Ballistics "expert" lied about credentials, hundreds of retrials possible.

[Crosshair]

This man put hundreds of people in jail and lied about his credentials. It is just sickening.

Police expert lied about credentials - Ballistics specialist killed himself after being confronted with deceit

From the article:

"Joe would never, ever cut corners to put someone in jail or just to sell the case," said the former city investigator...

Well he obviously cut corners on his education and resume. What makes you think that he wouldn't cut corners on evidence or lie in the courtroom?

They aren't going to be able to discredit anything."

Mabee they won't, but they still have to review EVERY CASE that he was a part of and revew ALL EVIDENCE that he worked on. Some people may get new trials.

Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger said a quick review of the office's files revealed fewer than 30 cases - most more than 20 years old - that included analysis or testimony from Kopera.

You're gona need to do more than a quick review. Who is to say he didn't handle evidence or give co-workers advice or opinons on evidence?

With a career spanning 37 years, Kopera worked on criminal cases in every one of Maryland's 24 jurisdictions as well as in Delaware, Pennsylvania and Virginia and at both the state and federal level, said Col. Thomas E. "Tim" Hutchins, superintendent of the Maryland State Police.

That is alot of cases to have to review. Defense attorneys are going to have a field day and rightfully so. They can't just brush this off.

Oh, and there are some great commentary at Fark.com about this story. Enjoy.

Sometimes Fark can produce some good caliber posts. There is a good stock of gun owners on that site and many of the members there are well primed on gun topics.

 

[Wildalaska]

First we have the "play to the crowd" headline that is designed to inflame, based on an astonishing lack of knowledge about how the legal system works:

This man put hundreds of people in jail and lied about his credentials. It is just sickening.

Then we have a little better statement of the law:

The question is, what did he claim to have degrees in, and what difference does that make to his qualifications? Obviously, he had taken classes and been sent to specific courses and learned this stuff over the years," said Harford County State's Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly. "Even then, it may not have any real long-lasting effect on some of the cases, especially those that involved experts in other disciplines and other types of evidence. His evidence may have been one piece on the scale of evidence that convicted somebody overwhelmingly."

WildinterestingcasebutnotsocutanddriedAlaska

 

[FirstFreedom]

On one occasion, she said, he testified that he had a degree from the Rochester Institute of Technology in photo science. On another, he characterized a degree from RIT as being in aerospace engineering. And at other times, he claimed to have a mechanical engineering degree from the University of Maryland

So we have *blatent lies* to juries, representing the attainment of *highly technical* engineering degrees, when it appears that all this guy had (other than OJT) was a high school diploma and one year at Baltimore College (no degree). Hmmm, yeah, I can see where that might present a problem vis a vis reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, and their confidence in him as an expert, in cases where his testimony was central or even non-central but significant in the case. People will be getting new trials, as well they should.

 

[Don H]

If the man perjured himself about his academic credentials, it would taint the balance of his testimony, at least to some degree, wouldn't it?

 

[rhgunguy]

WA, I think the headline is just fine. Why shouldn't people be inflamed? As for an astonishing lack of knowledge about the law, the former assistant states attorney says that the problem can not be overstated and every case he was involved in is now open to question. I think he might have a better handle on things than a gun store owner on the other side of the continent.

If it realy was not that big of a deal, why did the guy kill himself? All he is facing is purjury.

What is cut and dried is that so-called expert testimony was used to put people behind bars. They did not get a fair trial. In America we are entitled to as much. That is pretty cut and dried.

 

[Wildalaska]

You are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one.

What is cut and dried is that so-called expert testimony was used to put people behind bars.

Where do you get "so called" from

As for an astonishing lack of knowledge about the law, the former assistant states attorney says that the problem can not be overstated and every case he was involved in is now open to question. I think he might have a better handle on things than a gun store owner on the other side of the continent.

Nope, he doesnt

WildegotripAlaska

 

[rhgunguy]

I get "so-called" from the fact that he was not what he stated. Juries belive the testimony of experts becasue they belive that they are educated in their feild of expertise. This man was not, hence the "so-called" part.

People were tried and convicted due to the expert testimony of a witness that was nothing of the sort. In America we must be found guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. If this man's testimony(re-enforced by his "expert" status)led juries to belive in the guilt of a defendant, the case should be re-evaluated. That is fair. Fair would also include having a witnesses credentials evaluated before they are alowed to testify. Shame on the lazy prosecutors who did not bother to check this guy out.

 

[EJJR]

The problem lies in the fact that it cannot be determined just how much effect the "experts" testimony had on the jury's verdict; and because of that, new trials are likely the only outcome.

I fail to see how anyone could even get away with that for as long as he did. I would have thought extensive background checks would be employed; especially when someones freedom or very life may be on the line.

Though, I dont have much understanding of legal proceedures;. I'd actually prefer to keep it that way too.

I dunno;something's missing IMO....

Was it by sheer stupidity, gross negligence or were others involved, that knew he was not qualified as claimed, that allowed this to happen?