The role of forensic science in America’s courtrooms has steadily increased since the first forensics labs opened in the United States in the early 20th century. But while forensic science has a reputation for producing accurate and objective evidence, it is not flawless.
In fact, of the first 200 exonerations from post-conviction DNA testing, forensic errors played a role in more than half of the wrongful convictions.
Much forensic analysis involves a degree of subjectivity requiring the analyst to make interpretations and judgment calls that can lead to inadvertent human error. In addition, carelessness in handling or analyzing evidence and outright misconduct produces questionable results.
In Improving the Practice and Use of Forensic Science: A Policy Review (pdf), The Justice Project offers recommendations and solutions for improving the practices and standards of forensic science. The review includes information on current forensic practices, case studies, states that have enacted reforms in forensic analysis, and a model policy.
Carelessness, inadvertent bias, and misconduct in crime labs have lead to numerous wrongful convictions and demonstrate the need for reform and regulation in forensic science. Without proper safety measures in place, the criminal justice system risks introducing bad forensic analysis into the courtroom and more wrongful convictions.
The Justice Project’s Recommendations for Improving
|
Related Studies
The Innocence Commission for Virginia (ICVA), A Vision for Justice: Report and Recommendations Regarding Wrongful Convictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia
Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment, Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment
Craig M. Cooley, “Reforming the Forensic Community to Avert the Ultimate Injustice,” 15 Stanford Law and Policy Review 318 (2004).
J. Herbie DiFonzo, “The Crimes of Crime Labs,”34 Hofstra Law Review 1 (2005).
D. Michael Risinger, “The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science,” 90 California Law Review 1 (2002).
Related Cases
Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz
In 1982, Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz were convicted of a murder and sexual assault in Oklahoma on the basis of weak forensic evidence. A visual hair comparison - a “science” that has an error rate as high as 67% on individual samples - was a major factor in the conviction of these two men during their first trial. They spent over a decade in jail, with Williamson on death row, until DNA testing proved their innocence in 1999. The DNA at the crime scene matched the man who originally led police to Williamson and Fritz. Improved forensic procedures, better training, and lab oversight could have prevented this miscarriage of justice. Read about Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz
Donald Reynolds and Billy Wardell
In 1986, Donald Reynolds and Bill Wardell were wrongfully convicted of the robbery and rape of two University of Chicago students. The incorrect testimony of a forensics expert was used to shore up questionable eyewitness identifications in court. In 1997 DNA tests were finally performed which proved neither Reynolds nor Wardell was the attacker. The men’s sentences were vacated on November 16, 1997 after eleven years in an Illinois prison. Read about Donald Reynolds and Billy Wardell
Brandon Moon
Erroneous forensic testimony by a state crime lab analyst and the botched handling of exculpatory post-conviction DNA results kept Brandon Moon in prison for seventeen years for a rape he did not commit. Better training, higher standards for analysts, and improved quality control could have prevented this grave injustice from ever occurring. Read about Brandon Moon
