Forensic Pathology and Miscarriages of Justice: a Journal Article Analysis
Merlyn Arostegui
Prof. Sigal
CRJU 443

|

Forensic Pathology and Miscarriages of Justice: a Journal Article Analysis
The article chosen for analysis is titled “Forensic Pathology and the Miscarriage of Justice” written by Michael S. Pollanen of the Centre of Forensic Science and Medicine, University of Toronto in Toronto, Canada. The article was published in Forensic, Science, Medicine, and Pathology in 2012. The main purpose of the article was to present the fact that in order for the criminal justice system to operate in a safe and fair manner, any evidence presented in the duration of a prosecution must be accurate and objective—especially medical evidence. If either the accuracy or objectivity of evidence presented is compromised, there lies the possibility of unsafe prosecution which can lead to wrongful convictions or other forms of miscarriages of justice.
Main Purpose
There has been an increased awareness in the number of cases that have experienced a miscarriage of justice due to compromised medical evidence being presented during trial. Although there are legal tools available to regulate the types of evidence admissible in court as well as the “experts” allowed to present said evidence [such as Daubert hearings], these tools are only partially effective because forensic pathology is a discipline that grows and develops over time. The accepted view in pathology [or any field of science, for that matter] is always subject to change—by new discoveries or revision of theories, which can cause flawed evidence if outdated knowledge and/or methods are used during processing. Another issue is human error during evidence presentation, may it be caused by misinterpretation of findings, unsatisfactory autopsies, bias, or aforementioned outdated knowledge and methods.
There are times when miscarriages of justice such as wrongful convictions can remedied through appeals, but there are other times when the miscarriage is left uncaught. The main goal is to eliminate the number of cases that contain flawed evidence in effort to avoid such miscarriages of justice. This particular journal article focuses on one case that was presented in the Ontario Court of Appeal on the basis of new evidence found during reexamination of postmortem findings. Based on the new findings, the original conclusions drawn at trial could not be sustained and the conviction was overturned. The author then goes on to describe the pitfalls that forensic pathologists encounter, and suggestions on how to overcome these pitfalls in order to enhance the criminal justice system.
Presentation of Information
The information in the article was presented in a format of introduction, case report, and discussion of the new evidence found during reexamination. The case report stated the age and gender of the victim, how the victim was found, the autopsy findings, and what the suspect was charged and convicted with. It also goes over the methodology of the post-conviction review and its findings, as well as the corrective action for the convicted suspect. The case in point was a case of a 4 year old girl, with no significant past medical history, who was found dead in her bed. She was found in the prone position with deep bruising and petechiae in her face, neck and upper chest, as well as a dilated anus that was reported to be caused by acute and chronic injury. The original cause of death was stated to be “cardiorespiratory arrest due to asphyxia.” The uncle was babysitting the girl the night prior to her discovery, making him the prime suspect. After the autopsy findings, he was charged and convicted with 1st degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.
The discussion section of the article went over the findings of the post-conviction review that took place 12 years after the uncle had been incarcerated. Upon review by a panel of pathologists, it was concluded that the original evidence was misinterpreted by the original pathologist on the case. Postmortem anal dilation was misinterpreted as anal abuse, preparative artifacts in the microscopic slides of perianal tissue were over interpreted as damage, and post mortem hypostatic hemorrhages were misinterpreted as bruising. By going over the mechanical causes of hypostatic hemorrhages, and how they can be formed in such a manner to mimic bruising and injury (Shkrum, 2007, p. 35), the author makes the point that these postmortem changes are a pitfall for forensic pathologists because they can leave room for error in interpretation or diagnosis, possibly leading to wrongful convictions.
Relevance to a Specific Group
This article is relevant to the entire forensic science and criminal justice system. Every time a person is wrongfully convicted, it is a miscarriage of justice. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, there have been 1,430 exonerations from the year 1989 to the present, with 312 of those cases being due to false or misleading forensic evidence (National Registry of Exonerations, n.d.). Situations such as false evidence or official misconduct puts stress on the criminal justice system, because it calls into question other decisions courts have made, and previous evidence presented during trial.
Implications and Bias
As a reviewing member of the Ontario Court of Appeal and the expert witness for the post-conviction review of the case analyzed in this article, the author did show a bias towards the fact that forensic pathologists, as well as other forensic scientists, need to be more alert and diligent when it comes to processing evidence. With forensic scientists causing crime lab scandals, such as Annie Dookhan, a chemist from a Massachusetts crime lab, who was arrested for mishandling approximately 60,000 drug samples in the duration of her nine years at the lab (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, n.d.), the author’s bias toward forensic scientists being at fault can be slightly understood. By writing on how these missteps do nothing but soil the reputation of a criminal justice system that citizens are supposed to be able to trust, the author justifies the article’s relevance to the group of those in criminal justice. The author also raised the fact that forensic pathologists need to have more of an open mind when it comes to the possibilities in a case. One of the main points that the author wanted to make was that not having an open mind has the most potential danger because it can lead forensic pathologists to conflate the cause and manner of death when presenting the death statement. Forensic pathologists must know background circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death before beginning an autopsy (DiMaio, 2001, p. 547). However, they should not use the background circumstances of cases as the sole burden of opinion and diagnosis when analyzing evidence. By keeping an open mind and not approaching a case with an instant bias, such as approaching a sudden death of a child as a homicide, it allows that pathologist to be thorough and perform exclusionary tests for diseases or postmortem changes that mimic injuries. By being thorough, it allows expert testimony to be balanced, reasonable, and concede fair alternatives in cross examination (Pollanen, 2012).
Further Research to Support Main Topic
While the author of the article does not provide research needed to support and further the principle of the main topic, he does list factors that are helpful in order for forensic pathologists to perform better and increase the reliability of evidence from autopsy. The first factor listed is a formal system of quality assurance where a pathologist has his or her autopsy report peer reviewed by a second forensic pathology before releasing the report to authorities. The second factor would be the use of autopsy guidelines that enhances the likelihood that key macroscopic and microscopic observations will be documented in a format that allows the observations to be observed by other pathologists, including defense experts. The third factor being that written opinions in the expert opinions in the autopsy report that explain the basis of the main medicolegal weapons, such as cause of death, time of death, use of a weapon, that the pathologist is offered to prepare at trial (Pollanen, 2012). This ensures transparency of the pathologist’s opinion and helps the prosecution and defense fully understand the autopsy report before court proceedings commence. In addition, issues that the prosecution and defense agree and disagree on, especially as it concerns medical evidence, can be defined before trial.
Conclusion
These suggestive factors are helpful because they can be followed regardless of how many technological advances are taking place in the field of forensic medicine. By having extra peer review with autopsy findings, it decreases the chances of flawed evidence due to insufficient knowledge of forensic pathology, or misinterpreted postmortem findings. Ensuring that pathologist’s reports are transparent, and matters of agreement and non-agreement between prosecution and defense are defined before trial allows for complete objectivity. These factors and the lessons learned with the case studied contribute to better expert testimony in court, along with a fair criminal justice system that citizens can actually trust.

ReferencesDiMaio, M. V., & DiMaio, M. D. (2001). Forensic pathology (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Exoneration by Year. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/Exoneration-by-Year.aspxNACDL - Crime Lab & Forensic Scandals. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nacdl.org/criminaldefense.aspx?id=28286Pollanen, M. (2012). Forensic pathology and the miscarriage of justice. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, 8(3), 285-289Shkrum, M. J., & Ramsay, D. A. (2007). Forensic pathology of trauma: Common problems for the pathologist. (Springer e-books.) Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. |