Report Questions Science, Reliability of Crime Lab Evidence

By Jason Felch  

(Los Angeles Times, February 18, 2009) For decades, forensic scientists have made sweeping claims in court about fingerprints, ballistics, handwriting, bite marks, shoe prints and blood splatters that lack empirical grounding and have never been verified by science.This is just one conclusion of a two-year study by the National Academy of Sciences, which today called for a wholesale overhaul of the crime lab system that has become increasingly critical to American jurisprudence.

The academy, the preeminent science advisor to the federal government, found a system in disarray: labs that are underfunded and beholden to law enforcement, lacking independent oversight and without consistent standards.The report concludes that the deficiencies pose “a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice,” imperiling efforts to protect society from criminals and shield innocent people from wrongful convictions.

With the notable exception of DNA evidence, the report says that many forensic methods have never been shown to consistently and reliably connect crime scene evidence to a specific individual or source. 

“The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity,” the report says.For example, the frequent claims that fingerprint analysis had a zero error rate are “not scientifically plausible,” the report said. Regarding bite marks, it said, “the scientific basis is insufficient to conclude that bite mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match.”

Of the 232 people exonerated by DNA evidence, more than 50% of cases involved faulty or unvalidated forensic science, according to the Innocence Project. In Los Angeles, the Police Department is reviewing 1,000 fingerprint cases after discovering that two people had been wrongfully accused because of faulty fingerprint analysis.

Margaret Berger, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School and a member of the panel, explained, “We’re not saying all these disciplines are useless. We’re saying there is a lot of work needs to be done.”

While the panel’s recommendations are not binding, they are considered influential. Many experts say the report could have a broad impact on crime labs and the courts, ushering in changes at least as significant as those generated by the advent of DNA evidence two decades ago. But the sweeping reforms proposed by the academy would take years of planning and major federal funding to enact.

In the short term, a flood of new legal challenges – in both current cases and past convictions that have relied on the techniques – are planned, defense attorneys say.

To the frustration of some, the report is silent on how such legal issues should be handled, something that will fall to judges and juries to decide.

Among the panel’s recommendations:

1. Create a new federal agency, the National Institute of Forensic Science, to fund scientific research, disseminate basic standards and put control of the field in the hands of scientists who are independent of law enforcement. Currently, much of this work is done by the FBI laboratory and the National Institute of Justice, which the report notes “are part of a prosecutorial department of the government” and “should not be allowed to undercut the power of forensic science.”

2.  Make crime labs independent of law enforcement. Currently, most crime labs are run by police agencies, which a growing body of research shows can lead to bias.

3. Require that expert witnesses and forensic analysts be certified by the new agency, and that labs be accredited. Currently, these standards are optional.

4. Fund research into the scientific basis for claims routinely made in court, as well as studies of the accuracy and reliability of forensic techniques. Those recommendations have been cautiously embraced by leading associations of forensic scientists, which in 2005 helped convince Congress the study was necessary.

“You can’t continue to do business in 2009 the way you did in 1915,” said Joe Polski of the International Assn. for Identification, whose members include examiners of fingerprints, questioned documents, footwear and tire tracks. “We knew there would be things in there we’d like and things we didn’t like.”

The report was hailed by defense attorneys, scientists and law professors, who for years have been raising scientific and legal challenges to the techniques in the courts, often to no avail.

“There are people who have been painted as crying wolf and not taken seriously who have been critics of these techniques,” said Bicka Barlow, a public defender in San Francisco who specializes in scientific evidence.

Throughout the report are echoes the “DNA wars,” the legal and scientific storm that accompanied the advent of genetic evidence and created a new standard for the reliability of evidence.

By contrast, fingerprints and other forensic techniques were developed decades ago by trial and error in police departments, not science labs, and never faced the same trial by fire.

“In some sense, you could say DNA did it,” said Donald Kennedy, editor of Science magazine and an organizer of the academy’s review.

The need for higher standards was driven home in 1993, when the Supreme Court ruled that expert testimony needed to be based on basic scientific principles of reliability and testing.

Already, several senators on Capitol Hill have expressed interest in legislation, according to people who have participated in the talks, but finding the money will be challenging in the current economic crisis.

Twenty years ago the National Academy recommended we go to metric system,” said Barry Fisher, head of the crime lab of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the former head of the American Society of Crime lab Directors. “Once you look at it, they may decide it’s too costly to fix and let’s leave it alone.”