naccurate forensic evidence and testimony is the second leading cause of wrongful convictions exposed by DNA in Texas. The Houston Police Department’s (HPD) crime lab debacle is a striking example of how poorly a forensics lab can operate without proper oversight. Independent investigator Michael Bromwich found that analysts at the HPD crime lab repeatedly tested DNA samples incorrectly and, in some cases, made up results without actually testing evidence. Clearly, a lack of oversight of forensic labs in Texas had devastating consequences on the accuracy of the criminal justice system—to date, three wrongful convictions have been traced to the HPD lab.
Fortunately, Texas has taken important steps forward since the disclosure of the problems in the HPD lab. The establishment of the Texas Forensic Science Commission provides an independent body to review allegations of forensic negligence and misconduct and to recommend corrective action.
Clearly, a lack of oversight of forensic labs in Texas had devastating consequences on the accuracy of the criminal justice system—to date, three wrongful convictions have been traced to the HPD lab.
The statutory tasks of the Forensic Science Commission are essentially backward-looking. While the commission is able to make recommendations for remedial action regarding complaints of negligence and misconduct, it is primarily oriented to be a reactive entity. It is essential to establish a forensic oversight system that is more proactive in setting quality standards in order to ensure the best evidence possible.
While DNA tends to get the attention of the media and policymakers, forensic labs are engaged in a variety of sub-disciplines beyond DNA, and the need for oversight and quality standards in those areas is great. The proactive quality assurance role needed in Texas must address all aspects of forensic science that are relied upon in criminal trials—not just DNA evidence. The following changes would help to implement those goals:
- Texas should give the Forensic Science Commission a proactive role in reviewing, setting, and enforcing quality standards: These expanded duties should include a review of existing private accreditation program requirements and the development of proposals for supplementing those requirements as appropriate to best ensure objectivity and reliability. Commission staff and budget should be augmented to accommodate these functions.
- Independence and blind testing: Texas should develop and require all forensic science laboratories to adopt structures and policies to prevent bias in testing and analysis, such as regulating the amount of extraneous contextual information an analyst receives prior to testing to reduce the risk of confirmation bias or other observer effects. Forensic labs should also move toward becoming independent from law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies to best insulate analysts from the risk of “group think” that occurs from working closely with police as part of a crimesolving “team.”
Recent studies have demonstrated the risk of inadvertent bias affecting the outcome of forensic testing. One 2006 study in the Journal of Forensic Identification asked experienced analysts to evaluate a series of fingerprints to determine if they matched. These analysts believed they were examining prints for an open, unsolved case, but they were in fact re-examining prints that they had previously analyzed accurately. The prints were given to the analysts along with artificial contextual information, such as the fact that the suspect had confessed. In cases where analysts were given contextual information about the fingerprints, they were wrong in almost seventeen percent of the cases. This study highlights the need to ensure that extraneous contextual information does not undermine the objectivity of analysts. By ensuring that labs are independent of law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies, along with regulating the flow of information between investigators and forensic analysts, these kinds of errors can be minimized.
