Forensic Science Mishandled By Law Enforcement
The National Academy of Sciences is expected to release a report this month that scrutinizes the way forensic evidence is analyzed and used by law enforcement agencies.
The report claims that analyses like blood spatter, hair samples, and fingerprinting are “often handled by poorly trained technicians who then exaggerate the accuracy of their methods in court,” according to the New York Times.
The report includes analysis of widely publicized forensic evidence failures such as the case of Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer from Portland, Ore., and Muslim convert who was wrongly arrested in the 2004 terrorist train bombing in Madrid that killed 191 people and wounded 2,000.
Mayfield’s fingerprint was matched to those found at the scene of the bombing, but the FBI was later told by Spanish authorities that its identification methods were faulty, which resulted in Mayfield’s release and a settlement of $2 million.
The report looks at the scientific pitfalls of forensic evidence analysis, while staying out of legal issues.
The National Academy found that forensics “suffer from a reliance on outmoded and untested theories by analysts who often have no background in science, statistics or other empirical disciplines,” according to the Times report.
“This is not a judicial ruling; it is not a law,” Michael J. Saks, a psychology and law professor at Arizona State University, said of the new report. “But it will be used by others who will make law or will argue cases.”
The report has a wide variety of applications. For example, judges could use it to raise the bar for certain types of forensic evidence.
On the other hand, lawyers could use it to discredit forensic procedures and expert witnesses in court.
“DNA was a shock to police culture and created an alternative scientific model, which promoted standardization, transparency and a higher level of precision,” said Paul Giannelli, a forensic science expert at Case Western Reserve University School of Law who presented his research to the National Academy.
It could also help lawmakers in their decision to reform forensic evidence.
“My hope is that this report will provide an objective and unbiased perspective of the critical needs of our crime labs,” Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, told the New York Times.
“The report’s most controversial recommendation is the establishment of a federal agency to finance research and training and promote universal standards in forensic science, a discipline that spans anthropology, biology, chemistry, physics, medicine and law. The report also calls for tougher regulation of crime laboratories,” said the Times.
A 1993 Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals stated that scientific testimony had to meet an objective standard.
Donald Kennedy, a Stanford scientist who helped select the report’s authors, blamed the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the Justice Department, for refusing to fund the forensic study in addition to making demands to review the findings before publication. A bipartisan vote in Congress in 2005 broke the impasse with a $1.5 million appropriation.
—
On the Net: