Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Big play for leaked forensic science report

By Mark Obbie

The Times' Solomon Moore previews the upcoming release of a National Academy of Sciences report on flawed scientific practices that law enforcement have used to convict "thousands of defendants for nearly a century." His writing rings with authority, providing useful legal, scientific, and historical context intelligently and clearly. Given the report's potential to bolster countless evidentiary challenges, there's no denying the story's closing quote: "It's going to be big." But that quote, like much of the story, is from an anonymous source. In fact, the heart of the story is sourced so opaquely that the story requires readers to take on faith all its newsy facts. The level of anonymity throughout the story is remarkable, considering its play (front page) and that it's not a story from the White House or CIA, where such tactics are, lamentably, routine. I'm a realist on these questions -- anonymity is a necessary evil -- but the questions here are whether Moore provided as much transparency as possible, and whether the story's news value (an early heads up on something to be released publicly in a matter of days or weeks) justifies the tactics.Moore quotes four experts by name, and cites a fifth named expert's contribution to the report. The only direct quote from an anonymous source is the one at the story's end, identified as "one person who has reviewed the draft and who asked not to be identified because of promises to keep the contents confidential." But neither that source nor the named sources are quoted on particulars in the report. For the substance of the draft report, Moore uses a blanket attribution near the top of the story: "forensic professionals, scholars and scientists who have seen review copies of the study." Without noting how many we're talking about, he proceeds to detail the report's contents, without any direct quotes from the report, and without any further attribution. We don't know if Moore saw it, or is relying on others' interpretation of it; and if it's the latter, how many sources he has for each fact. So how do I answer my own questions -- about whether the end justifies the means? I'm wobbly, but ultimately I say it's worth it. I'm grateful to learn the news now rather than later, and trusting that Moore was sure of his facts, even if he couldn't or wouldn't tell us why he's sure.

Full post as published by Lawbeat on February 05, 2009 (boomark / email).