A Simplified Guide To Forensic Science

ForensicScienceSimplified.org, a new website created by NFSTC and funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, makes it easy to understand the what, why and how of forensic science.
Developed with noted experts, this straightforward guide walks non-scientists through the key disciplines that are crucial to today’s investigative and judicial process.

The name of the website says it all. From firearms examination to video enhancement, the site provides simple, easy-to-understand explanations of 11 different forensic disciplines (with more in the works). Each section presents the principles behind the techniques, approaches for discovering and collecting evidence, and an overview of how it’s enhanced and processed once it gets back to the lab.


The Simplified Guide also clears up common misconceptions about what the science can and can’t accomplish. This free online resource is a valuable guide for police officers, attorneys, educators and the general public.

“In today’s courtroom, where jurors increasingly expect forensic evidence to be presented, it’s helpful for officers of the court and other non-scientists to have a trusted, free resource that explains the basics of forensic science in easily understood terms,” said Kevin Lothridge, CEO of NFSTC.
To make it easy and enjoyable to navigate, the site is built using “responsive” web design that automatically adjusts to your smartphone, tablet or desktop computer.

Try out the site! www.ForensicScienceSimplified.org

NIJ - Understanding What Happens in an Erroneous Conviction

From the National Institute of Justice - 

Why are innocent people wrongfully convicted in certain cases yet acquitted in others? Research is starting to uncover what happens. A new study, "Predicting Erroneous Convictions: A Social Science Approach to Miscarriages of Justice" compared cases where innocent defendants were wrongfully convicted to "near misses" – cases in which an innocent defendant was acquitted or had charges dismissed before trial. They found 10 significant facts that could lead to a wrongful conviction:

• A younger defendant
• A defendant with a criminal history
• A weak prosecution case
• Prosecution withheld evidence
• Lying by a non-eyewitness
• Unintentional witness misidentification
• Misinterpreting forensic evidence at trial
• A weak defense
• Defendant offered a family witness
• A "punitive" state culture

Visit the wrongful convictions webpage and study summary
Read the full study (434 pages)
Watch a video interview with lead researcher Dr. Jon Gould

NY Times - The Right to Counsel: Badly Battered at 50

 A half-century ago, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone too poor to hire a lawyer must be provided one free in any criminal case involving a felony charge. The holding in Gideon v. Wainwright enlarged the Constitution’s safeguards of liberty and equality, finding the right to counsel “fundamental.” The goal was “fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law.”

This principle has been expanded to cover other circumstances as well: misdemeanor cases where the defendant could be jailed, a defendant’s first appeal from a conviction and proceedings against a juvenile for delinquency.

complete article

KYCOA Feb 22 - Dehart - Conflicting Advice on Parole

James Dehart v. Commonwealth, COA 2/22/13, to be published

Misadvice regarding parole eligibility is “gross misadvice” pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky.  Mr. Dehart was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea when the record showed he was given confusing and conflicting advice on parole eligibility.

Contributed by Erin Yang 

KY COA Feb 22 - Carter - Failure to Report KRS 439.3106

Rodney Carter v. Commonwealth- COA, 2/22/13, to be published (Dixon dissents) 

 The Court vacated and remanded when it determined the trial court did not properly evaluate the statutory criteria set forth in KRS 439.3106 before revoking Appellant's probation for failing to report.  Preserved below by Paul Sysol.

Contributed by Erin Yang 

KYCOA Feb 15 - Throgmorton - KRS 532.110

Kenneth Throgmorton v. Commonwealth-  

COA, 2/15/13, not to be published-  

The Court remanded the case to the circuit court with directions to enter an order that conforms with the sentencing length restriction in KRS 532.110, as provided in KRS 532.080.  The Circuit Court had run sentences consecutively for cases emanating from two different counties in the judicial circuit for a contemporaneous crime spree.  

At the entry of the first 16 year judgment on four class D convictions, the Circuit Court was silent as to how the sentences from the other county would run.  Two weeks later, in the second county, a total sentence of 16 years was ordered to run consecutive to the 16 years from the other county, for a total of 32 years.  

The Court held such violative of KRS 532.110’s proscription of sentences that would exceed the longest available sentence for one convicted of that class of crime and being a PFO (KRS 532.080).  The Court relied upon the Kentucky Supreme Court’s Opinion in Goldsmith v. Commonwealth, 363 S.W.3d 330 (Ky. 2012), emanating from the same judicial circuit.   

Linda Horsman of the Appeals Branch represented Mr. Throgmorton on appeal, and was assisted by Molly Mattingly, as then-motions attorney, in getting belated appeal granted after the Circuit Court clerk misplaced one of the Notices of Appeal, and Amanda Branham of DPA Paducah, who ably preserved this issue for appeal in circuit court.  

KYCOA Feb 8 - Bounds - Sufficiency of Affidavit

Bounds v. Commonwealth, 2011-CA-000671-MR.  To be published. 

Opinion Affirming by Acree, Nickell and Stumbo concurring.

Issue: sufficiency of affidavit for search warrant.

Affidavit for search warrant of Bounds’ residence contained the following facts:

Citizen Harshfield played an answering machine message for Detective Blanton with Bounds asking Harshfield to purchase “some pills.”  Harshfield said Bounds came by his apartment asking Harshfield bo buy pseudoephedrine.  Harshfield said he had bought pseudoephedrine for Bounds one month prior.  Harshfield said he once saw “Coleman fuel, yellow ammonia stuff, and ether in a can” in Bounds’ car.  An anonymous informant told Blanton that Bounds asked him to purchase pseudoephedrine.  “Meth check” showed Bounds had bought pseudoephedrine.  Blanton had received numerous tips that Bounds was cooking meth.

Bounds challenged affidavit by claiming probable cause was not established because it did not say that pseudoephedrine may be used in the production methamphetamine or that Det. Blanton had any knowledge or training of a link between pseudoephedrine and the manufacture of methamphetamine.  The Court of Appeals panel found such was not needed because it is well known among law enforcement that pseudoephedrine is a key ingredient used to manufacture methamphetamine. 

Bounds also challenged the affidavit because there was no nexus between the suspected criminal activity and Bounds’ residence.  “The critical element in a reasonable search is not that the owner of the property is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific ‘things’ to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought.” Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 556 (1978).  In response, the Court of Appeals found that “in the case of drug dealers evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live.”  Beckam v. Commonwealth, 284 S.W.3d 547 (Ky. App. 2009).  The Court of Appeals concluded that they discern no meaningful distinction between a person dealing drugs and a person manufacturing drugs with respect to where that person may store drugs and related drug paraphernalia and that it is reasonable to assume a person who manufactures drugs does so at his residence.

Contributed by Molly Mattingly