On December 10, 2000 the television show 60 Minutes ran a segment about brain fingerprinting. In this episode these new items were noted:
• A senator from Iowa, Charles Grassley, has asked the General Accounting Office to study brain fingerprinting technology and determine if there should be funding made available by the federal government.
• Dr. William Iacono from the University of Minnesota stated that "the fact is that the basic procedure that Dr. Farwell is using is supported by literally hundreds of studies that show that our brain produces a response like this, and he's done research in this area, I've done research in this area, that shows that people do, in fact, recognize this kind of information. . . . There's a solid scientific basis for [brain fingerprinting]."
The case that recently has put brain fingerprinting in the news is the case of State v. Harrington. In this case, a retired Council Bluffs, Iowa, police officer was killed while working as a security guard for a car dealership. Captain John Schweer was killed by a shotgun on the morning of July 22, 1977. The key witness, Kevin Hughes, testified that Terry Harrington and another man were going to steal a car, and killed Schweer in the process.
Harrington has declared his innocence ever since he was convicted over 20 years ago. Harrington claimed that he was at a concert that night and then, after the concert was over, he went out driving with friends. Witnesses testified to his alibi, but the jury believed Hughes. Harrington was convicted to life without parole and has sat in the Iowa State Penitentiary making appeals ever since, but with no success. When Harrington heard about brain fingerprinting he contacted Dr. Farwell.
Dr. Farwell performed his brain fingerprinting on Terry Harrington. From his testing, Dr. Farwell claims that there is no information present in Harrington's brain concerning the crime that would not be known by anyone who sat through the trial; however, there is information in Harrington's brain concerning events of the concert. While Dr. Farwell will not say if Harrington is guilty or innocent, he does state that the information that is [or isn't] in Harrington's brain is relevant and useful to help determine the truth of the situation (Lawrence A. Farwell, Supplement to Forensic Science Report: Brain Fingerprinting Test on Terry Harrington, 32 (Nov. 10, 2000)). To make matters more complex, the prosecution's witnesses are starting to say that they lied. Hughes came forward and said that he had lied at Harrington's trial because he did not want to be charged with murder and because he thought he was going to get reward money. Another witness, Candace Pride, stated that she agreed with Hughes because she was Hughes's girlfriend at the time. Also, Clyde Jacobs stated that he agreed to testify against Harrington to stay out of trouble (Chris Clayton, Witnesses Say They Lied in 1978 Murder Case, Omaha World-Herald, Dec. 9, 2000, News at page 1 [Iowa Ed.]). On March 12, 2001, Harrington's motion for a new trial was rejected. See the related story by clicking on this link Brain Fingerprinting Fails First Court Test in Iowa .
|
