National agency sought for forensic sciences

A fed­eral inqui­si­tion has deter­mined that crime labs across the coun­try need to be over­seen by the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. Was the report based on the inves­ti­ga­tors look­ing for their next job, or what they feel is actu­ally what’s best for the crim­i­nal jus­tice system?

I agree that crime labs need to be pried out of the hands of police depart­ments and pros­e­cu­tors’ offices, but the fed­eral gov­ern­ment? No way!

Crime labs should be based locally, and run by local gov­ern­ments (city/county or state). In this way poli­cies regard­ing cus­tomer ser­vice can be put in place that best meet the needs of the com­mu­nity that each crime lab serves.

Nothing good will come of a fed­eral equiv­a­lent of the EPA gov­ern­ing crime lab pro­ce­dures and policies.

Original arti­cle posted here.

America’s forensic-science oper­a­tions are so flawed that a fed­eral watch­dog agency should be cre­ated to reg­u­late crime labs and cer­tify expert wit­nesses, accord­ing to a report issued Wednesday by the National Academies of Science.

The report, requested by Congress, says there is lit­tle research to ver­ify the integrity of sci­en­tific pro­to­cols used in crim­i­nal inves­ti­ga­tions. Because of that, it warns, pros­e­cu­tions are vul­ner­a­ble to shoddy lab work, unfounded tes­ti­mony and false convictions.

The 255-page report may stun those whose notions about crim­i­nol­ogy are derived from tele­vi­sion shows por­tray­ing foren­sic sci­ence as infallible.

By con­trast, two years of inquiry by the Academies’ National Research Council chal­lenges the role of fin­ger­print­ing, bal­lis­tics, tox­i­col­ogy, hand­writ­ing and other analyses.

While rec­og­niz­ing the crit­i­cal role of sci­ence in solv­ing crime, mem­bers of the review panel con­cluded there has been lit­tle research to val­i­date many foren­sic dis­ci­plines. They also found that so-called experts often lack proper train­ing, resources and oversight.

The NAS report calls for the cre­ation of a National Institute of Forensic Science to con­duct research and serve as an accred­it­ing watch­dog over criminology.

That pro­posal and other study find­ings are to be the sub­ject of an inter­na­tional col­lo­quium in April at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.

Michael Saks, an ASU law pro­fes­sor who addressed the research com­mit­tee last year, wel­comed the pro­pos­als and findings.

Saks said false and mis­lead­ing foren­sic tes­ti­mony is a major cause of wrong­ful pros­e­cu­tions. In most cases, he said, experts do not intend to con­vict inno­cent peo­ple but are biased by detec­tives who already believe the defen­dant is guilty.

“I can­not imag­ine police or any­one in the crime lab wants to take inno­cent per­sons and frame them or lock them up. They just don’t want to let an evil­doer get away,” Saks said. “There’s a cer­tain amount of pres­sure to be a team player, to not mess up the case.”

Arizona experts said the state’s crime labs are regarded as clean oper­a­tions with no his­tory of scandals.

Todd Griffith, sci­en­tific analy­sis super­vi­sor for the Department of Public Safety, said he sup­ports the study rec­om­men­da­tions, which are already met or exceeded in the DPS crime lab.

NAS com­mit­tee mem­bers con­sid­ered at least two forms of foren­sic tes­ti­mony that became noto­ri­ous because of Arizona pros­e­cu­tions: bite marks and arson. Among the key cases:

• John Henry Knapp was sen­tenced to death after his mur­der con­vic­tion in a 1973 blaze that killed two daugh­ters in his Mesa res­i­dence. Knapp was found guilty based on expert tes­ti­mony that a liq­uid accel­er­ant started the fire in mul­ti­ple loca­tions. More than a decade later, he was granted a retrial based on evi­dence that incrim­i­nat­ing burn pat­terns were caused by a flashover rather than fuel. Knapp was freed after accept­ing a plea agreement.

• Ray Girdler of Prescott was con­victed of killing his wife and daugh­ter based on sim­i­lar arson evi­dence in a 1981 mobile-home fire. In 1990, experts con­cluded that tell­tale burn marks were caused by a flashover. Girdler was released. The chief wit­ness was accused of bungling at least three other fire investigations.

• Ray Krone, a Phoenix postal worker with no crim­i­nal record, was sen­tenced to die for the 1991 rape-murder of a bar­maid. The con­vic­tion was based largely on tes­ti­mony that his snag­gled teeth matched bite marks on the vic­tim. DNA later led to the real killer. The den­tal expert gave dis­cred­ited tes­ti­mony in at least two other mur­der cases.

Phoenix attor­ney Larry Hammond, who helped exon­er­ate Knapp and Girdler, said foren­sic experts and lab­o­ra­to­ries should be inde­pen­dent from police agencies.

“Crime labs have oper­ated pretty much across the coun­try with­out over­sight,” said Hammond, founder of the Arizona Justice Project, which fights wrong­ful convictions.

There is no way to esti­mate how many inno­cent peo­ple have been con­victed statewide or nation­ally because bogus foren­sic find­ings often go undetected.

Hammond said the study may gen­er­ate a surge in cases where defense lawyers seek to exon­er­ate con­victs based on ques­tion­able science.

“We’re going to be look­ing back even more at these foren­sic screw-ups and the peo­ple who are in prison. The report will accel­er­ate that process,” he said.