Notably, in 2005 Congress passed legislation calling for a review of forensic evidence. See Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-108, 119 Stat. 2290 (2005). Even the popular press reported on the concerns raised by forensic evidence. The Chicago Tribune ran a series of such articles in 2004, “Forensics Under the Microscope.” This series included an exposé on arson evidence. Def.’s Mem. Supp. 2255 Pet. Mot. New Trial Ex. D (Maurice Possley, Arson Myths Fuel Errors, Chi. Trib., Oct. 18, 2004) (document # 137-5). Finally, case law raised concerns about arson expert testimony similar to the concerns raised in this investigation. See, e.g., Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 394 F.3d 1054, 1058 (8th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>); Mich. Millers, 140 F.3d at 920 (finding no
holding no abuse of discretion in trial courts exclusion of evidence where evidence was cumulative holding district courts exclusion of expert arson evidence proper where experts failed to compare hypothesis to evidence from scene in violation of nfpa 921 holding that causeandorigin ex perts failure to properly collect evidence in violation of nfpa 921 section 951 documenting the collection of physical evidence made his investigation unreliable holding that eauseandorigin experts failure to properly collect evidence in violation of the section of nfpa 921 entitled documenting the collection of physical evidence made his investigation unreliable holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required