Henry Lee is the darling of forensic science. Recall his inscrutable uttering in the OJ case? And now he has his own show on Court TV, and books, and a lecture tour, and... Perhaps that explains why some prosecutors in Connecticut are hesitant to call him as a witness any longer. As one muttered the other day, "He's spread too thin."
The ubiquitous Dr. Lee has ghost writers preparing books, a television show, consulting gigs here and there. He's a whirlwind of opinion about the hidden vectors solving crimes. On the theory that timing is everything, he's riding the tide created by a new-found public fascination with forensic science all the way to the bank. His website is one of the slickest I've ever seen. check it out
I worry that all this hype about forensic evidence is creating a public eager to believe anything.
Long gone are the days in which television wise guys would mutter: "You got nothin'; it's only circumstantial evidence." Today the more remote the clue, the more spectacular the story. There must, Virginia, be a needle in every haystack.
Voir dire of prosecptive jurors is more important than ever.
Question: Do you understand the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?
Answer: I am not sure.
Question: Direct evidence is something someone actually perceived. Circumstantial evidence is an inference drawn from the perceived to the unperceived. Does that make sense?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Do you watch crime shows?
Answer: Yes.
Question: What do you like about them?
Answer: The way everything comes together at the end of the show.
Question: Do you understand that there are no guarantees in a real trial that loose ends will be tied up? In fact, there can be more questions at the end of a trial than at the beginning?
That is the point, and it is a point that the media's glorification of forensic drama, and Henry Lee's ubiquitous chatter, may obscure. I fear that a forensic-happy culture will encourage jurors to draw inferences in favor of the state, inferences that help "solve" crimes at the expense of justice.
One of Lee's wannabe proteges, a forensic dentist named Gus Karazulis, is a case in point. He testified about bite-mark evidence used to convict a client of mine, Alfred Swinton. He boasts about his testimony. See Gus Brags. Law enforcement officials brag about it , too. See More hype. If Gus testifies in a trial near you, ask him about how he used to bite himself as part of his scientific testing.
What the dentist and law-enforcement officers don't talk about is the Connecticut Supreme Court opinion in State v. Swinton. That case held the computer-generated evidence inadmissable in the Swinton case as without proper foundation. See State v. Swinton.
The hype's the thing in the new world of forensic hot dogs. Truth? That's optional.
