Ok, I apologize if my tone was patronizing. Being a lawyer and a former Court employee, I detest it when the media distort judicial decisions in their reporting, which was just about inevitable in this case. And I had no doubt that you had gotten the misinformation in your post from some media outlet, as you have confirmed.
Frankly, I was shocked to hear of the decision, as well, because (1) in high-profile cases the DA's office almost always has the resources to dot all the i's and cross all the t's so as to avoid reversible errors; and (2) this was a TEXAS appellate court -- the least defendant-friendly jurisdiction in the country.
Because of (2), I knew that whatever the reversible error was, it had to be pretty bad, which was contrary to number (1). So I read the opinion, available
here.
Sure enough, it's pretty bad -- bad enough that I can't believe that the trail court didn't grant the motion for a mistrial. In fact, I doubt that even the Tex. Ct. Crim. Appeals will touch it. And, if they do, it would be an unreasonable application of constitutional law warranting federal habeas relief.
As for Dietz, I made no "personal attacks" on him. Professional witnesses are not necessarily bad scientists or bad people. But they are very, very seldom the "most respected" in their profession. The "most respected" people do not generally get in the muck of the court system. So, the "hint" you gave me aside, I'll rely on my years of experience in actually dealing with expert witnesses like Deitz to say that I seriously doubt that he is held in as high regard as your original post suggests.
That having been said, I do doubt that he _intentionally_ lied (whether he did so intentionally is irrelevant, BTW). That would be stupid, and he's obviously not stupid.
But he sure screwed the pooch this time.
So, care to disclose where you got your original information?