Sweeping claims made about fingerprints, ballistics, bite marks and other forensic evidence often have little or no basis in science, according to a landmark report Wednesday by the nation’s leading science body.
The report by the National Academy of Sciences called for an wholesale overhaul of the crime lab system that has become increasingly important to American jurisprudence.
Many experts said the report could usher in changes at least as significant as those generated by the advent of DNA evidence two decades ago. But the reforms proposed by the academy would take years of planning and major federal funding to enact.
In the meantime, the findings are expected to unleash a flood of legal challenges by defense attorneys.
“This is a major turning point in the history of forensic science in America,” said Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to exonerating the wrongfully convicted. “If this report does not result in real change, when will it ever happen?”
The academy, the preeminent science adviser to the federal government, found a system in disarray, with labs that are underfunded and beholden to law enforcement, lacking independent oversight and without consistent standards.
The report concludes that the deficiencies pose “a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice,” imperiling efforts to protect society from criminals and shield people from wrongful convictions.
With the notable exception of DNA evidence, the report says that many forensic methods haven’t consistently and reliably connected crime scene evidence to a specific individual or source.
“The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity,” the report says.
For example, the frequent claims that fingerprint analysis had a zero error rate are “not scientifically plausible,” the report said. The scientific basis for bite mark evidence is called “insufficient to conclude that bite mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match.”
Although the panel’s recommendations are not binding, they are considered influential.
They include:
Make crime labs independent of law enforcement. Currently, most crime labs are run by police agencies, and a growing body of research shows that can lead to bias.
Require that expert witnesses and forensic analysts be certified by the new agency, and that labs be accredited. Currently, these standards are optional.
Fund research into the scientific basis for claims routinely made in court, as well as studies of the accuracy and reliability of forensic techniques.
Eric Holder, the new attorney general, signaled he would take the report’s concerns seriously: “I think we need to devote a lot of attention and a lot of resources to that problem.”
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
