,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Thread: The USCA5 just shot down Joseph Osborne, a man convicted based on Steven Hayne's absurd testimony (it involved him constructing a "death mask" from an exhumed body).
The ruling demonstrates how AEDPA makes it nearly impossible to challenge junk science convictions.
The ruling demonstrates how AEDPA makes it nearly impossible to challenge junk science convictions.
The court again cited my Reason work on Hayne going back to 2007 to rule that questions about Hayne's credibility aren't new, and therefore Osborne missed his deadline to file (you have 1 year after the new evidence could reasonably be discovered). But the case against Hayne...
... has come out gradually. It's been an accumulation of information. Case in point:
-- In January 2014, a panel from this same CA5 ruled in that Hayne *was* still a credible expert.
-- 10 months later, a panel from the same CA5 ruled that Hayne was now "not credible."
...
-- In January 2014, a panel from this same CA5 ruled in that Hayne *was* still a credible expert.
-- 10 months later, a panel from the same CA5 ruled that Hayne was now "not credible."
...
Osborne filed in 2012 -- or 2 years before this very same federal appeals court was *still* ruling that Hayne was credible. The evidence against Hayne was finally overwhelming enough to change the court's mind.
But the court now insists that anyone making a claim that Hayne ...
But the court now insists that anyone making a claim that Hayne ...
... is not a credible witness, should have done so **back when this same court was repeatedly ruling that he was.**
Here's the punchline: If Osborne *had* challenged Hayne back then, he certainly would have lost. And once you've challenged an expert witness's credibility...
Here's the punchline: If Osborne *had* challenged Hayne back then, he certainly would have lost. And once you've challenged an expert witness's credibility...
...and lost, you're usually procedurally barred from challenging that witness again.
There's simply no way Osborne could have won, here. Even though no one thinks "death mask analysis" is credible.
Yet this court is utterly unconcerned. They don't even discuss the Catch-22.
There's simply no way Osborne could have won, here. Even though no one thinks "death mask analysis" is credible.
Yet this court is utterly unconcerned. They don't even discuss the Catch-22.
Osborne is now the third Hayne conviction to be ensnared in this trap. There will be many more.
This is why the "junk science writ" is so essential. People like Osborne need a reprieve. And it's why AEDPA is badly in need of reform. It's the worst crime bill of my lifetime.
This is why the "junk science writ" is so essential. People like Osborne need a reprieve. And it's why AEDPA is badly in need of reform. It's the worst crime bill of my lifetime.
Here's a longer explanation of all of this I wrote in 2017, when Osborne lost in federal district court:
washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch…
washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch…
