Scared of Science: Crime Labs' Work is Rarely Challenged by Defense
Lawyers. National Fire & Arson Report. Vol. 15. No. 3 (September 1997).
Abstract: This article provides the details of a case under appeal.
Sonia Cacy, convicted of dousing her uncle with gasoline and setting him
on fire, is serving 99 years based on, what some are saying, is shabby proof
While the prosecution presented scientific evidence supporting its claim
of arson and murder, the defense did not argue this evidence. In spite of
Ake v. Oklahoma, a 1935 Supreme Court case entitling poor defendants to
funds to pay for experts, Ms. Cacy's lawyer did spend any money on forensic
evidence. Two conclusions are reached in this article. One is that Ms. Cacy's
lawyer mishandled her case. The other is that her lawyer, like many others,
was afraid of pursing a scientific defense. Research across the country
shows that very little money is spent to retain experts for poor defendants
and that defense attorneys seek to challenge the prosecution's findings
only 3% of the time.
Through chance, a chemist learned of Ms. Cacy's situation. He read the
trial transcripts and became convinced that the prosecution had manipulated
the evidence into a work of fiction and that the defense had taken no steps
to contradict them. This chemist has assembled a team of scientists and
lawyers, all of whom are working for free to appeal the case, establish
the truth, and free Ms. Cacy. Even the judge has expressed his doubts about
her conviction, but states that it was not his place to advise the defense.
Defense lawyers' clients are convicted in a majority of cases. The conclusion
from the Cacy case and others is not that prosecutors are getting better,
but that defenders efforts to challenge them are weak.