Noticeboard
| Date | 01 July 2009 |
| Published date | 01 July 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2009.13.3.326 |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
NOTICEBOARD
NOTICEBOARD
NOTICEBOARD
In the news
Forensic science—United States
DNA evidence has exposed many wrongful convictions, some of which were appar-
ently supported by forensic evidence such as bite marks, shoe prints, blood, hair,
soil, fibre, firearm or fingerprint analysis. The risk of imperfect forensic testing
and analysis is much greater than judges, juries and the experts themselves often
allow for. The potential for error in fingerprint evidence was highlighted in 2004
when American examiners mismatched the fingerprints of a lawyer and Muslim
convert with prints found at the scene of a terrorist train bombing in Madrid.
Recognising the need for significant improvements in forensic science, in 2005
Congress authorised the US National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study into
the state of non-DNA forensic science. A pre-publication summary of the report,
which was the subject of an article in the New York Times on 4 February 2009,
is available on the National Academy of Sciences website. The report highlights
the disparities amongst forensic science organisations, many of which are
under-funded and without adequate quality controls, the absence of uniform or
mandatory certification of forensic practitioners or accreditation of crime labora-
tories and the lack of standard protocols in many forensic science disciplines.
When protocols exist, they are often too vague to be enforceable. The level of scien-
tific development and evaluation varies substantially among the forensic science
disciplines. Despite the heavy reliance courts place on forensic evidence, there is a
dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing the scientific basis and
validity of many methods or their error rate. Since the Supreme Court’s judgment
in Daubert vMerrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 US 579 (1993), the admissibility of
relevant expert forensic science testimony depends upon whether the expert is
qualified to give the evidence and its ‘evidential reliability’. An adversarial process
under the control of judges and lawyers, who lack scientific training, cannot
establish the scientific credentials of a forensic science discipline about which
doi:1350/ijep.2009.13.3.326
252 (2009) 13 E&P 252–262 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF
To continue reading
Request your trial