Original article can be found here:
Peter Neufield, co-director of the Innocence Project, points to the recent Supreme Court decision on requiring forensic scientists to testify, and Justice Scalia’s comment on “deficiencies” in crime labs, as further evidence of the necessity of a National Institute of Forensic Science.
Some of the reasons listed are “… vast disparities in technique, funding and standards across the country.”
Well techniques and funding should vary across the country. What techniques used in a hot/dry climate like Arizona, won’t necessarily work well in more humid climates like central Texas, or colder climates like North Dakota. Also funding will very depending on the size of the laboratory (equipment and personnel), as well as the volume of cases being pushed through, and other socio-economic factors such as tax revenue.
As far as there being variability in standards, that’s just a by-product (and not a bad thing) of the fact that the cases are being analyzed by humans, and not machines in the more “contested” disciplines. The same is true when you visit a doctor. The diagnosis and suggested treatment for a given set of conditions aren’t always the same for each doctor looking over the test results. This is why people get “second opinions”. The fact that two different doctors can come to different conclusions doesn’t invalidate the field of medicine, nor does it mean that we need a National Institute of Medical Science, or any other federal agency looking over your doctor’s shoulder…even if that is the way we are headed anyway.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on crime lab testimony in criminal cases has attracted quite a bit of attention from legal commentators and practitioners who wonder what the ruling will mean in courtrooms across the country.
The case confirmed defendants’ constitutional right to question technicians who analyzed the forensic evidence in their case. In many states, a notarized report from a crime lab, with no chance for cross-examination, had been deemed sufficient.
It will take some time to sort out how the case will affect future prosecutions. But we should be focused instead on what the case says about the state of forensic science in this country — and how much remains to be done to ensure that our criminal justice system relies on solid science.
As Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, noted, “Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used at criminal trials.”
Sadly, there is considerable evidence to support this finding. Earlier this year, the National Academy of Sciences released an unprecedented, wide-ranging report on forensic science that found the field rife with basic scientific deficiencies.
The report found vast disparities in technique, funding and standards across the country. Not all labs are accredited, and accreditation guidelines vary from state to state. Worse yet, with the exception of nuclear DNA testing, which experts estimate is possible in only 5–10 percent of crimes, many forensic “methods” have not undergone basic scientific validation, which would would quantify accuracy of results and consistency of accuracy.
As a first step, the academy strongly recommends the creation of a National Institute of Forensic Science. The independent, science-based federal agency would stimulate research, develop best practices and set national standards for forensic work; help secure funding for forensic science programs; and provide guidance on how forensic test results should be conveyed to police, prosecutors, judges and juries.
At present, there is no context in which to place most forensic testimony for a judge or jury. If a hair found at a crime scene is “consistent with” a suspect, does that mean that the results link that one suspect to the crime uniquely? Does it implicate 50 possible defendants? A thousand? Attorneys, judges and juries scrutinize the evidence, but are not trained in science or statistics. They are willing to defer to the “experts.”
The Supreme Court decision recognized the problem without addressing it. Without underlying research and standards, nobody knows how reliable the science is. That is why we need a National Institute of Forensic Science.
The tragic results of scientific deficiencies were clear in the case of Paul House in Union County, Tennessee. House was sentenced to death after forensic evidence “definitely” linked him to the crime. Decades later, DNA testing showed that the evidence linked to House was, in fact, from someone else. He served more than two decades on death row before he was finally cleared this year.
House’s case was not an isolated incident. Nationwide, more than 240 people have been exonerated with DNA testing, and approximately half of those wrongful convictions involved the kind of unvalidated or improper forensic science that a national institute could help prevent.
A National Institute of Forensic Science is a vital step toward strengthening our criminal justice system. When an innocent person is wrongfully convicted, the actual perpetrator remains free to commit additional crimes. That’s exactly what happened in Memphis after Clark McMillan was wrongfully convicted — during the 22 years he was in prison before DNA proved his innocence, the actual perpetrator went on to commit several additional rapes.
In the months ahead, Congress will seriously consider how to structure a national institute. U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., will play a key role in this as the chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology.
From a courthouse in Union County to the U.S. Supreme Court, there is a clear consensus Congress needs to act so that our criminal justice system relies on the best evidence possible.
