Junk science or not?

Further evi­dence that foren­sic exam­i­na­tion results can be influ­enced by the way it is pre­sented to exam­in­ers, thus sup­port­ing the claims that crime labs should be inde­pen­dent of police/prosecutors/and defense attorneys.

An edi­to­r­ial in the Baltimore Sun.

Our view: A fed­eral study on crime lab evi­dence should be released promptly

February 8, 2009

When British researchers asked five crime lab exam­in­ers to eval­u­ate a series of fin­ger­prints, they were told one pair had been mis­tak­enly matched to a ter­ror­ism sus­pect. The experts reached con­flict­ing results. Only one judged the prints iden­ti­cal. The fin­ger­print exam­in­ers later learned that the sam­ples were prints they each had pre­vi­ously reviewed and found to be the same. The study by Itiel E. Dror and two col­leagues under­scores what some defense attor­neys in Maryland and else­where have argued — foren­sic experts can be influ­enced, and not in justice’s favor.

Bias is among the con­cerns raised about the integrity of foren­sic sci­ence and its role in crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tions. Of more con­se­quence is the lack of a sci­en­tific basis for the work pop­u­lar­ized in such tele­vi­sion shows as CSI: Miami and Law & Order. Critics say analy­ses of hair, fin­ger­prints and gun­shot residue — unlike DNA analy­sis — lack suf­fi­cient sci­en­tific meth­ods and stan­dards. Forensic sci­ence experts, includ­ing those at the FBI, have chal­lenged these claims.

A new study from the National Academy of Sciences is expected to help set­tle the debate. As reported by The New York Times last week, the report’s crit­i­cisms of foren­sic crime labs have post­poned its release. But the extent of foren­sic evi­dence used in crim­i­nal tri­als today demands prompt pub­lic review and scrutiny.

Since fin­ger­print and other foren­sic evi­dence have entered the court room, defense attor­neys have tried to dis­credit it –or use its absence to their advan­tageIn Maryland, state pub­lic defend­ers have sys­tem­at­i­cally — often con­vinc­ingly — attacked the method­ol­ogy of foren­sic evi­dence exam­i­na­tions. Their work helped expose seri­ous prob­lems in Baltimore’s police crime lab. The National Academy of Sciences study should help resolve the ques­tions about foren­sic evi­dence and pro­vide objec­tive, scientific-based cri­te­ria on which to improve lab tech­niques. Its release should not be delayed any further.