Jackson Free Press

Over the last week, an investigative story in Reason magazine by Radley Balko probing Mississippi medical examiner Steven Hayne has attracted national attention, even drawing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. The Reason piece, "CSI Mississippi," starts:

In a remarkable capital murder case earlier this year, the Mississippi Supreme Court, by an 8-to-1 vote, tossed out the expert testimony of Steven Hayne. The defendant was Tyler Edmonds, a 13-year-old boy accused of killing his sister's husband. Hayne, Mississippi's quasi-official state medical examiner, had testified that the victim's bullet wounds supported the prosecution's theory that Edmonds and his sister had shot the man together, each putting a hand on the weapon and pulling the trigger at the same time.

"I would favor that a second party be involved in that positioning of the weapon," Hayne told the jury. "It would be consistent with two people involved. I can't exclude one, but I think that would be less likely."

Testifying that you can tell from an autopsy how many hands were on the gun that fired a bullet is like saying you can tell the color of a killer's eyes from a series of stab wounds. It's absurd. The Mississippi Supreme Court said Hayne's testimony was "scientifically unfounded" and should not have been admitted. Based on this and other errors, it ordered a new trial for Edmonds.

But it wasn't the doctor's dubious claim that made the case unusual. It's the fact that the court explicitly renounced his testimony. It was the first time that had happened to Hayne in hundreds of cases dating back nearly 20 years.

Read the whole thing; it's an important piece.

Previous Comments

ID

115110

Comment

This needs to be checked out......

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-10-15T09:55:47-06:00

ID

115111

Comment

Believe me, Lewis. We criminal defense lawyers have read it. judges too, I imagine.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-10-15T09:59:52-06:00

ID

115112

Comment

A close family member of my man is an actual board certified forensic pathologist and an ME outside of this state. He says that basically every other state knows about this and is disdainful of MS practices regarding forensic pathology. I hope these articles get something done about it. My younger stepbrother passed away three months ago of "unknown causes". Guess who did his autopsy?

Author

Lori G

Date

2007-10-15T10:04:57-06:00

ID

115113

Comment

Emily Ward was ethical. THat was why she got axed.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2007-10-15T10:06:20-06:00

ID

115114

Comment

I've long been told that we should investigate this situation, but I didn't have the resources to do it. (Thank Melton.) I was really glad to see Radley do it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-10-15T10:12:35-06:00

ID

115115

Comment

Justice Diaz's slam of Hayne in that opinion was a thing of beauty. Everyone should read it.

Author

Tanner

Date

2007-10-15T10:17:00-06:00

ID

115116

Comment

It's hardly unprecedented. There's Galvez (who can tell you whether the perp was a male or female by looking at the knife wounds), McGarry on the coast (look at the Shaffer case, death via alcohol, drugs and rough sex transforms into premeditated murder when he testifies) and, in a category all his own, Michael West.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2007-10-15T10:17:06-06:00

ID

115117

Comment

Re: Galvez: “Dr. Galvez, a pathologist and psychiatrist, stated that the wounds on Winn's body were consistent with the type of knife seized at Hester's trailer. The depth of the wounds indicated that the assailant was either a weak or drunken man or a woman. In Dr. Galvez' experience, the multiple stabbing inflicted on Winn was typically committed more often by whites than other ethnic groups.” Hester v. State, 463 So.2d 1087, 1092 (Miss. 1985) McGarry: “Relying on these statements and his examination of the body, Dr. McGarry concluded at the end of the autopsy that ‘probably alcohol’ and ‘probably drugs’ contributed to the death of Marshall, which Dr. McGarry said was ‘not intended to be murder.’ At trial, McGarry testified that the victim died “of asphyxia, and that she had died violently.” Shaffer v. State, 740 So.2d 273, 277 (Miss. 1998) And, West - he was the subject of an A&E expose.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2007-10-15T10:39:48-06:00

ID

115118

Comment

If the guy isn't actually board certified it would seem to me to be precarious for the state to depend on his "expertise" since defense attorneys would be able to attack his credibility and certainly leave holes open for appeals and such. I mean if the allegations in that article are all true, any person convicted with his testimony should be fair game for a retrial or have I watched too many Law and Orders lol?

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-10-15T11:05:25-06:00

ID

115119

Comment

Just for a little mind jogging: Remember the case some years back where Dr. Galvez testified that a young Black female, who was found with BOTH hands tired behind her BACK, had committed SUICIDE. She was found hanging from a noose. Maybe that case is one for review.

Author

justjess

Date

2007-10-15T12:32:41-06:00

ID

115120

Comment

I don't remember that but I do remember the case about ten years ago where Galvez testified that the wounds were knife wounds. The defendant was a JPS student who claimed he had stabbed the victim (who died) with a pencil in self defense. Emily Ward told an investigator with the DA's office that the wounds were pencil wounds. The kid got a new trial.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2007-10-15T14:18:39-06:00

ID

115121

Comment

Hayne also testified at the Seale trial. At the time, I thought it odd that he considered Edwards' testimony in his evaluation as a medical examiner. (Such synthesis of medical records and witness testimony would seem appropriate for a lawyer, but not a medical expert.) Jurors were fully aware of Hayne's methodology-- and heard criticism of it from the defense-- and, as such, were able to assign the appropriate weight to it during deliberation. I suspect they weighed it very little: the prosecution did not form their case around physical evidence, mostly because very little remained. Hayne's testimony, it appeared, was the strongest case they could find from a medical examiner in Mississippi, and they used it as a building block in a much larger case. One of the four witnesses Seale's lawyers called to the stand was forensic pathologist James Lauridson, who agreed with Hayne that the probable manner of Dee and Moore's deaths was homicide, but unlike Hayne would not rule fresh-water drowning the probable cause of death. (Lauridson, unlike Hayne, did not consider Edwards' testimony, or the testimony of Navy diver James Bladh-- whose recovery team discovered Dee and Moore's bodies.) Hayne's testimony ultimately played a minor role in the prosecution's case-- which relied heavily on the eyewitness testimony of Edwards, and other testimony from law enforcement, friends and family. That said, the freelancer system of Mississippi medical examiners is clearly inadequate, and in cases that depend on examiners' testmiony, potentially disastrous.

Author

msaldana

Date

2007-10-15T22:37:16-06:00

ID

115122

Comment

This article brings to the surface issues that many people have known about for a long time. Medical examiners and coroners in MS seem to have an almost fraternal structure. Correct me if I am wrong, but one does not need any certification or pre-requisite knowledge to run for coroner. And the only requirement of a coroner is to "pronounce" a body. Typically, coroners get paid a small salary plus a set amount per body. In Rankin county this adds up to around $100,000 - on a "good" year. Jimmy Roberts is a classic case of someone who, like Hayne, needs to be ousted. While several stories I've heard would be heresay, there is the notorious example of Mr Roberts showing up to the funeral of a man he pronounced after the man dies of lung cancer. Mr Roberts stood outside handing out cards that read "Thank you for smoking." His and other coroner's link to Hayne along with DA and law enforcement prove that the "good ol' boy" system is alive and well. While Hayne and others sit back and rack in the money (millions in Hayne's case), the innocent are put in jail and the guilty go free.

Author

ellis

Date

2007-10-18T01:16:34-06:00