ProPublica’s “Blood Will Tell” Wins Scripps Howard National Journalism Award

The Scripps Howard Foundation announced Tuesday that ProPublica won the Scripps Howard National Journalism Award in human interest storytelling for “Blood Will Tell,” a two-part investigation jointly published by ProPublica and The New York Times.

ProPublica senior reporter Pamela Colloff, also a writer-at-large for The New York Times Magazine, reported the story of Joe Bryan, a beloved high school principal whose wife, Mickey, was shot to death in their Texas home in 1985. While not initially considered a suspect, Bryan was arrested and charged with her murder. The prosecution’s case rested largely on the testimony of a “bloodstain-pattern analyst,” a police detective whose interpretation of the bloodied evidence made the state’s circumstantial case against Bryan seem plausible. In the end, jurors found him guilty. Now 78, Bryan has been behind bars for 31 years.

Colloff used an inventive approach to investigate both the case and the forensic science at its heart: She became an expert in bloodstain-pattern analysis herself. All it took, she learned, was a 40-hour class. Police officers around the country who had taken just such a class, including the detective who testified at Bryan’s trial, had been deemed experts by courts around the country.

After enrolling in a weeklong class in the subject, Colloff soon discovered that she and her classmates — all law enforcement officers or crime lab technicians — were being schooled less in the scientific method than in the art of being expert witnesses. Her immersion in the discipline allowed her to understand the otherwise forbidding-sounding jargon that analysts often wield in court, which ultimately gave her the authority to challenge the prosecution’s findings in the Bryan case.

Colloff’s dissection of the case and the practice of bloodstain-pattern analysis had real-life repercussions. Days after the article’s publication, the Texas Forensic Science Commission retained an independent expert to re-examine the bloodstain-pattern analysis used to convict Bryan. The commission found that the expert whose testimony helped secure the conviction was “entirely wrong,” and that his claims were “not accurate or scientifically supported.” The state’s case unraveled further when the expert admitted that his conclusions were incorrect. Texas’ highest criminal court is now considering whether or not to overturn Bryan’s conviction.

More from ProPublica

ProPublica5 min read
Assaults, Bullying, Rape: A Lawsuit Against One Professor Claims a University Didn’t Stop Him
by Rachel Otwell and Mary Hansen, NPR Illinois, and Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica Two former students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a professor at another college filed a
ProPublica10 min readTech
The New Target That Enables Ransomware Hackers to Paralyze Dozens of Towns and Businesses at Once
by Renee Dudley On July 3, employees at Arbor Dental in Longview, Washington, noticed glitches in their computers and couldn’t view X-rays. Arbor was one of dozens of dental clinics in Oregon
ProPublica2 min read
Making Collaborative Data Projects Easier: Our New Tool, Collaborate, Is Here
by Rachel Glickhouse On Wednesday, we’re launching a beta test of a new software tool. It’s called Collaborate, and it makes it possible for multiple newsrooms to work together on data projec