The recent case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico solidified the confrontation clause right to cross examine the actual lab technician that performed the tests. It doesn’t seem much of a stretch to me to that right includes the ability to inspect the software and hardware used by an “expert” witness to arrive at his conclusions. Bullcoming is well into the future after this man’s conviction, but the biggest hardass on the USSC when it comes to the confrontation clause is Scalia- who was on the Court when he was convicted. It seems more likely that his lawyers didn’t pursue the confrontation clause aspects as vigorously as they could have. Again, I’m not blaming them. It’s not reasonable to expect perfection, and thinking of every possible legal strategy- or having the funds to pursue them all- is at least bordering on perfection.

It’s an indictment of our system that the wheels of justice move so slowly when it comes to recognizing errors, let alone correcting them. This prosecution has ruined this man’s life, and it’s probable that no consequences will accrue to those responsible.

The adobe source code most certainly is secret, although you could get a (very ugly) copy by decompiling it I suppose. I’m sure it is also copyrighted (not patented, although I’m sure they have patented some processes or algorithms they used in it). Proprietary software companies generally don’t turn over their source code.

It’s because hypocrisy is the biggest problem in our political system, and it’s prevalent on both sides of the isle. “Freedom for me, but not for thee.” IMO calling yourself a “democrat” or “republican” is being intellectually dishonest in some way.

Even my contrarian devil’s advocacy does not extend so far as to defend him against accusations of idiocy.

Bill Maher is not a libertarian. i can’t even imagine a person who is less libertarian than he is. He is all about big government intruding into people’s lives.

Bill Maher is an idiot who heard someone make a snide comment that libertarians are just libertines and actually took them seriously.

Finality!

If you look at the Breathalyzer case you’ll see why this argument doesn’t work. The problem with Breathalyzer weren’t with the methodology, but in the implementation. Two specifics that I remember:

* The methodology was to take a certain number of measurements at certain intervals and average them. The programmer assigned this task didn’t know how to do it properly. Rather than adding up all of the measurements and dividing by the number of observations, he kept a running tally. Each time a new measurement arrived he added it to the tally and divided by two.

* The sensors used had a range of values for which their accuracy was valid. If a value was encountered outside of the range it was changed to the closest valid value.

Deposing the programmer who wrote this code would not have revealed these errors, as the programmer did not believe that they were errors. Only inspection of the source code by a defense expert revealed them.

So anyway I would have to conclude that the defense in this trial either couldn’t afford an expert witness to point out how stupid the test was. Or, again that the original conviction and sentencing really came down to the cousins’ coerced testimony.

#6 | Discord | March 6th, 2012 at 11:58 am
Next time they should just see if the defendant weighs more than a duck, and dispense with the air of scientific rigor.

That is exactly what this/some “expert” witnessing boils down too. I told this kid to look at pictures of girls and he spent “too long” on some of them. Who the hell would weigh that as any type of evidence, “expert” or no.

I hope the original conviction really came down to the cousins’ coerced testimony.

#17 | sheenyglass | March 6th, 2012 at 1:52 pm

There’s a difference between source code and methodology. A software developer could reveal the methodology by stating what factors are measured and how conclusions are drawn from those factors.

How can the credibility of the in-house expert be independently challenged. Without access to the source code, he could say anything he wants to. It’s not like he has any incentive to tell the truth and possibly discredit his product, and jeopardize his job by doing so.

Either you are willing to allow your product to be scrutinized and challenged, or you’re not. The reason for ‘not’ doesn’t matter. If you’re not willing, it shouldn’t be admissible, or should be challenged quite easily. (and then excluded based on an easy challenge, via confrontation as Radley suggest.)

Corporate profit should not trump an accused’s right to a competent and fair defense/trial.