This is my opinion alone. I know of two cases where persons went to jail on question testimony. I agreed the fire originated at the location as they determined. The problem was the source of ignition. This was a warehouse where there had been three previous fires due to workers hiding ignited smoking materials in the racks of stored goods. All three fires were investigated and on two of them the damage was so small they found remains of the smoking material. The fourth fire turned 10,000 squat feet to ash. With these facts they were able to determine that the fire was set in a rack and was not caused by smoking material. Because of the badge the person they identified went to jail. They tried unsuccessfully to add to this person's time in jail due to the fact there was a rekindle of the fire that destroyed the entire building. They needed the rekindle for the enhancement. In their report they attributed the second fire to the building owner re-energizing the buildings electrical system before it was inspected. In the federal system the amount of damage can be used to enhance the sentence. This determination was made by the judge and not the jury. This judge would not add the enhancement because of the information that was brought up by the defense about the electrical cause of the second fire. Since the report was not used in the trial, someone leaked the report or the information I the report to the defense. They then obtained a copy and showed it to the judge. Here again, the withholding of evidence.

As to the Louisiana case, the article posted makes it sounds simple that the case was thrown out because of procedural problems, the expert reconsidered his opinion. The main problem with this issue is the fact this expert was given access to grand jury testimony that he used as part of the data to reach his conclusion.

The State provided the transcript to the expert in order for him to have a complete understanding of the fuel load (furnishings) of the house, so that he could render an opinion to the grand jury as to the cause and origin of the fire and answer any of their questions in that regard. The assistant district attorney did not apply for or obtain a court order or authorization to release the grand jury testimony to the expert. The expert testified before the grand jury on April 25, 2002, approximately six months after the grand jury had been convened. The grand jury returned an indictment on April 30, 2002. The Louisiana Supreme Court found that the expert’s status as an expert witness for the State did not qualify him as a person with a general right of access to confidential information concerning grand jury proceedings. The court ruled that this expert was prohibited from taking apart in the prosecution of the individual.

For once I can say a Louisiana court did better than a federal court.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group