JIHEE (MARIE) PARK
<Staff Writer>
Even though it was a Friday afternoon leading up to Reading Week, the small meeting room was packed. The rest of campus was all but in a rush to start their weekends, but the audience at the talk given by Professor David Moran listened in hushed attention as the head of the Michigan Innocence Project told the story of the wrongful conviction and eventual exoneration of David Gavitt, through the combined efforts of law students, new scientific experts, and believing supporters.
At Osgoode Hall Law School, we are familiar with our own Innocence Project, led by Professor Alan Young. In Canada, it is one of only a few, along with those at the University of British Columbia and McGill University. However, Professor Moran’s presentation showed that this force is hardly sufficient in tackling the probably underestimated rates of wrongful conviction in criminal systems in the United States as well as in Canada.
Advances in genetic identification technologies have given many cases the chance to be opened again, as accuracy and reliability of DNA analyses have continued to increase. Other forensic sciences have given light to other cases. However, David Gavitt’s case was an atypical one, as the key evidence that led to his incarceration was new findings in fire science.
Mr. Gavitt was charged with three counts of first degree murder, of his wife and two daughters, for setting his own house on fire by arson. Though the investigators knew that Mr. Gavitt had no motive for committing this alleged crime, there were several facts that led to the conviction. The Innocence Project took on his application for re-opening his case, as they believed there was a strong chance of finding that the evidence the experts presented was fraudulent or faulty. The one pivotal piece of evidence was a food scientist’s interpretation of a gas chromatogram, where he confidently declared the presence of gasoline from the readings taken from several samples from the scene. The Innocence Project was able to get the original chromatograms, and their experts confirmed that there was no gasoline indicated by the readings at all.
This marks an interesting point for modern society. Today, we are so heavily reliant on science and technology that, in virtually every aspect of our daily lives, we would be impaired without it. This reliance on technology has led to a disproportionate trust in science and its applications, to an extent where we sometimes let simple human common sense lose against hypothetical scientific theories. This is what is also happening at crime scenes, where society has now given the final word to scientific evidence.
But what if the science was wrong? Professor Moran points out that there is often no scientific basis to forensic discovery tools. Fingerprinting is not actually supported by biological science, but by statistical probability and much guesswork. The same goes for bite mark analyses; apparently some odontologists mistakenly matched a suspect’s teeth to a wound on the victim’s body that was later discovered not to be a bite mark at all.
The same goes for Mr. Gavitt – during the time of the incident, there was a prevalent misconception about the characteristics of arson fires. Fires caused by arson (e.g. by gasoline being poured on the floor and ignited) were thought to be unusually hot and unusually fast spreading. Testimonies gathered by witness neighbors about the extreme heat and speed of the Gavitts’ fire was taken as evidence of arson.
What was not known back then was that in closed spaces, even small accidental fires can lead to explosive consequences. Furniture made of synthetic materials burns fast and releases volatile, flammable gases that build up to a certain point, which in a small, enclosed space will ignite explosively. This new understanding of fire science was the trail that Professor Moran followed, and helped to free Mr. Gavitt after 26 years in prison.
Another take-away was that by giving absolute trust to science and scientists, we allow them to choose the outcomes. As the legal system puts on blinders and trusts that the experts will lead us to the answer by the reins, some chance upon the opportunity to exploit the system. Professor Moran gave examples of certain individuals who gave false testimony as experts in order to sway the case to a popular verdict.
The important lesson to take from Professor Moran’s special lecture was that great caution must be exercised when it comes to criminal convictions. Lawyers and judges cannot shift the full burden of evidentiary assessment to scientists and other experts. Much of science today still remains, at best, guesses and theories, which, in so many instances, raises significant doubt in a criminal context.