---

Harrington, 41, is currently serving a life sentence in Iowa for the 1977 Council Bluffs, Iowa, murder of a retired police captain. At the 1978 trial, the prosecution maintained that the captain was killed while moonlighting as a security guard at an automobile dealership and that the crime occurred during a car theft that involved Harrington and two other teens.

In a post-conviction proceeding, Harrington's lawyer had sought a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. That evidence included information that witnesses had recanted their testimony, that police had failed to disclose to the defense evidence there had been another suspect, and the testimony by Dr. Lawrence Farwell to the effect that Harrington, when tested by the brain fingerprinting technology, had no memories of the car theft or the slaying of the police captain, and that his brain would have contained relevant information if he had been guilty. The case and its brain fingerprinting aspect which allegedly exonerated Harrington, has received national publicity in a story on "60 Minutes" and by being the subject of a Discovery Channel program.

The key witness in the prosecution's case in 1978 was a 16-year-old who claimed to have been riding with Harrington when they went to steal a car. The witness, who is now 39, has since recanted that testimony stating that he only incriminated Harrington because he was told that, if he failed to testify against the accused, he would be charged with the murder himself.

In a 20-page ruling rendered on Monday, March 12, 2001, District Judge Timothy O'Grady rejected the motion for a new trial, stating that even though the brain fingerprinting technology was accepted in the scientific community, had been independently tested, had been subjected to peer review, the new evidence – including evidence of brain fingerprinting – was "unlikely to change the result of the trial." The judge also characterized the recanting witness, who has a long criminal record, as a liar and a perjurer. Judge O'Grady said, in part, "In the spring of 2000, Harrington was given a test by Dr. Lawrence Farwell. The test is based on the "P300 effect.  .  .  .  The P300 effect has been studied by psycho-physiologists, psychologists who measure human bodily responses to make inferences about what is going on in the brain. The P300 effect has been recognized for nearly twenty years. The P300 effect has been subject to testing and peer review in the scientific community. The consensus in the community of psycho-physiologists is that the P300 effect is valid. .  .  ."

The defense team has indicated that they will appeal the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals. Clearly, Harrington goes on to his appeal with more evidence than he had before.

It is important to note that the trial judge did admit the evidence of the brain fingerprinting technique offered by Dr. Farwell. While the Daubert requirements for admission of scientific evidence are not applicable in Iowa courts, the Pottawattamie County District Court judge nevertheless used the Daubert factors in deciding to admit the testimony, and ruled that brain fingerprinting met all four of the Supreme Court's criteria. He found that the science had been tested, was peer reviewed and published, deemed to be accurate, and well accepted in the scientific community.