Science Found Wanting in Nation’s Crime Labs



By SOLOMON MOORE
Forensic evidence that has helped convict thousands of defendants for 
nearly a century is often the product of shoddy scientific practices 
that should be upgraded and standardized, according to accounts of a 
draft report by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific research group.

The report by the National Academy of Sciences is to be released this 
month. People who have seen it say it is a sweeping critique of many 
forensic methods that the police and prosecutors rely on, including 
fingerprinting, firearms identification and analysis of bite marks, 
blood spatter, hair and handwriting.

The report says such analyses are often handled by poorly trained 
technicians who then exaggerate the accuracy of their methods in 
court. It concludes that Congress should create a federal agency to 
guarantee the independence of the field, which has been dominated by 
law enforcement agencies, say forensic professionals, scholars and 
scientists who have seen review copies of the study. Early reviewers 
said the report was still subject to change.

The result of a two-year review, the report follows a series of 
widely publicized crime laboratory failures, including 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.

American examiners matched Mr. Mayfield’s fingerprint to those found 
at the scene, although Spanish authorities eventually convinced the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation that its fingerprint identification 
methods were faulty. Mr. Mayfield was released, and the federal 
government settled with him for $2 million.

In 2005, Congress asked the National Academy to assess the state of 
the forensic techniques used in court proceedings. The report’s 
findings are not binding, but they are expected to be highly 
influential.

“This is not a judicial ruling; it is not a law,” said Michael J. 
Saks, a psychology and law professor at Arizona State University who 
presented fundamental weaknesses in forensic evidence to the academy. 
“But it will be used by others who will make law or will argue cases.”

Legal experts expect that the report will give ammunition to defense 
lawyers seeking to discredit forensic procedures and expert witnesses 
in court. Lawyers could also use the findings in their attempts to 
overturn convictions based on spurious evidence. Judges are likely to 
use the findings to raise the bar for admissibility of certain types 
of forensic evidence and to rein in exaggerated expert testimony.

The report may also drive federal legislation if Congress adopts its 
recommendations. Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, 
who has pushed for forensic reform, said, “My hope is that this 
report will provide an objective and unbiased perspective of the 
critical needs of our crime labs.”

Forensics, which developed within law enforcement institutions — and 
have been mythologized on television shows from “Quincy, M.E.” to 
“CSI: Miami” — suffers from a lack of independence, the report found.

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.

In an effort to mitigate law enforcement opposition to the report, 
which has already delayed its publication, the draft focuses on 
scientific shortcomings and policy changes that could improve 
forensics. It is largely silent on strictly legal issues to avoid 
overstepping its bounds.

Perhaps the most powerful example of the National Academy’s prior 
influence on forensic science was a 2004 report discrediting the 
F.B.I. technique of matching the chemical signatures of lead in 
bullets at a crime scene to similar bullets possessed by a suspect. 
As a result, the agency had to notify hundreds of people who 
potentially had been wrongfully convicted.

In its current draft report, the National Academy wrote that the 
field suffered from a reliance on outmoded and untested theories by 
analysts who often have no background in science, statistics or other 
empirical disciplines.

Although it is not subject to significant criticism in the report, 
the advent of DNA profiling clearly set the agenda. DNA evidence is 
presented in less than 10 percent of all violent crimes but has 
revolutionized the entire science of forensics. While DNA testing has 
helped to free more than 200 wrongfully convicted people, “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. Enforcement officials, Mr. Giannelli said, 
“chose to say they never make mistakes, but they have little 
scientific support, and this report could blow them out of the water.”

Peter J. Neufeld, a co-director of the Innocence Project, a nonprofit 
group that uses DNA evidence to exonerate the wrongfully convicted, 
presented to the academy a study of trial transcripts of 137 
convictions that were overturned by DNA evidence and found that 60 
percent included false or misleading statements regarding blood, 
hair, bite mark, shoe print, soil, fiber and fingerprint analyses.

The courts have long struggled with the proper role of scientific 
evidence. In a 1993 landmark decision, Daubert v. Merrell Dow 
Pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court held that scientific testimony had 
to meet an objective standard. Federal courts have occasionally 
excluded evidence like handwriting and hair analysis.

Donald Kennedy, a Stanford scientist who helped select the report’s 
authors, said federal law enforcement agencies resented 
“intervention” of mainstream science — especially the National 
Academy — in the courts.

He said the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the 
Justice Department, tried to derail the forensic study by refusing to 
finance it and demanding to review the findings before publication. A 
bipartisan vote in Congress in 2005 broke the impasse with a $1.5 
million appropriation.

Mr. Shelby also accused the National Institute of Justice of trying 
to infiltrate the forensic study panel with lobbyists for private DNA 
analysis companies, who were seeking to limit the research to DNA 
studies.

The National Institute of Justice said it would not comment until the 
report was released. But a preview of potential turf wars played out 
in the presentations to the National Academy in December 2007. A 
forensic expert from the Secret Service blasted the F.B.I. for 
developing questionable techniques “on an ad-hoc basis, without 
proper research.”

He said the Secret Service wanted the National Academy “to send a 
message to the entire forensic science community that this type of 
method development is not acceptable practice.”

Everyone interviewed for this article agreed that the report would be 
a force of change in the forensics field.

One person who has reviewed the draft and who asked not to be 
identified because of promises to keep the contents confidential 
said: “I’m sure that every defense attorney in the country is waiting 
for this report to come out. There are going to be challenges to 
fingerprints and firearms evidence and the general lack of empirical 
grounding. It’s going to be big.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/05forensics.html?
_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss