1994, Miles was accused of murder and attempted murder and, though he steadfastly proclaimed his innocence, he was later convicted and spent 15 years in a Dallas jail — until a court determined he was a victim of prosecutorial misconduct because his Dallas County prosecutor withheld evidence that would have cleared him.

Now 40, Miles recently told the story of his wrongful conviction to the 11 members of the newly created Timothy Cole Exoneration Review Commission, a panel named after the late Texas Tech student who, in 1986, was convicted of a rape he did not commit. Although Cole died in prison of an asthma attack in 1999 — without being able to prove his innocence — a few years later DNA evidence from the crime posthumously exonerated him.

- Group seeks to repeal ordinances regulating where registered sex offenders can live.

Forty-six small cities across Texas are facing a new legal challenge to their ordinances regulating where registered sex offenders can live, the latest development in a national trend to relax residency limitations that opponents say create more problems with ex-convicts than they solve. On Monday, Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, a statewide criminal justice advocacy group, announced that it has “initiated action to compel, through litigation if necessary,” the repeal of the ordinances in so-called “general law” cities, those with populations of 5,000 or less.

Two Bexar County cities — Balcones Heights and Hollywood Park — are among the 46 whose ordinances are being challenged. Similar ordinances exist in hundreds of larger “home rule” Texas cities, which officials say have the legal authority to enforce them. Nonetheless, several larger cities already face litigation on the issue on the grounds that residency restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution.

- Democratic Group Called iVote Pushes Automatic Voter Registration.

As Republicans across the country mount an aggressive effort to tighten voting laws, a group of former aides to President Obama and President Bill Clinton is pledging to counter by spending up to $10 million on a push to make voter registration automatic whenever someone gets a driver’s license.

The change would supercharge the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, known as the “motor voter” law, which requires states to offer people the option of registering to vote when they apply for driver’s licenses or other identification cards. The new laws would make registration automatic during those transactions unless a driver objected.

- Straus Forms Select Committee on Mental Health.

Texas House Speaker Joe Straus announced Monday he's formed a select committee on mental health to take an all-encompassing look at the state's behavioral health system. 

The committee will review and make recommendations on issues including substance abuse, care for veterans, identifying illnesses early and improving delivery of mental health care, the speaker said in a news release.

“We have taken some major steps to address the state’s mental health needs,” said Straus, R-San Antonio. “It’s important not to look at these issues in isolation, but rather to take a comprehensive view of how to improve the system. Many legislators asked that we take a closer look at various issues related to mental health, and it became clear that one committee should look at all of those issues together.”

- Lopsided election puts political target on property taxes.

When property tax relief was approved by 86 percent of voters in last week’s election, you can bet Texas politicians noticed.

Calling the lopsided result a mandate for additional action, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick vowed to make property tax reform a priority when the Legislature convenes in 14 months. Any reasonable idea will be on the table, Patrick said, although his initial concepts focus on reining in budget increases for local governments, particularly cities and counties.

“I have the opportunity to put my shoulder behind those issues and push, and I don’t intend to sit on the sidelines,” said Patrick, a Houston Republican. One important idea, Patrick said, is to require a rollback election if city or county property tax revenue grows by more than 4 to 6 percent, though the final trigger number will need to be refined. Currently, tax-rollback elections are possible with 8 percent increases, and only if 7 or 10 percent of registered voters sign a petition, depending on the size of the budget.

From Radley Balko: Sorry about your time on death row, pal. Nothing we can do.

I've posted a few things on the problem the innocence of a convicted felon poses for the Texas criminal justice system. Here's another - though it is targeted to the problem nation-wide. It turns out that it is very difficult for prosecutors to be held responsible for misconduct.

- Click here for the article.

If you’ve been wrongly convicted through prosecutorial misconduct, there are a few ways you can try to hold the government accountable. The most obvious way would be to sue the prosecutor himself. This is just short of impossible. Anything a prosecutor does in his official capacity is protected by absolute immunity — a mighty, nearly impenetrable shield created by the Supreme Court in the 1970s. Your best hope is if your prosecutor committed the misconduct while acting as an investigator — that is, while performing tasks more associated with policing than with prosecuting. If so, your prosecutor would then be protected “only” by the qualified immunity the courts have given to police. But even that is still a pretty high bar to clear.

You could also try to sue the municipality that employs your prosecutor. It’s called a Monell claim. But this, too, is difficult. You’ll have to show that not only did your prosecutor commit misconduct that violated your constitutional rights but there’s also a system-wide pattern or practice of misconduct in that particular jurisdiction. It isn’t enough merely to show that your prosecutor did this to you. You’ll likely to need to show that other prosecutors in the same office did similar things to other people.

Since judges and prosecutors probably aren’t going to open the files of other cases for you, winning a claim like this is likely to happen only once other people have already shown misconduct from the same office and, presumably, hadn’t yet found enough examples to establish a pattern. If the misconduct is bad and persistent enough, presumably at some point — a point that isn’t really clear but appears to be wholly up to the subjective interpretation of whatever federal judge happen to hear your case — enough people will have shown enough misconduct to establish a pattern. Provided you include them all in your claim. But no matter how many cases come after, those people who filed first, and lost, probably won’t get to have their cases heard again.

From the Texas Tribune: Willingham Won't Get Posthumous Pardon

In 2306 we've recently looked at the governor's constitutionally defined appointment powers and will soon look at the criminal justice system - both include mention of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.

The following story reports that the board will not recommend that Cameron Todd Willingham - who may have been wrongly executed - be recommended for a posthumous full pardon.

- Click here for the article.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has voted not to recommend a posthumous full pardon for Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed a decade ago after being convicted of setting a house fire that killed his three young daughters.

“This whole process is, unfortunately, typical of this board, where they don’t demonstrate that they’ve actually considered the substantial evidence that we’ve put before them,” said Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, which has led the charge to clear Willingham's name in the case.

A story below highlighted the unwillingness of the Texas Legislature to establish an Innocence Commission to review the problems that lead to wrongful convictions. Critics argue that Texas has yet to face this problem head on.

From the Texas Tribune: Hearing on Innocence Commission Bill Draws Heated Testimony

This is an old story - from May of last year - but it touches on an issue raised in the section on criminal justice in the state. What to do about the number of convicted felons in the state who have been exonerated of their crimes, along with the suspicion that other people may week be also convicted of crimes they did not commit?

Should an Innocence Commission be established to deal with them?

The story highlights a contentious hearing where the need for a commission was debated:

The brother of an exoneree who died while wrongly imprisoned shouted at a senator and former prosecutor on Tuesday during a committee hearing that turned explosive, saying her attitude was deplorable and she should get a new job before storming out while muttering an expletive.

Cory Session, the brother of Tim Cole, who was posthumously exonerated of rape charges, shouted at state Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Southside Place, after she voiced opposition to a proposal to create a commission that would investigate wrongful convictions in Texas.

Several men who spent time in prison for crimes they did not commit were among those who testified during the Senate Criminal Justice Committee hearing aboutHouse Bill 166, by state Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, which would create an "innocence commission."

Under the bill, members appointed by the governor would investigate wrongful convictions, identify why they occur and examine appeals filed with the state’s courts for evidence of ethical violations by attorneys and judges.

Session, who works with the Innocence Project of Texas, criticized Huffman, a former prosecutor and criminal court judge, over her opposition to the bill. He accused her of standing in the way of reforms to prevent wrongful convictions.

"The eyes of Texas have been closed on criminal justice reform," said Session. Session also said that Texas Supreme Court Justice Wallace Jefferson and other judges have supported the proposed commission. "The attitude you have is deplorable," he said to Huffman. "I am sickened. ... I am pissed off."

The panel highlighted a study commissioned by the 81st legislature on wrongful convictions.

- Click here for the report, and here for the Texas Indigent Defense Commission.

As with the rest of the United States, the criminal justice system in Texas is commonly accused of not providing adequate opportunities for the poor to defend themselves. Beyond that, there is little consensus that such opportunities are either necessary - or worth funding.

From the Texas Tribune: Report: Texas Leads Nation in 2013 Exonerations

For 2306's look at criminal justice in the near future. This can also be filed under "agenda setting."

Texas in 2013 exonerated more people who were wrongfully convicted of crimes than any other state, according to a new report from the National Registry of Exonerations.

Thirteen Texans were officially absolved of wrongdoing last year for crimes ranging from murder to drug possession. Some had spent more than a decade in prison, and others a few months. The state with the second-most exonerations was Illinois, with nine, followed by New York, with eight.

The national registry, a joint project of the University of Michigan Law School and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern University School of Law, was launched in 2012. It tracks every known exoneration in the United States since 1989. Texas has 133 exonerations listed. Only New York, with 152, and California, with 136, have more.

The project’s directors stress that many more wrongful convictions never make the list.

“There are many false convictions that we don’t know about,” said Samuel Gross, editor of the registry and co-author of the report. “The exonerations we know about are only the tip of the iceberg.”

- click here for the report.

And for the groups mentioned in the article:
- The National Registry of Exonerations.
- Texas Defender Service.
- Texas District and County Attorneys Association.

Texas Forensic Science Commission finds that the Department of Public Safety crime lab fabricated evidence against drug offenders. The Court of Criminal Appeals is expected to reverse the convictions.

The story is in myhighplains.com, among other places.

Since the criminal justice system in the state is decentralized, each affected county is responding to this in different ways:

Each district attorney may handle the situation as he or she chooses. Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healy told the Houston Chronicle that he was waiting for retesting of cases by DPS before alerting defendants and their lawyers.

Jack Roady, the district attorney in Galveston County, said he looked at each case and dismissed every one in which evidence had been destroyed or possibly "tainted by Salvador's involvement." Of the 700 convictions in this category, he said he focused on the 26 cases in which the defendant was still in prison.

In Harris County, Sara Kinney, a spokeswoman for the district attorney, said all pending cases connected to Salvador's work were dismissed. "Now we will just review, case by case, any writ we get as a result of that problem," she said.

Bob Wicoff, who heads the appellate division of the Harris County Public Defender's Office, said that his staff is beginning to file appeals, "armed with the Galveston cases," for some of the more than 400 Harris County cases that involved Salvador's work. He said that just four Houston defendants whose cases were handled by Salvador remain in prison; Harris County was less affected because it relies on a range of labs, not just the one where Salvador worked.

The story provides a link to the appelate court's ruling on a case involving a man sentenced to serve 32 years on a fabricated charge.

While the tests were the result of one employee, the report from the forensic commission finds that the DPS had a culture that tolerated such work, so the blame is being spread around.

The DPS employee responsible for the misconduct, Jonathan Salvador, has been the subject of an investigation by the Texas Forensic Science Commission. At the commission's last meeting in January, Nizam Peerwani, a member of the committee and the chief medical examiner for Tarrant County, said that Salvador was part of an office culture that "tolerated under-performance." Commissioner Sarah Kerrigan said that after multiple interviews with Salvador's colleagues, the commission concluded that his work was "marginal" and of "low quality."

Salvador, who could not be reached for comment, was suspended from his duties as a forensic scientist with DPS in February 2012, when the department discovered problems with his work, including the falsification of results in numerous cases involving marijuana, cocaine, heroine, pharmaceuticals and other controlled substances. Salvador had worked on 4,900 drug cases in 30 counties since he took the job in 2006, DPS spokesman Tom Vinger said.

After an internal investigation by DPS and the Texas Rangers, Salvador was brought before a Harris County grand jury in May 2012, which chose not to indict him. In August, he resigned from DPS.

"The department implemented more stringent quality control measures to help prevent similar issues in the future," Vinger said, adding that the department continues "to provide assistance in cases worked by this former employee, including re-examining evidence when requested."

DPS Laboratory Manager Keith Gibson also sent a letter to district attorneys around the state with a list of nearly 5,000 convictions that could've been affected by Salvador's work.

Prosecutor Accountabilty Bill passes Senate unanimously

The Bill is SB 825 and was introduced by John Whitmire. It is one of many such bills introduced this session following the Michael Morton case we discussed earlier this semester.

From the Texas Tribune:

It would extend the statute of limitations for offenses involving the suppression of evidence by prosecutors. Under current law, the four-year statute of limitations begins on these offenses when they occur, but Whitmire's proposal would begin the four years when a wrongfully convicted defendant is released from prison. It would also require the State Bar of Texas to issue a public reprimand for prosecutors who suppress evidence that they should have given to defense attorneys.

A public reprimand hardly seems sufficient. The bill now proceeds to the House.

Other bills aimed at decreasing wrongful convictions being considered by lawmakers include SB 1611, by state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and HB 1426, by state Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, both of which would codify the requirement that prosecutors share certain information with defense attorneys before a trial begins that could bolster a defendant's claims of innocence. Both bills are set to be discussed Tuesday by legislative committees.

For today's look at the Supreme Court

A few items for today's look at the court:

- Justices Turn Back Challenge to Broader U.S. Eavesdropping: The court argued that the people who brought a lawsuit against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act did not have standing to sue, and it may well be that no one has standing to sue.

- Justices Hear Arguments on Missed Deadline in Murder Case: The court heard arguments regarding a claim of innocence and whether federal habeas corpus challenges challenges override state deadlines to file innocence claims.

- From Scotus Blog: a look at what's on tap for today.

Today at the Court: February 27, 2013

Today is the last day of the February sitting. We are expecting one or more opinions in argued cases this morning and will begin live blogging shortly before ten o’clock.

After issuing opinions, the Justices will hear oral arguments in two cases: Shelby County v. Holder, followed by American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant.

In Shelby County, which Lyle previewed yesterday, and which Amy previewed on Monday “In Plain English,” the Court will consider the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Lyle will post his analysis of the oral argument shortly after it concludes; we will also have analysis from Tom and a report from Amy “In Plain English.” In addition, the blog will have commentary on the oral argument from Roger Clegg, Ellen Katz, Abigail Thernstrom, and Elizabeth Wydra.

David Garcia and Leo Caseria previewed the argument in American Express, in which the Court will consider the Federal Arbitration Act and antitrust claims on credit card “swipe fees.”

We should spend time looking at the court record on Shelby County v Holder.

Shelby County v. Holder

Shelby County v. Holder

Catching up with Ken Anderson's Court of inquiry

Anderson (left); Morton (right)

Sunday I posted a story about a court of inquiry being conducted against a sitting judge accused of covering up evidence against a defendant who was falsely convicted of murdering his wife. He served 25 years in prison before being released. A good addition to 2306's upcoming look at the criminal justice system in the state.

Here's an update on the proceedings from Texas Monthly:

- Court of Inquiry Begins: The court of inquiry will function essentially as a grand jury, in that it will determine if criminal charges should be brought. But unlike a grand jury, it will be conducted in open court. There will be no jury, only a judge. And Anderson’s legal team can present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. A visiting judge from Fort Worth, state district judge Louis Sturns, has been appointed by the Texas Supreme Court to oversee the inquiry. Legendary defense attorney Rusty Hardin will serve as the “attorney pro tem” who will present witnesses and evidence to help Sturns “determine if an offense has been committed,” according to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

- Day One: A court of inquiry into Anderson’s alleged prosecutorial misconduct began yesterday with Michael Morton taking the stand. Trial lawyer Rusty Hardin—who is serving as the inquiry’s “attorney pro tem,” and who must present witnesses and evidence to state district judge Louis Sturns to determine if an offense has been committed—asked Michael about several documents that have come to light which his defense lawyers never saw at trial. ....

- Court of Inquiry Continues: The third day of the court of inquiry into alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the Michael Morton case began with startling testimony. Williamson County Court at Law Judge Doug Arnold recounted a conversation he had years ago with then-D.A. Ken Anderson, who, according to Arnold, told him that he had used an unusual trial strategy on more than one occasion in criminal cases he had prosecuted: Anderson said he would deliberately not call the lead investigator in a case to the stand so that he would not have to turn over the investigator’s reports and notes to the defense. (According to state law, the defense has the right to see an officer’s notes before cross-examining him or her.)

Local judge orders DNA tests for convicted killer on death row

This is Texas and this hardly ever happens.

The motion heard Wednesday was filed recently by the New York-based Innocence Project and sought testing of crime scene evidence to support Swearingen's claims of innocence for the 1999 murder of 19-year-old college student Melissa Trotter.

The motion follows a 2011 Texas law that provides the right to conduct testing on any crime scene that can yield evidence of innocence.

At the time of the request, Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, said: "The Texas Legislature has made it clear that DNA testing should be allowed when there is a possibility it could help prove innocence, and the testing Mr. Swearingen is seeking could shed light on many unanswered questions in this case."

Swearingen was convicted in 2000 in Trotter's death and since filed three unsuccessful motions for DNA testing.

Texas has been accused of executing innocent people before. Some people don't mind. The Supreme Court has ruled that actual innocence does not guarantee a convicted person a new trial. This is touchy stuff.

Why are states reluctant to allow convicted prisoners to use DNA to prove their innocence?

Good question. Apparently many convicts in Virginia have been proven innocent, but the state is not in a hurry to let them know about it.

Initially, Virginia’s state authorities had no plans to notify the convicts that their DNA was being tested. Then, in 2008, the state legislature ordered them to notify those same convicts that their samples had been found and might be examined. If a convict failed to return the paperwork, the sample was tested nonetheless. Despite Marone’s claim that the Department of Forensic Science only conducts lab work, it alone is responsible for informing state prosecutors and police that former convicts have been cleared by DNA tests.

The department put out a call to pro bono lawyers around the state, who were asked to hand-deliver notifications that the accused might now be subject to DNA retesting. But there was a condition: Those lawyers were required to sign confidentiality agreements indicating that they were barred from explaining the content of the letters to the accused or from representing them in court.

In a related story, do we have to accept the execution of innocent people if we are to have a death penalty?

Who Confesses to a Crime They Didn't Commit?

From Brandon L. Garrett writing in Slate:

In my new book, Convicting the Innocent, I conducted the first empirical study of the first 250 wrongful convictions brought to light by DNA tests in the United States. First, I located the original criminal trial materials from almost all of those innocent people's cases. I then reviewed those remarkable cases. My goal in revisiting those trials was to try to understand how the criminal justice system could make such fundamental errors. These 250 cases shed light on how not just death penalty cases (17 of the 250 were capital cases), but everyday criminal cases rely on unsound evidence and faulty investigative procedures. It's easy to blame innocent convictions on occasional human error. The high court suggested as much in its ruling in Osborne v. District Attorney's Office, denying an inmate's request for post-conviction DNA testing and saying that our criminal justice system, "like any human endeavor, cannot be perfect." But just because a system is a human one doesn't mean that we should casually assume that things must go wrong. My research shows systemic failures that can be prevented by using improved criminal procedures, subject of a multimedia website, a joint project with the Innocence Project, titled "Getting it Right,"to be launched soon, and with a segment on eyewitness misidentifications which has just been launched.

Board Approves Report on Willingham

From the Texas Tribune:

The Forensic Science Commission voted out an amended version of a report on convicted arsonist Cameron Todd Willingham's case, but won't rule on professional negligence until the attorney general says whether they have jurisdiction to do so.

The final version will be available to the public on Monday. The original draft report, released Thursday, made recommendations to fire investigators, lawyers and judges and explicitly says the board will not rule on professional negligence while Attorney General Greg Abbott's decision is pending.

When the Supreme Court Fears Too Much Justice - The Atlantic

When the Supreme Court Fears Too Much Justice - The Atlantic

More on Connick v. Thompson.
- ScotusBlog.
- Prawsblawg.
- ACLU.
- NYT Editorial.

Should Forensics be Separated from Law Enforcement?

Radley Balko:

After countless scandals in recent years, the problems with America's forensics system are finally getting some national attention. In December, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill to reform the country's crime labs. In January, ProPublica and Frontline teamed up for a year-long investigation into the ways criminal autopsies are conducted across the country. In North Carolina, the state legislature is considering reforms to that state's crime lab, which was rocked by a damning 2010 investigation commissioned by the state attorney general and a follow-up report by the Raleigh News and Observer that uncovered widespread corruption, hiding of exculpatory findings, and a pro-prosecution bias among crime lab workers. All of this comes on the heels of a congressionally commissioned 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences that found expert witnesses in many areas of forensics routinely give testimony that is not backed by good science.

So the good news is that we are starting to see some skepticism, even some outrage, about the way forensic science is used in criminal cases. The bad news is that the solutions politicians and policy makers are proposing, while better than nothing, do not really address the primary problem. That problem is perverse incentives.

To be sure, there are other problems with the forensics system. For starters, many forensic disciplines, such as hair and carpet-fiber analysis, blood spatter analysis, and especially bite mark analysis, have not been subject to rigorous scientific testing. Even fingerprint analysis is not the sure thing it was once thought to be. Many of these fields were either invented by law enforcement agencies or honed and refined by them. The fields have not been subjected to peer review, and the methods by which, for example, a carpet-fiber or ballistics analyst produces a "match" are not blind. On the contrary, the analyst often knows the details of the crime and which sample implicates the suspect. When done this way, these analyses are not science, but they are often presented in court as if they were.

Innocence Legislation in Texas

Grits for Breakfast has an overview of various laws being considered in the Texas legislature regarding the actual innocence of defendants.

Are Drug Sniffing Dogs Reliable?

Maybe Not. From Reason:

For the first few years I had her, I was impressed by my late dog Harper's uncanny ability to assess people's character. She hated every crappy landlord and bad roommate. Barked at them. Snarled at them. Wouldn't go near them. But if I brought home a date I liked, Harper, a Shar Pei/Labrador mix, would curl up right next to the woman and turn on the charm. It took me several years to figure out that my dog wasn't a good judge of character; she was just good at reading me. She liked the people I liked and disliked the people who rubbed me the wrong way. For dogs descended from lines bred for protection and companionship, this talent makes sense. A dog adept at distinguishing friend from foe was likely to be kept around and bred, and one very good way to tell friend from foe is to read your master's body language.

My confusion about what was going on in Harper's head reflects a common misconception that is also apparent in the ways dogs are used in criminal investigations. When we think dogs are using their well-honed noses to sniff out drugs or criminal suspects, they may actually be displaying a more recently evolved trait: an urgent desire to please their masters, coupled with the ability to read their cues.

Several studies and tests have shown that drug-sniffing dogs, scent hounds, and even explosive-detecting dogs are not nearly as accurate as they have been portrayed in court.

Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?

Possibly. More problematic question: Do we care?