The numerous problems at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab might affect the case of Neil Entwistle - or at least that's what Neil's lawyer, Elliot Weinstein, seems to think. So far, the lab has taken over five months to test DNA samples from ammunition boxes, gun locks, and other items that Entwistle may have touched while allegedly taking his father-in-law's gun to commit the murders. Weinstein says that when the results finally come in he'll have them tested again by a private company:
"We just have to deal with the reality that the workings of the state crime lab have been called into question. When the lab gets these results, we have every reason to question the results and to be able to have the public and trial juries be mindful that just because the state scientists say something does not mean it's accurate."
District Attorney Gerry Leone downplayed the possibility that the DNA mess will delay Entwistle's trial, which is currently scheduled to begin on October 1st.
Hmm, I wonder if Neil's trial will overlap with that of Alexander Pring-Wilson? At a hearing on Monday a judge set a tentative date of November 5th for the former Harvard grad student's retrial.
Thanks to the Boston Globe for some of my information.
P.S. In case anyone was wondering, there has still not been a ruling on Entwistle's motion to suppress from way back in April. I will post as soon as possible if I find out anything new about either of these two cases.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Man sues over gay marriage question
An aspiring lawyer is suing the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and 4 members of the state's Supreme Judicial Court for a very good reason. Stephen Dunne says that there was a question on the March 1 exam that forced applicants to "accept, support, and promote homosexual marriage and homosexual parenting." Because he left that question blank, Dunne failed the exam. He now wants $9,750,000 in damages, and I agree with him 100%. Scores on standardized tests like the bar exam should never have anything to do with the applicants' opinions. Such tests should only measure people's knowledge of facts and their ability to defend their opinions, never what the opinions are. I hope this unjust question is removed from the exam and that anyone who failed the exam because of it is allowed to pass. Being forced to mindlessly agree with the popular opinion should never be a requirement to practice law.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)