« As I Lay Dying: North Carolina Court Finds That The Admission of "Testimonial" Dying Declarations Doesn't Violate The Confrontation Clause | Main | Seattle's Best?: Seattle Judges Rule That Breath Test Results Will Be Inadmissible Until Accuracy Problems Are Fixed »
May 31, 2008
Dexter In The Dark?: Mississippi Court Finds Forensic Pathologist Properly Gave Expert Testimony On Blood Spatter Evidence
The Court of Appeals of Mississippi's recent opinion in Flaggs v. State, 2008 WL 2169747 (Miss.App. 2008), confirms that Mississippi courts are in line with most courts across the country in permitting forensic pathologists to render expert opinions regarding blood spatter evidence. In Flaggs, Tavares Antoine Flaggs was convicted of murder based upon the following facts:
In April, 2005 Derrick Wright was found dead in his apartment, lying on the floor covered in blood with what looked like cut marks all over him. Officer Robert Jackson was dispatched to the apartment and observed Wright dead on the floor on his back with his hands up. He observed faint footsteps that appeared to be in blood extending from the hallway to the walk-in closet and a white t-shirt that appeared to be soaked in blood. Subsequently, crime scene investigator Charles Taylor found cast-off blood stains, multiple impact blood stains on the north wall of the hallway in the apartment, a bloodstained towel in the garbage can, a knife blade with no handle in the sink, and two other knives on the counter by the sink. A fingerprint recovered from one of the knives was later identified as Flaggs' fingerprint.
Dr. Hayne, the forensic pathologist who performed Wright's autopsy on Wright's body, testified at trial as an expert witness for the State that Wright had sustained fifteen stab wounds, one chop wound, and three slash wounds, with the fatal injury being a stab wound to the carotid artery and jugular vein in the neck. He opined that a stab wound to the back of the hand, a slash wound to the left forearm, and chop wound to the fourth finger on the left hand indicated defensive posturing on the part of Wright. According to Dr. Hayne, the sites of the body on which these wounds were located are commonly used to protect the neck, face, and part of the head from injury; however, Dr. Hayne testified that he could not determine the order in which Wright's injuries were received, although he could say that there was heart activity at the time the injuries were sustained. Dr. Hayne concluded that Wright died as the result of a homicide.
Subsequently, over defense counsel's objection, the State questioned Dr. Hayne in hypothetical terms regarding the positioning of the blood spatter that was present at the crime scene. After being shown a diagram of the crime scene, Dr. Hayne testified regarding the blood spatter that, inter alia,
"It would indicate two things, counselor. The blood spattering could be cast off from a weapon or it could be cast off from the decedent, and the decedent could be moving in a backward position away from the indicated area where the blood spatter was located. That would be a distinct possibility. Falling backwards. He could have possibly been dragged forward into an enclosed area, which would seem less likely since I don't see any footprints in the area in the photograph you showed me."
This testimony contradicted Flaggs' defense, which is that he was acting in self-defense after Derrick Wright attacked him. After Wright was convicted of murder, he appealed, claiming, inter alia, that Dr. Hayne was not qualified to render expert opinions regarding blood spatter evidence. The Court of Appeals of Mississippi noted that Dr. Hayne explained that the two main tasks in forensic pathology are "determination of the cause of death and determination of the manner of death, with the cause of death being the medical reason that a person died and the manner of death being the classification of the death as a homicide, suicide, accident, or natural." It further noted that "[t]he State contend[ed] that the field of forensic pathology encompasses the analysis of crime scenes, which would include blood spatter."
The Court then concluded that "[w]hile the State cites no authority supporting this proposition, we note that Dr. Hayne has been accepted in other cases as an expert in the analysis of blood spatter....Moreover, our supreme court has indicated that forensic pathologists are qualified to give opinions regarding blood spatter....Therefore, while there was no mention of blood spatter analysis during Dr. Hayne's expert qualification, we cannot say under the circumstances of this case that the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Hayne to testify regarding blood spatter."
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Mississippi opinion cited by the Court -- Whittington v. State, 523 So.2d 966, 976 (Miss. 1988) -- came to its conclusion without much analysis, and other courts which have come to similar conclusions have also not engaged in much analysis. See, e.g., State v. Goddard, 871 P.2d 540, 546 (Utah 1994).
So, do we have any readers with a medical background? Is "Dexter" author Jeff Lindsay a reader? Does anyone know whether we would usually expect a forensic pathologist to be able to interpret blood spatter evidence or whether the situation would be more analogous to a dermatologist testifying about HIV?
May 31, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dexter In The Dark?: Mississippi Court Finds Forensic Pathologist Properly Gave Expert Testimony On Blood Spatter Evidence:
generally speaking, blood spatter is now considered an area of expertise for which one must qualify separately. in large urban areas there is usually someone who does nothing else. smaller cities have a forensic tech who has trained and rec'd certification in BSPA. being a coroner would not, per se, qualify one in BSPA.
Posted by: jeff lindsay | Jun 1, 2008 5:04:17 AM
Blood spatter testimony evidence is pretty much common sense. I think expert testimony is overrated in this area.
Posted by: Final Comment | Jun 4, 2008 9:26:26 PM
Jeff, obviously YOU would feel differently about your egregious statement if you were the DEFENDANT. Google Dr. Steven Hayne. You might be very surprised to know that he CANNOT PASS the State Medical Board Exam, that he CANNOT RECALL WHO certified him as a pathologist and that he has flagrantly and frequently PERJURED himself sending many innocent people to prison and DEATH ROW. The Innocence Project filed a formal complaint just this past May with the State Medical Review Board, demanding the revocation of his license. After reading the information you will find, ask yourself this question. "Would I want my FATE to depend on this idiot?"
Posted by: Judi | Jun 5, 2008 11:35:22 PM
Judi, I would imagine that your comment was directed at "Final Comment," not Jeff. With regard to Dr. Haybe, it does appear that his credentials are questionable, but that still leaves the question of whether a qualified forensic pathologist should be able to testify about blood spatter evidence. As I do more research, it's looking to me that they should not be able to render such testimony, despite what most courts say on the matter.
Posted by: Colin Miller | Jun 6, 2008 4:14:26 AM
Correction: My last post should have been addressed to "Final Comment". Sorry.
Posted by: Judi | Jun 6, 2008 4:17:01 AM
A little more info on my comment concerning blood spatter evidence. My comment had nothing, zero, zip, nada to do with "Dr." Hayne. It was a generalized comment about blood spatter evidence. Period. I have presented blood spatter evidence at trial. I have listened to blood spatter experts testify. For those familiar with such evidence, it really is common sense. Certainly it needs to be explained to a jury, but as it's explained jurys light up because they "get it." It's not DNA-complex. Anyone who has ever spilled liquids gets it. Before the development of blood spatter as a science, case law allowed non-expert testimony about blood spatter for this very reason. Look at some older cases.
Posted by: Another Comment | Jun 6, 2008 4:02:44 PM