It would just seem sensible that in any case where forensic science is going to be used to take the liberty of an individual, it must be reviewed by a second inspection by another expert. For the most part these labs are owned by the law enforcement agencies or their supporting State. Just as with police investigating their own police involved shootings, there is a built in conflict of interests. There needs to be standards and independent reviews by labs funded by a non-related entity. This seems hardly too much to ask anytime a term of prison longer than a year is involved. There is absolutely no excuse for not using such a policy and method when the Death Penalty is a possibility. For any government to take a life of one of its citizens, there must be every protection to insure we are not killing innocent people. There can never be redemption from that for anyone involved.
6
Why the NYT calls it "Forensic Science"? It is clearly not a science! Those were were forensic opinions for profit. When you got buy a used car you do not expect that the used car dealer will tell you all problems which the offered cars may have. He will tell you only attractive features of the offered cars. The similar problem is with the for profit court "experts".
8
The police and prosecutors are the enforcement arm of the State. If you have entrusted your safety to them then you are to blame for their mistakes.
Worse, the continued over-confidence in junk science like forensic ballistics, drug-sniffing dogs, and psycho-anayzation props up the myth of the infallibility of these pop-sciences and the Benevolent State.
Worse, the continued over-confidence in junk science like forensic ballistics, drug-sniffing dogs, and psycho-anayzation props up the myth of the infallibility of these pop-sciences and the Benevolent State.
2
The author writes: "No one wants innocent defendants in jail — or executed."
At separate trials, the same state prosecutor was able to gain the conviction of two men as the murderer of the same victim. The prosecutor's pursuit of fundamentally inconsistent theories at the separate trials of Thompson and Leitch is evident from the transcripts of the two trials.
At Thompson's trial which occurred first, the prosecutor asserted that the sole motive for the murder was Thompson's desire to cover-up the alleged rape. The prosecutor claimed that Leitch merely assisted Thompson in disposing of the body after the murder.
At Leitch’s subsequent trial, the same state prosecutor, in closing arguments to the jury, stated: “Leitch is the only one, before the victim's death, who expressed any hatred for her and the only one with any motive for her death. . . . And I want to make it very clear that the State has charged Mr. Leitch with first degree murder, and with special circumstances. And as far as we are concerned, he's guilty of that or he's guilty of nothing.
So we have to ask ourselves, why would Mr. Thompson murder Miss Fleischli alone in an apartment where he lived, with no transportation, no means to move the body and wait for Mr. Leitch to come home to be an A-1 witness for the murder of his ex-girlfriend? Is that reasonable or logical? Do you think that's what happened? No, it didn't happen that way.”
See THOMPSON v. CALDERON.
Thompson was executed July 14, 1998.
At separate trials, the same state prosecutor was able to gain the conviction of two men as the murderer of the same victim. The prosecutor's pursuit of fundamentally inconsistent theories at the separate trials of Thompson and Leitch is evident from the transcripts of the two trials.
At Thompson's trial which occurred first, the prosecutor asserted that the sole motive for the murder was Thompson's desire to cover-up the alleged rape. The prosecutor claimed that Leitch merely assisted Thompson in disposing of the body after the murder.
At Leitch’s subsequent trial, the same state prosecutor, in closing arguments to the jury, stated: “Leitch is the only one, before the victim's death, who expressed any hatred for her and the only one with any motive for her death. . . . And I want to make it very clear that the State has charged Mr. Leitch with first degree murder, and with special circumstances. And as far as we are concerned, he's guilty of that or he's guilty of nothing.
So we have to ask ourselves, why would Mr. Thompson murder Miss Fleischli alone in an apartment where he lived, with no transportation, no means to move the body and wait for Mr. Leitch to come home to be an A-1 witness for the murder of his ex-girlfriend? Is that reasonable or logical? Do you think that's what happened? No, it didn't happen that way.”
See THOMPSON v. CALDERON.
Thompson was executed July 14, 1998.
8
It is not important what the truth is but that the public fear the power of the state. That is the thinking of many people. They believe in fear of God, or the state, as necessary for order and call it justice. How did this fantasy go on for such a long time and pretend to be science? The craziness of the criminal justice system goes beyond forensics but the public doesn't care.
3
Several years ago my colleague received a panicky phone call from her sister. One of her sister's legal clients was on trial for having smashed a storefront window and robbed a store. The prosecutor presented evidence that the chemical composition of glass shards matched the composition of the store window. Things didn't look good for the defendant.
My colleague was an expert on glass science; she asked her sister (the defendant's lawyer) what the glass constituents were. Sodium, calcium, and silicon. These happen to be the constituents of soda-lime silicate glass -- ordinary window glass -- my colleague told her lawyer-sister.
The sister returned to the courtroom, and presented this "new" information. The case against her client was dismissed.
My colleague was an expert on glass science; she asked her sister (the defendant's lawyer) what the glass constituents were. Sodium, calcium, and silicon. These happen to be the constituents of soda-lime silicate glass -- ordinary window glass -- my colleague told her lawyer-sister.
The sister returned to the courtroom, and presented this "new" information. The case against her client was dismissed.
1
I had this problem for years with white forensic experts, because they have no knowledge of "black" hair. Nor of dog or cat fur either. One time, a forensic expert found a "caucasian" hair on my black victim of rape who had seen the black man who raped her in good light. I won the case despite the defense using my expert that I was required by law to reveal. I have had many black friends but apparently the white crime lab experts never did, as they missed the whole era of "activators" for jeri curls and other hair styles and products for black people. Oh well, when I was in college, my hair, dyed, was used in class to show a solid dark hair, not at all like the hairs of those with "natural" hair color. I learned to be my own hair expert way back in high school when I started coloring my own hair.
10
Clearly, the FBI needs to find a few people like Abby Sciuto!
And next, please could we have studies of the junk science so often put forward in the arena of psychiatric (and other) predictions of future dangerousness - a particular problem in Texas where such a prediction must be made by the jury in a death penalty case, but also in the decision-making concerning whether a court will grant a defendant bail. Although many of the "experts" who make such predictions, such as Dr. Richard Coons of Texas, have been exposed as having little to no scientific basis for their predictions, judges have admitted their testimony and upheld death sentences in cases where they have testified. This outrage has never received the coverage that it should, and neither the bench nor the bar seem prepared to come to grips with the actual science in this field. Who will take on this task?
5
With due deference to the evidence presented, it problem lies mostly with the culture of our society. The general belief in the system of "innocent until proven guilty" has at least declined if ever it was present. The general attitude widely observed is that the accused must be guilty of something. Even Mr. Lander states "Although the errors don’t necessarily mean the defendants are innocent -." If the defendant's guilt can be proven otherwise, why would one bring faulty evidence? Why is error/perjury not taken as proof of innocence which is the base assumption - innocent until PROVEN guilty. If the prosecutor's chosen proof falls apart, why does the jury not hold prosecutors responsible for truth? If the prosecutors were held to that standard, the unlawful behavior of the accusers and prosecutors are bound to decline.
6
"No one wants innocent defendants in jail — or executed — while true perpetrators are still at large."
If only that were true. The truth is that far too many law enforcers and prosecutors care about one thing and one thing only - a conviction. Brutes like Norfolk, Virginia's Robert Glenn Ford, New Jersey's "Kids for Cash" and many thousands of other scandals attest to that.
Such miscarriages of justice and trashing of innocents' lives will continue until underlying levels of national corruption and racism are stomped out. Until then we have to live with our conscience - those who still have any.
If only that were true. The truth is that far too many law enforcers and prosecutors care about one thing and one thing only - a conviction. Brutes like Norfolk, Virginia's Robert Glenn Ford, New Jersey's "Kids for Cash" and many thousands of other scandals attest to that.
Such miscarriages of justice and trashing of innocents' lives will continue until underlying levels of national corruption and racism are stomped out. Until then we have to live with our conscience - those who still have any.
7
The issue here, one that often gets overlooked, is the over-criminalization of society.
Those that think that similar problems do not plague other parts of the criminal justice system are being naive. One need look no farther than Eric Garner and the enormous number of people that lose their lives at the hands of police officers. Overwhelmingly these are a result the attempted arrest of non-violent offenders for the endless parade of "crimes" that are simply fiat crimes between consenting adults.
Here, the state had objective evidence (either DNA matched the defendant or it did not), and this precious government that many of you who read this paper constantly clamor for, STILL destroyed people's lives. The further the gov't criminalizes adult behavior, the more such calamities will be foisted onto undeserving individuals.
It is just a matter of time before the parade of wrongs by the CIA and NSA based on flawed electronic information get Snowdened. And those of you that clamor for more gov't will, guess what, clamor for more gov't to fix the problems that more gov't caused. Then, when those fixes cause more problems, you will clamor for more gov't to fix the things that more gov't caused in the process of more gov't fixing a perceived problem.
Don't you ever learn that gov't IS the problem, and MORE gov't isn't the solution.
Those that think that similar problems do not plague other parts of the criminal justice system are being naive. One need look no farther than Eric Garner and the enormous number of people that lose their lives at the hands of police officers. Overwhelmingly these are a result the attempted arrest of non-violent offenders for the endless parade of "crimes" that are simply fiat crimes between consenting adults.
Here, the state had objective evidence (either DNA matched the defendant or it did not), and this precious government that many of you who read this paper constantly clamor for, STILL destroyed people's lives. The further the gov't criminalizes adult behavior, the more such calamities will be foisted onto undeserving individuals.
It is just a matter of time before the parade of wrongs by the CIA and NSA based on flawed electronic information get Snowdened. And those of you that clamor for more gov't will, guess what, clamor for more gov't to fix the problems that more gov't caused. Then, when those fixes cause more problems, you will clamor for more gov't to fix the things that more gov't caused in the process of more gov't fixing a perceived problem.
Don't you ever learn that gov't IS the problem, and MORE gov't isn't the solution.
3
Or running when they see police or having a pocket knife in pocket. If the police have that much time on their hands then their are too many police.
@ Rush, DC
Straw man argument.
The point isn't government versus no government. The problems is science versus non-science. The clarity of the science in most cases can reliably be classified as trustworthy or not trustworthy. If not trustworthy, either other evidence must be sought to corroborate it, and if such evidence is not found, then the case must be considered unproven.
Government is not the subject being debated here. Science is.
Straw man argument.
The point isn't government versus no government. The problems is science versus non-science. The clarity of the science in most cases can reliably be classified as trustworthy or not trustworthy. If not trustworthy, either other evidence must be sought to corroborate it, and if such evidence is not found, then the case must be considered unproven.
Government is not the subject being debated here. Science is.
2
It's astonishing how those in power (the prosecution in this case) cheat. Cheat, what else do you call it? Looking out to be re-elected, etc. How did our laws get hijacked by so many wrong doers? Greed? Money in politics? You got that right.
2
Look at what happened with Cameron Todd Willingham, convicted of the arson death of his daughters and executed in 2004. The "science" behind his conviction was based on inaccurate and outdated arson "science". But when brought to the attention of Gov. Perry, instead of looking at the case dispassionately, Perry made sure Willingham's death was certain. Luckily for some people (even in Texas), not all cases succumb to politics. Now look at handwriting, hair and bite mark analysis, let alone dog sniffing alerts for drugs in car. None of these "disciplines" is even remotely scientific and yet evidence from these "experts" is routinely accepted by courts. And legally it is very difficult, once accepted by courts, to challenge the "experts". For one reason, if defendant A in 2015 successfully challenges bite mark data, then what about the 10,000 other defendants in prison (or dead) from such phony data? Courts would be clogged with appeals. So I guess the courts now follow the dictum: better 10 people are convicted than one guilty person go free. Sad, that our "justice" system has become such a laughingstock (were any of its victims laughing).
3
What bothers me is the time it takes to release those convicted erroneously and, indeed, the reluctance to actually set the release in motion. It's bad enough that the forensic science is in doubt and that prosecutors acted inappropriately - criminally? - to gain a conviction. But once the evidence is clear, why does it take so long to release those convicted in error?
8
With so many cases out there, police and prosecutors do their best to focus on the winners. Cases that require bite analysis or hair analysis are cases that are seldom brought. Fingerprints, breathalyzers, autopsies, and DNA are the bread and butter tests of prosecution. When relatively unreliable tests are used, other evidence needs to be very strong. Mistaken convictions happen. But they are a tiny percentage of all convictions. The number of guilty folks who get off is much higher. Ask yourself why police and prosecutors would pursue false convictions. When there are so many good cases to bring, intentionally pursuing bad ones pretty much does not happen.
And what is your proof for the assertion that "The number of guilty folks who get off is much higher" than that of the wrongly convicted?
1
This may help to answer your questions:
In a remarkable letter to the editor published last month in The Shreveport Times, A.M. Stroud III, a former prosecutor in Louisiana’s Caddo Parish, offered a chillingly frank answer: “Winning became everything.”
In 1984, Mr. Stroud convinced a jury to convict a man named Glenn Ford and sentence him to death for murder. But Mr. Stroud now admits that because he was so focused on winning rather than on seeking justice, he failed to identify and turn over evidence that would have cleared Mr. Ford.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/20/lead-pro...
In a remarkable letter to the editor published last month in The Shreveport Times, A.M. Stroud III, a former prosecutor in Louisiana’s Caddo Parish, offered a chillingly frank answer: “Winning became everything.”
In 1984, Mr. Stroud convinced a jury to convict a man named Glenn Ford and sentence him to death for murder. But Mr. Stroud now admits that because he was so focused on winning rather than on seeking justice, he failed to identify and turn over evidence that would have cleared Mr. Ford.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/20/lead-pro...
2
Regarding DNA evidence, the Roberts court has weakened the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, which gives a criminal defendant the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The Roberts court has ruled that testimony from a witness about another person's lab work is sufficient as evidence.
In her dissent Justice Kagan described a case, one in which a Cellmark analyst took the stand, only to realize after cross-examination that she had made a “mortifying error” in wrongly concluding that DNA from a bloody sweatshirt matched that of the defendant.
The confrontation clause, Justice Kagan wrote, is “a mechanism for catching such errors,” demonstrating “the genius of an 18th-century device as applied to 21st-century evidence.” Justices Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.
In her dissent Justice Kagan described a case, one in which a Cellmark analyst took the stand, only to realize after cross-examination that she had made a “mortifying error” in wrongly concluding that DNA from a bloody sweatshirt matched that of the defendant.
The confrontation clause, Justice Kagan wrote, is “a mechanism for catching such errors,” demonstrating “the genius of an 18th-century device as applied to 21st-century evidence.” Justices Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.
4
It is not dismaying that forensic science has its limits in establishing "facts." What is disturbing is that the justice system makes forensic science a tool for prosecutors, not for the judicial process. When we need "facts" -- the tide, weather, stock market prices on a a given day -- both sides can turn confidently to objective record-keepers. Why shouldn't the justice system maintain a forensic science lab for the benefit of the courts and society rather than one engaged and paid for on behalf either prosecutor and defendant, each of whom have strong partisan interests in a particular outcome?
An honest forensic lab would have nothing to lose by reporting that the evidence is murky in one way or another. It would indeed take away the false certainty and unearned moral self-satisfaction from case dispositions baed on lazy acceptance of a convenient but unreliable explanation of what happened. We consider trials by combat, fire or water to be archaic, primitive, superstitious and misguided ways to satisfy our instinct for justice, and desire for social order. Trial by invoking a "science" that is bought and paid for by someone with a personal interest in the outcome rather than in truth and justice is equally misguided and deserves quickly to become archaic.
An honest forensic lab would have nothing to lose by reporting that the evidence is murky in one way or another. It would indeed take away the false certainty and unearned moral self-satisfaction from case dispositions baed on lazy acceptance of a convenient but unreliable explanation of what happened. We consider trials by combat, fire or water to be archaic, primitive, superstitious and misguided ways to satisfy our instinct for justice, and desire for social order. Trial by invoking a "science" that is bought and paid for by someone with a personal interest in the outcome rather than in truth and justice is equally misguided and deserves quickly to become archaic.
42
Thank you, Mr. Lander, for an excellent piece.
3
Our judicial system, both the civil side and the criminal side, is a monumental failure. I say this as a retired attorney with decades of experience.
The system especially fails when we get in to the area of 'expert' testimony of whatever stripe.
My experience was mostly limited to medical malpractice.
My career involved hundreds if not thousands of cases.
In virtually every case each side managed to find and expert witness who resolutely testified under oath and at risk of the criminal sanction of perjury 'to a reasonable degree of certainty', to diametrically opposite conclusions.
Medicine has a good deal of uncertainty, a certain measure of art versus science, a trace of 'judgement', but it is absurd to believe that the standard of care in a given malpractice case is so vague and subject to debate that in virtually every case experts can have an 'honest disagreement' about what constitutes the appropriate approach to treatment.
'Experts', including those described in this article, offer their services with an 'understanding' of what testimony/advocacy is expected of them. It is a game. It is played to be won. It is anything but a bona fide search for the truth.
The system especially fails when we get in to the area of 'expert' testimony of whatever stripe.
My experience was mostly limited to medical malpractice.
My career involved hundreds if not thousands of cases.
In virtually every case each side managed to find and expert witness who resolutely testified under oath and at risk of the criminal sanction of perjury 'to a reasonable degree of certainty', to diametrically opposite conclusions.
Medicine has a good deal of uncertainty, a certain measure of art versus science, a trace of 'judgement', but it is absurd to believe that the standard of care in a given malpractice case is so vague and subject to debate that in virtually every case experts can have an 'honest disagreement' about what constitutes the appropriate approach to treatment.
'Experts', including those described in this article, offer their services with an 'understanding' of what testimony/advocacy is expected of them. It is a game. It is played to be won. It is anything but a bona fide search for the truth.
30
@ Michael Thomas, Sawyer, MI
In addition,the expert scientists ought to be be compelled to disclose what they have been paid for their testimony. Law firms who consistently use the same expert witnesses should likewise be required to provide to the courts the amounts they have paid to their various witnesses. Medical malpractice suits, in which massive judgments are rendered ought to be required to disclose the amounts of payments to their expert witnesses, and opposing attorneys ought to have that information as part of their evidence for cross-examination. The amounts involved could hardly be described as negligible.
In addition,the expert scientists ought to be be compelled to disclose what they have been paid for their testimony. Law firms who consistently use the same expert witnesses should likewise be required to provide to the courts the amounts they have paid to their various witnesses. Medical malpractice suits, in which massive judgments are rendered ought to be required to disclose the amounts of payments to their expert witnesses, and opposing attorneys ought to have that information as part of their evidence for cross-examination. The amounts involved could hardly be described as negligible.
3
We need an Institute for Forensic Sciences, as proposed by a commission in 2009, to ensure evidence presented at trial is as accurate as possible. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589/strengthening-forensic-science-in-the-u...
23
There's an inherent bias here that needs to be acknowledged. A forensics lab that is part of a criminal justice system has a real incentive to give police and prosecutors what they want: evidence that ties someone to a crime, preferably the suspect they've locked in on.
Success may ideally be measured in terms of accurate results via peer-reviewed methods, but the key metric in the minds of the people with control over budgets and promotions is the number of convictions resulting from lab work. There's constant pressure to give the 'customers' what they want.
There's no simple answer, but there are some possible remedies. The most fundamental would be for lab workers to work with 'blinded' specimens - they don't know who the samples came from or what the investigation is about. Their job is simply to do the tests with only as much information as they need to run them and then turn over the test results to those with the key to unblind the samples.
Among other virtues, this should provide a record of how effective particular tests are, especially if blinded controls are included to ensure the test is actually working. Eliminating tests that are inconclusive would save money, and eliminating 'false positives' would save even more on wrongful conviction lawsuits.
And justice might actually be done.
Success may ideally be measured in terms of accurate results via peer-reviewed methods, but the key metric in the minds of the people with control over budgets and promotions is the number of convictions resulting from lab work. There's constant pressure to give the 'customers' what they want.
There's no simple answer, but there are some possible remedies. The most fundamental would be for lab workers to work with 'blinded' specimens - they don't know who the samples came from or what the investigation is about. Their job is simply to do the tests with only as much information as they need to run them and then turn over the test results to those with the key to unblind the samples.
Among other virtues, this should provide a record of how effective particular tests are, especially if blinded controls are included to ensure the test is actually working. Eliminating tests that are inconclusive would save money, and eliminating 'false positives' would save even more on wrongful conviction lawsuits.
And justice might actually be done.
8
Most of these "experts" testify for the state and are paid by the state.
They know better then to byte the hand that feeds them.
The odds of them being successfully cross examined by an uneducated and unfunded defendant are zero.
So they know what they are supposed to do. Under the guise of being impartial, of course. And if they screw up their testimony on a case, they are coached on how to say the right thing the next time.
As to following procedures, who is going to check that? NO ONE.
They know better then to byte the hand that feeds them.
The odds of them being successfully cross examined by an uneducated and unfunded defendant are zero.
So they know what they are supposed to do. Under the guise of being impartial, of course. And if they screw up their testimony on a case, they are coached on how to say the right thing the next time.
As to following procedures, who is going to check that? NO ONE.
3
I'm not sure your last statement matters to most prosecutors. It is much better to have a crime 'solved', than a cold-case sitting on the books.
1
Wait, forensic matches--that lead to murder convictions, no less--are not performed in the blind? The investigator knows which sample came from the accused? How is that scientific? He or she should have to identify the correct match from a "lineup" of twenty or more samples, not knowing initially which is the "right" one.
"No one wants innocent defendants in jail — or executed — while true perpetrators are still at large."
Unfortunately this is not true. Police and prosecutors are frequently judged rewarded, and promoted based on the number of prosecutions and convictions they deliver -- even on weak or false evidence. Those hard incentives inevitably cause them to "want" to put defendants in jail -- or executed -- regardless of innocence.
People are human: they respond to incentives. We need to correct these perverse incentives.
Unfortunately this is not true. Police and prosecutors are frequently judged rewarded, and promoted based on the number of prosecutions and convictions they deliver -- even on weak or false evidence. Those hard incentives inevitably cause them to "want" to put defendants in jail -- or executed -- regardless of innocence.
People are human: they respond to incentives. We need to correct these perverse incentives.
12
Too many people misunderstand science by thinking that what a scientist says is true because he is a scientist. Few people seem to understand that the success of science rests in the fact that everything can and must be questioned rigorously. Too often, the scientific community is not ready to abandon some antiquated explanatory model because scientific careers depend on its being considered right. But if you add into this the sportsman-like attitude of privileged prosecutors for whom winning is the only thing, the prospects of abuse multiply.
5
I wouldn't attribute this problem to scientists. The problem is that the forensic methods traditionally used by law enforcement were developed by supposed experts within the law enforcement community and simply didn't have a rigorous scientific basis. These people were generally not trained in any scientific discipline. They were not testing the method and calculating false positive and false negative rates and publishing studies that validated their methods in peer reviewed journals (as actual scientists do). Fingerprint matching, for example, is done differently from one police department to the next around the country. The issue, as the author is describing here, is that until recent years nobody has really done anything about this.
2
Most forensic "experts" are not scientists. They rarely have the advanced training (Ph.D. and 3-5 year Post-Doc experience) that scientists have. They also work for the prosecution so they lack objectivity and no desire to know the truth - only to get a conviction.
2
Chilling. Republicans and Democrats in Congress and in the statehouses can and should do themselves a favor and the country a service by setting their partisan differences aside and fixing this together. Mr. Lander has offered a thoughtful approach to trying to fix the scientific side of this problem. But perhaps the bigger problem (harder to fix) is fixing the wrongheaded thinking and corruption in the justice system that has bred and covered up these issues. A good start would be exposing and punishing the Justice Department official or officials who sought "to limit the panel's scope" as mention in the article. A lot of legal education and training has been done poorly in order wrong for this to become such a large problem within the offices of prosecutors on all levels. So-called experts and lawyers who introduce scientific evidence should be held accountable for assuring the evidence is presented in good faith and truthfully, based on sound science.
7
Unmentioned in the piece is the fact that identification from so-called "line-ups" or pictures have a high degree of unreliability when the accuser and the accused are from different physical groups, as for example a white person vs an Indian or an African American vs someone of Asian background. Studies have shown that we have a lot more difficulty identifying specific individuals from groups not our own. And yet, juries often seem to believe that these "identifications" have a strong reliability. Not so.
8
This excellent article makes an important point that is almost totally missing from the Eyewitness Identification "research" you cite: Before we pronounce something as scientifically true, it needs to be rigorously tested in experiments that connect it to "ground truth." By "ground truth," I, and most social scientists, mean that the experiment has a direct connection to the physical reality of the premise being tested. Eyewitness identification experts do not use actual crime victims whose identifications were deemed sufficiently certain to reach a courtroom. They largely use videotaped mock crimes viewed by college students. They do not even ask if the students were watching rather than texting. Then they determine their statistics on this non-random sample's ability to identify the "perpetrator" accurately, using every attempt at identification, including those who say "I think (or I guess) it looks like . . ." No prosecutor would ever use that identification at trial.
Yet the eyewitness identification "experts," many of whom intersect with those skeptical of forensic techniques, claim that THEIR evidence should be admitted at trial. Until the experiments are based upon good science like that recommended in this article, eyewitness expert testimony should no more be used in court than hair comparison evidence.
Yet the eyewitness identification "experts," many of whom intersect with those skeptical of forensic techniques, claim that THEIR evidence should be admitted at trial. Until the experiments are based upon good science like that recommended in this article, eyewitness expert testimony should no more be used in court than hair comparison evidence.
I agree with you completely. I was recently hospitalized in a large city hospital, and I had trouble identifying the nurses who were black as opposed to those who were white. All the nurses, without exception, were excellent, but my brain had trouble computing. This is not something I am proud of; in fact, I recognize it, as you do, as a terrible and indefensible shortcoming.
I have always wondered, maybe someone can reply to answer this: when fingerprint evidence is presented to a jury, do the jurors get to see images of the (supposedly matching) prints? Or do they only get to hear the testimony of an expert who testifies that the prints match?
I would rather believe my own eyes than what anyone tells me he saw.
I would rather believe my own eyes than what anyone tells me he saw.
5
Yes. Images of the prints are typically shown to the jury.
1
People have been indoctrinated by a media assault that the policeman is indefatigable, incorruptible, and infallible. Joe Friday would never go into court and lie in order to obtain a conviction against someone he knew was innocent. He would work until he knew for sure that the person was guilty, and if he found out that the accused was innocent, he would be the one unlocking the hand cuffs.
All of CSI shows are part of this propaganda. It lays the aura of scientific certainty over what at the end is a guess, at best. It is essentially a fraud, and the point is not to get justice, but to get a conviction.
It is unclear why the FBI has come out on this particular issue. Whatever the cause, you can bet that they were kicking a screaming for years before the news conference. You can also bet that this doesn't make the courtroom one bit fairer for the person in the dock.
All of CSI shows are part of this propaganda. It lays the aura of scientific certainty over what at the end is a guess, at best. It is essentially a fraud, and the point is not to get justice, but to get a conviction.
It is unclear why the FBI has come out on this particular issue. Whatever the cause, you can bet that they were kicking a screaming for years before the news conference. You can also bet that this doesn't make the courtroom one bit fairer for the person in the dock.
6
One contributing factor to the extensive use of bad evidence is poor defense work. Public defenders are overburdened and poorly trained to deal with scientific evidence. Without proper training it is very hard to do a proper cross examination of an "expert" witness. This is compounded by the fact that many judges don't understand science and are willing to admit evidence that should be excluded.
41
As a former public defender, I disagree with the blanket statement that public defenders are "poorly trained to deal with scientific evidence." In most institutional public defenders' offices in metropolitan areas there is training on dealing with scientific evidence and there are experienced senior attorneys to handle or assist with cases where that evidence will be presented. The larger problem is with assigned counsel who are solo practitioners, are given limited resources for experts, and may not have any experience in criminal defense or scientific evidence. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, who started the Innocence Project, both started their careers with the Legal Aid Society Criminal Defense Division (NYC's public defender office) and have trained many of the attorneys in the Legal Aid offices.
1
"an expert’s opinion is not a reliable basis for drawing connections between evidence samples and a particular person"
Of course not! You have to ask first, expert on what? One can be an expert on astrology, but that doesn't make astrology itself any more true. Unfortunately, much of forensic "science" isn't a science at all and hasn't been validated anything more than astrology has. The good news is that the FBI is acknowledging that.
Of course not! You have to ask first, expert on what? One can be an expert on astrology, but that doesn't make astrology itself any more true. Unfortunately, much of forensic "science" isn't a science at all and hasn't been validated anything more than astrology has. The good news is that the FBI is acknowledging that.
5
Once again the NYT and many of its writers expect all government agencies and employees to be perfect and flawless and never make mistakes. And it never happens. It never will happen. Nor will it happen in the non-government sector. Now or in the future. A perfect person is rarely found in any walk of life. All we can do is what we have been doing: find the flaws and fix them and try to prevent repeating them. As Sarah Palin once remarked: "Lotsa luck with that!"
"Once again the NYT and many of its writers expect all government agencies and employees to be perfect and flawless and never make mistakes."
It looks to me a lot more like expecting them to *try to* be perfect and flawless. Which seems to me a reasonable request.
It looks to me a lot more like expecting them to *try to* be perfect and flawless. Which seems to me a reasonable request.
1
Nobody is asking for perfect people who never make mistakes. However, we don't expect expert witnesses testifying for prosecutors to lie on the witness stand.
1
U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in Kansas v. Marsh (2006) wrote:
“It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. . . . The dissent makes much of the new-found capacity of DNA testing to establish innocence. But in every case of an executed defendant of which I am aware, that technology has confirmed guilt.”
The op-ed reads: "The results of the first 268 cases examined were reported Sunday in The Washington Post. The review found that F.B.I. testimony was fundamentally flawed in 257 of those cases — a stunning 96 percent of the total. Of those defendants, 33 received the death penalty and NINE HAVE BEEN EXECUTED SO FAR." (emphasis added)
Well, here’s a real test of the infallibility of the U. S. Supreme Court death penalty jurisprudence to correct mistakes made by lower state and federal courts in terms of “constitutionally fair trials.”
It should be the essential responsibility of the U. S. Supreme Court to make certain that every criminal defendant has received a “constitutionally fair trial,” especially in death penalty cases. Thomas Thompson, an innocent man, would be alive today if all of the justices of the U. S. Supreme Court had considered this to be their primary duty. As a result of an erroneous 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in Thompson’s case (with Justice Scalia in the majority), Thompson was executed on July 14, 1998.
“It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. . . . The dissent makes much of the new-found capacity of DNA testing to establish innocence. But in every case of an executed defendant of which I am aware, that technology has confirmed guilt.”
The op-ed reads: "The results of the first 268 cases examined were reported Sunday in The Washington Post. The review found that F.B.I. testimony was fundamentally flawed in 257 of those cases — a stunning 96 percent of the total. Of those defendants, 33 received the death penalty and NINE HAVE BEEN EXECUTED SO FAR." (emphasis added)
Well, here’s a real test of the infallibility of the U. S. Supreme Court death penalty jurisprudence to correct mistakes made by lower state and federal courts in terms of “constitutionally fair trials.”
It should be the essential responsibility of the U. S. Supreme Court to make certain that every criminal defendant has received a “constitutionally fair trial,” especially in death penalty cases. Thomas Thompson, an innocent man, would be alive today if all of the justices of the U. S. Supreme Court had considered this to be their primary duty. As a result of an erroneous 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in Thompson’s case (with Justice Scalia in the majority), Thompson was executed on July 14, 1998.
64
Justice Scalia makes for a bad example with which to indict the wisdom of The Court. That's because while he's supposed to be brilliant, he's definitely a fool. A more moderate (and sensible) jurist would be a better pick.
Scalia knew better than to make an absurd statement like that. He is purely and simply a liar.
2
Well said.
Time for Justice Antonin Scalia to admit his error.
Time for Justice Antonin Scalia to admit his error.
2
I think there are a few aspects of this issue that have not been addressed in the article or these comments:
1. While we abhor the idea of innocent people going to jail, I think we have to admit that our criminal justice system mostly gets it right, and that its mistakes are caused by a lot more than bad forensics. We have prosecutors who act unethically, budget deficits that cause most cases to be resolved with a plea bargain instead of a trial, and outmoded laws that fill our jails with non-violent offenders.
2. The weakness is not just in forensic “science”. Forensic “scientists” are a huge part of the problem. A large part of their training consists of unproven lore, and they often have contempt for such notions as double-blind testing, laboratory experimentation, and statistical analysis.
3. I encourage anybody interested in this issue to read the NAS forensics report – in particular, the executive summary – which is available for free download at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html
1. While we abhor the idea of innocent people going to jail, I think we have to admit that our criminal justice system mostly gets it right, and that its mistakes are caused by a lot more than bad forensics. We have prosecutors who act unethically, budget deficits that cause most cases to be resolved with a plea bargain instead of a trial, and outmoded laws that fill our jails with non-violent offenders.
2. The weakness is not just in forensic “science”. Forensic “scientists” are a huge part of the problem. A large part of their training consists of unproven lore, and they often have contempt for such notions as double-blind testing, laboratory experimentation, and statistical analysis.
3. I encourage anybody interested in this issue to read the NAS forensics report – in particular, the executive summary – which is available for free download at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html
4
In her 2010 book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot states that research has shown that DNA may not be the same in all parts of the same person's body, and that some children do not even have their mother's DNA. That's a problem for forensic DNA matching, isn't it?
3
Did she give a credible reference for this claim? Or was she merely pointing to a chance mutation at one point, which would not affect the overall result?
In the 1990's, I was working in a university lab, staining tissues for histology. No chance of advancement. I went to a job fair, and talked to the FBI recruiter, asking to work in their forensics lab. The man flatly refused, saying they didn't need anyone; but he didn't seem comfortable about the whole subject. Shortly thereafter, in the news there were reports of poor management and false results in the FBI forensics lab. Recalling the recruiter's attitude, it seemed to me he was covering up something wrong about the lab that he did not want to reveal; and what they did not want was an obviously honest person who could be a whistle blower. And yet after all these years, it seems the same problems have endured. Fie on them; this is shameful.
6
Our world need new kind of education from early age. Money has become the yard mark of success in west. In middle east education is all about killing and going to heaven for great sex.,
Our intellectuals need to rewrite books how to live and why and what you get now and after you die. Not heaven but remembrance what you did on earth. Good or bad.
Punish and expose bad acts now not after crime. Killing by islamic followers should be debated and stopped before many start following for heaven .
Our intellectuals need to rewrite books how to live and why and what you get now and after you die. Not heaven but remembrance what you did on earth. Good or bad.
Punish and expose bad acts now not after crime. Killing by islamic followers should be debated and stopped before many start following for heaven .
If federal prosecutors submitted evidence to the court that they knew or should have known was false then they have not only violated the due process rights of defendants, they have violated their own code of ethics.
At some point some bar association has to take a prosecutor to task if it is shown that they knew they were presenting false evidence in a case. Maybe the real threat of the loss of ones license might prevent defendants from loosing years of their life.
Being exonerated in these cases is important, but being treated with fairness within the rules of evidence and due process of law is in the end even more important.
At some point some bar association has to take a prosecutor to task if it is shown that they knew they were presenting false evidence in a case. Maybe the real threat of the loss of ones license might prevent defendants from loosing years of their life.
Being exonerated in these cases is important, but being treated with fairness within the rules of evidence and due process of law is in the end even more important.
3
Please! I don't think I've ever heard of a prosecutor accused of misdeeds taken to task by the Bar Association, the judicial system, or for that matter any system. The most common offense they commit is to withhold evidence that could lead to the acquittal of defendants. Their attitude seems to be that it's the defense's job to prove their client innocent, not the prosecutor's. So much for seeking truth and justice. I've known attorneys who had worked as assistant DAs and who despite having very progressive/liberal politics, became rabidly competitive about being successful at obtaining convictions. Not to many qualms about seeing possibly innocent people being found guilty. What is really disheartening about this story is that it shatters the illusion- propagated by many CSI TV shows such as Forensic Files- that science has finally come to the aid of the evidentiary system in dispensing justice.
Dr. Lander, thank you for writing this important OP-ED. As both a consulting and a testifying expert, from time-to-time I encounter experts who may not be experts. In addition, the landmark 1993 US Supreme Court case Daubert et al. v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals et al. now enables the judge to be the gate-keeper regarding the court's recognition of experts.
I've successfully dealt with the "Daubert Challenges" of opposing counsels. The objective of this exercise is try to dis-quality the opposing expert. As long as my expert testimony is restricted to my areas of expertise (engineering and physical science), professionals like me have little to be concerned (we are truly the experts).
Likewise, Rule 702 (as described near the end of this OP-ED) is also applied by attorneys and judges to assess the fitness of the expert for offering expert testimony. I have read some very nicely written reports from attorneys and judges on how I comported myself during a Rule 702 evaluation.
It astonishes me that in 2015, even with the well-established expert recognition procedures in place, non-experts are still able to apparently offer an expert opinion in Deposition and at Trial. This turn of events also speaks volumes about how the FBI handles such matters.
Integrity is important to Dr. Lander and me, why is it apparently less so for the FBI?
I've successfully dealt with the "Daubert Challenges" of opposing counsels. The objective of this exercise is try to dis-quality the opposing expert. As long as my expert testimony is restricted to my areas of expertise (engineering and physical science), professionals like me have little to be concerned (we are truly the experts).
Likewise, Rule 702 (as described near the end of this OP-ED) is also applied by attorneys and judges to assess the fitness of the expert for offering expert testimony. I have read some very nicely written reports from attorneys and judges on how I comported myself during a Rule 702 evaluation.
It astonishes me that in 2015, even with the well-established expert recognition procedures in place, non-experts are still able to apparently offer an expert opinion in Deposition and at Trial. This turn of events also speaks volumes about how the FBI handles such matters.
Integrity is important to Dr. Lander and me, why is it apparently less so for the FBI?
2
Questionable Forensic evidence played only a small role in many recently overturned cases. Prosecutors frequently opt not to retry overturned cases because witnesses have died.
The emphasis in this piece is spot-on. Developing reliable forensic methods will protect communities from crime AND shield the wrongly accused. "No one wants innocent defendants in jail — or executed — while true perpetrators are still at large."
1
"No one wants innocent defendants in jail — or executed — while true perpetrators are still at large."
This seems to be exactly what many do want. See remarks by your very own Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States and similar remarks by our late Lord Alfred Denning. Both have opined (though I paraphrase) that it is better for innocent defendants to be kept in jail (or even executed) than for the legal system to be exposed as flawed or corrupt.
The police (on both sides of the pond) have very often proved themselves perfectly happy to hide evidence that would free innocent defendants from jail.
I see very little evidence for the contention that "No one wants innocent defendants in jail".
This seems to be exactly what many do want. See remarks by your very own Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States and similar remarks by our late Lord Alfred Denning. Both have opined (though I paraphrase) that it is better for innocent defendants to be kept in jail (or even executed) than for the legal system to be exposed as flawed or corrupt.
The police (on both sides of the pond) have very often proved themselves perfectly happy to hide evidence that would free innocent defendants from jail.
I see very little evidence for the contention that "No one wants innocent defendants in jail".
5
We need to prosecute prosecutors when they deliberately ignore known problems, or use peoples belief in forensic science to win a case. How many prosecutors turn to politics based on conviction records to show why they should be elected.
You can not give people back time, this is and has been to serious to ignore, we do so at our own peril.
You can not give people back time, this is and has been to serious to ignore, we do so at our own peril.
17
Government prosecutors, both trial prosecutors and their supervising administrative prosecutors, have absolute immunity from civil damages for all constitutional violations of a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial by means of the suppression of “Brady” evidence.
The U. S. Supreme Court five-justice majority in Imbler v. Pachtman (1976) granted absolutely immunity to government trial prosecutors from lawsuits based on claims of unconstitutional suppression of “Brady” evidence brought by wrongfully-convicted criminal defendants.
As regards supervising government prosecutors, in a unanimous 2009 decision, Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, the Supreme Court ruled: “We ask whether that immunity extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material due to: (1) a failure properly to train prosecutors, (2) a failure properly to supervise prosecutors, or (3) a failure to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. We conclude that a prosecutor’s absolute immunity extends to all these claims.”
In other words, the U. S. Supreme Court has put all government prosecutors on the honor system. Good luck with that.
The U. S. Supreme Court five-justice majority in Imbler v. Pachtman (1976) granted absolutely immunity to government trial prosecutors from lawsuits based on claims of unconstitutional suppression of “Brady” evidence brought by wrongfully-convicted criminal defendants.
As regards supervising government prosecutors, in a unanimous 2009 decision, Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, the Supreme Court ruled: “We ask whether that immunity extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material due to: (1) a failure properly to train prosecutors, (2) a failure properly to supervise prosecutors, or (3) a failure to establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants. We conclude that a prosecutor’s absolute immunity extends to all these claims.”
In other words, the U. S. Supreme Court has put all government prosecutors on the honor system. Good luck with that.
1
Science and religion have two important characteristics in common. Properly done, they are pure, and both both are regularly prostituted by the impure, pragmatic disciplines...politics and expediency. Prosecutors and law enforcement are political animals. Their existence and budgets are determined by public opinion and support, and as we all know, majority rule is just another name for mob rule. The history of science is replete with invalidated theories. Flogiston. The "ether". Paul Dirac and the positron.
But our culture is scientifically and mathematically ignorant. Our scientific curricula in schools emphasizes memorizing content in a book and spitting them up on a multiple choice test, rather than careful observation, skepticism, and creating theories and testing them. So our scientists are groomed to be conformists to the doctrines of their teachers, not true empiricists.
But the biggest culprit here is the criminal justice system. We have for far too long given prosecutors a pass, even when it comes to clear precedent, such as US v Brady, to hand over exculpatory material. In the gladiatorial view of criminal justice system, the state has the upper hand with its resources (paid for with the defendant's tax dollars), except when the defendant has significant resources of his or her own, in which case the state is more likely to lose and less likely to prosecute. So the poor are exploited for the poltiical gain of the political class. It stinks, still.
But our culture is scientifically and mathematically ignorant. Our scientific curricula in schools emphasizes memorizing content in a book and spitting them up on a multiple choice test, rather than careful observation, skepticism, and creating theories and testing them. So our scientists are groomed to be conformists to the doctrines of their teachers, not true empiricists.
But the biggest culprit here is the criminal justice system. We have for far too long given prosecutors a pass, even when it comes to clear precedent, such as US v Brady, to hand over exculpatory material. In the gladiatorial view of criminal justice system, the state has the upper hand with its resources (paid for with the defendant's tax dollars), except when the defendant has significant resources of his or her own, in which case the state is more likely to lose and less likely to prosecute. So the poor are exploited for the poltiical gain of the political class. It stinks, still.
8
Dirac predicted the existence of a particle we now call the positron. It was subsequently found and had the properties he predicted. So while your point is correct, this particular example does not support it.
1
Actually, this comment is inaccurate. What he thought his equations predicted- erroneously - was the positively charged proton. The latter has a far higher mass than the negatively charged electron and its antiparticle the positron, which was discovered experimentally by Anderson, and for which he won the Nobel prize. If Dirac had predicted the existence of the positron, now that would have really been something. Nature however is often stranger, and in some sense simpler (and more beautiful) than we imagine.
The prosecutor's goal is to win a conviction; the defense's goal is to win an acquittal; the judge is the referee enforcing the rules; the jury are the judges of who played the game better. No wonder some sports venues are called "courts". There's no one in this system whose goal is justice.
The problem is clearly the American adversarial "justice" system that treats trials as if they were games to be won. I think other countries have justice-oriented systems, but I don't know the details.
The problem is clearly the American adversarial "justice" system that treats trials as if they were games to be won. I think other countries have justice-oriented systems, but I don't know the details.
28
Amanda Knox might disagree.
1
The adversarial system is fine--if conducted by civilized beings. When promotion depends on results, corners will be cut. Attention will not be paid.
2
Harvey Wachtel wrote: The prosecutor's goal is to win a conviction; the defense's goal is to win an acquittal. . . . There's no one in this system whose goal is justice."
These statements are not correct.
The U.S. Supreme Court in “Berger v. United States,” 295 U.S. 78 (1935) wrote:
“The United States Attorney [and a state prosecutor, as well] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed.”
Thus, it is the criminal court trial judge, the various courts of appeals, the United States Supreme Court, and state and federal prosecutors whose goal is justice. Violations occur.
These statements are not correct.
The U.S. Supreme Court in “Berger v. United States,” 295 U.S. 78 (1935) wrote:
“The United States Attorney [and a state prosecutor, as well] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed.”
Thus, it is the criminal court trial judge, the various courts of appeals, the United States Supreme Court, and state and federal prosecutors whose goal is justice. Violations occur.
2
The disproportionate conviction rate of minorities can be explained in two words, "dog hair" consider edbeing presented as probable evidence in convicting a defendant. I am convinced that we have a dysfunctional justice system that tagets minorities. Our prison populations racial makeup support my contention.
5
West is all-about money ,more jails means money for some one . No one considers value of human life loss due to putting one in jail. eastern value system need to be studied .Law of karma need to be taught in schools.
The scientific method is powerful, but like many forms of power, can be mis-used. The basis of all scientific analysis is skepticism, of which there appears to be a shortage among law enforcement officials and the public. Why is scientific evidence mis-represented and mis-used so often? First, most Americans, including forensic lab technicians, don't actually understand the scientific method. Second, it's good for business. Law enforcers want to catch bad guys, and their promotions and bonuses depend on how often they succeed. There also seems to be a feeling that it's ok to arrest and even frame poorer citizens who can't fight back (as evident in the recent video from North Charleston). The US incarcerates a higher fraction of its citizens than any other country, and incarceration is a profitable, job-creating industry. Third, tough-on-crime is a winning political formula. And finally, US citizens are fed a steady stream of television showing forensic science as infallible and highly effective. We are an optimistic and gullible culture, and we need to learn to be more skeptical!
6
No one thinking how to stop crime but millions waisted to expose crime.
Crime is act by a human being when human being are not taught results of crime at early age and cause and effects how to stop. 10 25 % efforts should be to stop the crime before it happens not solving only.
Crime is act by a human being when human being are not taught results of crime at early age and cause and effects how to stop. 10 25 % efforts should be to stop the crime before it happens not solving only.
And here I thought the science on this was settled.
3
It took a scientific expert in the field to determine the lab analysis was poorly done and the methodology poorly applied (i.e. peer-review works). Rush Limbaugh, Jim Inhofe, and Michael Crichton weren't involved.
2
Of course the science is settled. What is awry is human bungling and cynicism.
2
It has also been a dirty little secret among prosecutors and police that fingerprint science is, alas, suspect. Many errors are made in the impression and analysis stages, which, in turn, lead to erroneous testimony by "experts" and wrongful convictions. This is the latest example.
Anyone ever hear of erroneous "eye-witness" testimony?
Anyone ever hear of erroneous "eye-witness" testimony?
12
Eyewitness testimony, especially lineup identification, is notoriously unreliable.
Video recordings -- voice and image -- are the gold standard; one reason why there's such resistance by police to body-cams and ordinary citizens' right to video record street action here in Illinois. Law enforcement agencies here do not want an unimpeachable record to exist beyond their own, one that's also outside their control, for obvious reasons; or to be held accountable for their actions.
Video recordings -- voice and image -- are the gold standard; one reason why there's such resistance by police to body-cams and ordinary citizens' right to video record street action here in Illinois. Law enforcement agencies here do not want an unimpeachable record to exist beyond their own, one that's also outside their control, for obvious reasons; or to be held accountable for their actions.
1
It's been years since I believed what I was taught as a child: "The policeman is your friend".
Obviously, noone in law enforcement or prosecutorial roles is to be trusted. They are damned by their actions, which are just as criminal as those they seek to prosecute.
Thank goodness for cell hone videos and The Innocence Project.
Obviously, noone in law enforcement or prosecutorial roles is to be trusted. They are damned by their actions, which are just as criminal as those they seek to prosecute.
Thank goodness for cell hone videos and The Innocence Project.
7
I feel like fleeing when I see them, but don't because they might shoot me in the back.
This editorial should be a bellwether for law enforcement and the scientific community. It should be read aloud in every summation by defense attorneys. It is succinct, precise, like a sharp knife piercing a dank fog. The only disagreement I have is with Mr. Lander's conclusion that "No one wants innocent defendants in jail — or executed...", because we have seen too many prosecutors and police arrest, try and convict, and in some cases execute, innocents, all for the sake of having a good batting average. Beyond presenting scientific mumbo-jumbo as evidence, they've manufactured, withheld and ignored evidence, and committed perjury and collusion, in hopes of headlines, bonuses, promotions or re-election. People lacking means to defend themselves often pay a very dear price for this. Even those with substantial financial means can be waylaid for years and have their life's course radically altered. Such was the case with the Duke rape case as presented by Mike Nyfong, who I think spent one day in jail. If government's, and all of our interests are to be served by finding the truth, then these recommendations should be implemented immediately and applied retroactively. Resources should be given equally to prosecution and defense, not making one side the business of government and the other left to the free market. Under the current system, police and prosecutors benefit from an institutionalized relationship that excludes and conspires against the defense, a fundamental flaw.
9
This is not a science problem, it is an ethics problem.
People should be fired. Best first step to correct the problem.
People should be fired. Best first step to correct the problem.
13
That would certainly be a good idea, but I suspect most of the people at fault in the FBI lab mess are no longer around -- it has been a while since the pseudo science of the FBI lab was discovered.
Now it is important to continue the work that has been started by following the recommendations of the National Academy of Science and the innocence project to find and exonerate the innocent and to improve the standards of forensic science.
Yes, anyone still around from the FBI lab fiasco who covered up its failures should be fired, but more important is to make sure it never happens again.
I am very grateful for the work done by the Innocence Project.
Now it is important to continue the work that has been started by following the recommendations of the National Academy of Science and the innocence project to find and exonerate the innocent and to improve the standards of forensic science.
Yes, anyone still around from the FBI lab fiasco who covered up its failures should be fired, but more important is to make sure it never happens again.
I am very grateful for the work done by the Innocence Project.
First step is to ban forensic detection shows from TV. They've puffed up such "science" to the point that, in the real world, it dwarfs circumstantial evidence in importance at trial.
Or perhaps as an alternative that such testimony by one side must be matched (or waived) by 'expert' testimony on the subject from the other before either can be admitted.
Or perhaps as an alternative that such testimony by one side must be matched (or waived) by 'expert' testimony on the subject from the other before either can be admitted.
2
Stuff happens is the summary of this debacle.
There is no way justice system have serious mistakes, the best behavior is acknowledging this fact.
Flawless justice system is not exist, so please compensate who wrongly executed or spent life in the prison.
that is the bottom line.
There is no way justice system have serious mistakes, the best behavior is acknowledging this fact.
Flawless justice system is not exist, so please compensate who wrongly executed or spent life in the prison.
that is the bottom line.
1
So FBI has this level of error, How about State justice system, that is excellent. what is going on there?
We have multifaceted justice system.
We have multifaceted justice system.
Can you make it right ?
NO.
We are sorry. The US population is very big, crime is rampant, justice has serious problems.
Know where you are living, This is USA , not Switzerland.
NO.
We are sorry. The US population is very big, crime is rampant, justice has serious problems.
Know where you are living, This is USA , not Switzerland.
It has been over 5 years since the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science released a report http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id=12589 which can be downloaded for free and makes sobering reading.
Among other things, it recommended an establishment of an independent National Institute of Forensic Science to develop standards and methodology, but Congress has done absolutely nothing.
Until we fund such an organization, we will continue to convict innocent people while the actual guilty perpetrators go free. This is simply not acceptable.
Among other things, it recommended an establishment of an independent National Institute of Forensic Science to develop standards and methodology, but Congress has done absolutely nothing.
Until we fund such an organization, we will continue to convict innocent people while the actual guilty perpetrators go free. This is simply not acceptable.
8
Congress do nothing? Really?? :)
Congress did nothing? When was the last time that happened?
We have allowed this great democracy to become a police state for a large portion of our population. And now it turns out that it is a fundamentally flawed police state that has used pseudo-science to stack the deck against the potentially innocent.
8
Its all about money .Poor people serve Jail not the rich . All Nations losing human resources by putting more people in jail. Spend money on education about life and values. Ban books that promotes differences and hate .
What? You mean "CSI -Miami", "CSI-New York", "CSI-LA" ... wherever ... is tripe? Balderdash? Just a bunch of make-believe? Like much, if not most, of our rancid criminal justice system generally? You mean "Forensic Science" is misnamed? It's actually closer to "Forensic Myth"? Or "Forensic Nonsense"?
Oh, that's OK. I never bought into all that garbage anyway, anymore than I believed real NYPD homicide detectives like Louis Scarcella actually solved the cases they filed with the Brooklyn DA's office, whose demented minions later prosecuted with such vengeance. Forget Lt. Burge and his "Midnight Crew" here.
I occasionally dabble with screenwriting so it's easy to outline some dramatic scenarios in a DA's office. Not enough evidence? Fabricate some. Or plant something in the evidence room and backdate the paperwork. Forge signatures if required. Find exculpatory evidence? Pretend you never saw it. Hide it. Throw it away. Before the trial date hire a "forensic expert" to claim that your falsified evidence is his handiwork; someone happy to lie to a jury in return for a fat fee, of course.
How terrifying to sit in a defendant's chair knowing you're innocent, listening to a string of coached witnesses, jailhouse "informants" and "forensic experts" lie in unison because there's something in it for them. Just so "law enforcement" can clear cases and prosecutors can add another notch to their conviction belt. This atrocity in "The Land of the Free and The Home of The Brave".
Oh, that's OK. I never bought into all that garbage anyway, anymore than I believed real NYPD homicide detectives like Louis Scarcella actually solved the cases they filed with the Brooklyn DA's office, whose demented minions later prosecuted with such vengeance. Forget Lt. Burge and his "Midnight Crew" here.
I occasionally dabble with screenwriting so it's easy to outline some dramatic scenarios in a DA's office. Not enough evidence? Fabricate some. Or plant something in the evidence room and backdate the paperwork. Forge signatures if required. Find exculpatory evidence? Pretend you never saw it. Hide it. Throw it away. Before the trial date hire a "forensic expert" to claim that your falsified evidence is his handiwork; someone happy to lie to a jury in return for a fat fee, of course.
How terrifying to sit in a defendant's chair knowing you're innocent, listening to a string of coached witnesses, jailhouse "informants" and "forensic experts" lie in unison because there's something in it for them. Just so "law enforcement" can clear cases and prosecutors can add another notch to their conviction belt. This atrocity in "The Land of the Free and The Home of The Brave".
8
While your diatribe has some merit, do you want to see true criminals who commit violent acts free on the street? After all, you or your sister or your parents or your children may be the next victim of some heartless thug. The problem for our criminal justice system- and people sitting on juries- is to try to protect the innocent while not allowing the criminals to roam free. So we have a system that attempts to do that in principle and often (too often) fails in practice. But we have what we vote and pay for. If the system seems too often skewed against the accused, I think it's because the public has become tired of being victimized by the criminality perpetrated against it. That's why it is unfortunate that forensic science is more fallible than we've been led to believe; at least that provided one avenue towards truth and justice. Hopefully, the science and its practitioners will improve, from which we will all benefit.
It is good that attention is being paid at last.
It is very good that police shootings are moving toward being collected in a comprehensive and National reporting.
But I would also like deaths related to the use of "non-lethal" police equipment be included. Tasers obviously. But also "pepperspray" which is known to have been deployed with fatal consequence, due insult to lung tissue leading sometimes to stoke and/or infarction. There is a Sacramento Fed court case involving an inmate death as a result in process now in civil action.
It is very good that police shootings are moving toward being collected in a comprehensive and National reporting.
But I would also like deaths related to the use of "non-lethal" police equipment be included. Tasers obviously. But also "pepperspray" which is known to have been deployed with fatal consequence, due insult to lung tissue leading sometimes to stoke and/or infarction. There is a Sacramento Fed court case involving an inmate death as a result in process now in civil action.
2
How many CSI television shows are on air? We obviously have become duped into thinking forensics is the holy grail of prosecution. I have always thought that these forensics were reliable and I guess they could be if done correctly.
This is a huge justice system crisis and must be corrected immediately.
On a related note, this is another reason why we should eliminate capital punishment once and for all. It is ironic that the Innocence Project relies on DNA forensics to get innocent people off death row and now we find out that hair sample forensics are getting them on death row.
This is a huge justice system crisis and must be corrected immediately.
On a related note, this is another reason why we should eliminate capital punishment once and for all. It is ironic that the Innocence Project relies on DNA forensics to get innocent people off death row and now we find out that hair sample forensics are getting them on death row.
5
The flaws are deeper than science. The flaws are in a system which is geared towards Vengeance rather than Justice, to Convictions rather than Truth.
Prosecutors have way too much power, even shy of the courtroom-- the ability, for example, to offer light plea-bargains, instead of the risk of decades of prison, which can coerce even innocent people to take it.
A system geared towards Justice wouldn't punish people for choosing a Jury trial of their peers.
A system geared towards Truth would be looking to convict the Right person, not the person in front of them (unless they're the right one). That system wouldn't have Prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence from Defenses, but have them sharing it to be sure they're right, for example.
We've got a long way to go, but it starts with a simple change in mind-set: seek out the truth, and seek Justice.
Prosecutors have way too much power, even shy of the courtroom-- the ability, for example, to offer light plea-bargains, instead of the risk of decades of prison, which can coerce even innocent people to take it.
A system geared towards Justice wouldn't punish people for choosing a Jury trial of their peers.
A system geared towards Truth would be looking to convict the Right person, not the person in front of them (unless they're the right one). That system wouldn't have Prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence from Defenses, but have them sharing it to be sure they're right, for example.
We've got a long way to go, but it starts with a simple change in mind-set: seek out the truth, and seek Justice.
29
DNA is an amazing forensics tool, but the sense of infallibility it has attained is disturbing. My biggest concern is this perception of perfection will be somehow unscrupulously used to convict an innocent person. How can someone ever successfully seek exoneration from a conviction based on the supposedly perfect evidence of DNA?
1
Outside of DNA and genetics, there is no science in most criminal forensics. That is more than a mere flaw. It is inherent structural defect. Using hair, shoe prints, fire "science", graphic analysis etc. is great for prime time entertainment mystery and crime dramas.
All physical evidence is not scientific nor need it be. Evidence has to be reasonably reliable and credible and documented.
Too few real scientists working in forensics in the historically #1 mass incarceration nation leads to prisons full of poor non-violent Black and Brown illegal drug users and those in possession of illegal drugs. The F.B.I. building in D.C. still carries the name of the corrupt criminal bigot John Edgar Hoover who was no scientist nor humanitarian nor moral man.
I have family members who are scientists who work in criminal forensics. Judges, juries, prosecutors and defense counsel are not scientists. Nor do they have to be. Too little science means too much injustice.
All physical evidence is not scientific nor need it be. Evidence has to be reasonably reliable and credible and documented.
Too few real scientists working in forensics in the historically #1 mass incarceration nation leads to prisons full of poor non-violent Black and Brown illegal drug users and those in possession of illegal drugs. The F.B.I. building in D.C. still carries the name of the corrupt criminal bigot John Edgar Hoover who was no scientist nor humanitarian nor moral man.
I have family members who are scientists who work in criminal forensics. Judges, juries, prosecutors and defense counsel are not scientists. Nor do they have to be. Too little science means too much injustice.
8
Forensic labs should be under the control of the judiciary, which is theoretically impartial, not under the control of the DOJ/FBI, which is responsible for prosecuting crime.
The path to the expert witness role and career advancement requires agreement that the specific scientific tests and general scientific methodology supports the prosecution. No advocacy for the prosecution, no access to the expert witness role, and no career advancement.
Anyone could rationalize fudging by acknowledging that most defendants are guilty of something even if not the specific crime for which they are on trial. Any jury that would execute a defendant based solely on hair match samples is ultimately at fault for executing with insufficient evidence. If a jury executes a defendant who was not even at the scene of the murder, it is doing something much more reckless than the expert witness who merely exaggerates the power of the science that others judge.
Ultimately, prosecutors can advise the jury that a mistaken decision to execute can be set aside by the judge if it is wrong. Everyone can advocate and support execution, and no one is ultimately responsible when the state kills not just the wrongfully convicted, but also the completely innocent too.
The path to the expert witness role and career advancement requires agreement that the specific scientific tests and general scientific methodology supports the prosecution. No advocacy for the prosecution, no access to the expert witness role, and no career advancement.
Anyone could rationalize fudging by acknowledging that most defendants are guilty of something even if not the specific crime for which they are on trial. Any jury that would execute a defendant based solely on hair match samples is ultimately at fault for executing with insufficient evidence. If a jury executes a defendant who was not even at the scene of the murder, it is doing something much more reckless than the expert witness who merely exaggerates the power of the science that others judge.
Ultimately, prosecutors can advise the jury that a mistaken decision to execute can be set aside by the judge if it is wrong. Everyone can advocate and support execution, and no one is ultimately responsible when the state kills not just the wrongfully convicted, but also the completely innocent too.
4
An excellent and important article. Those of us who are practicing scientists are appalled at this corruption of what does and does not constitute proof. It is necessary to hold the members of the legal profession to appropriately high standards. False justice obtained through the use of phony science must be halted.
21
Mr. Lander concludes his otherwise excellent column by claiming that, "No one wants innocent defendants in jail — or executed — while true perpetrators are still at large."
Is he sure about that? What about our justice and correctional systems that make it incredibly difficult in many cases for wrongly convicted prisoners to be exonerated? What about prosecutors who care much more about winning and about being "right" than they do about justice? What about the ones who refuse to back off even after a wrongly convicted prisoner's actual innocence is established beyond doubt? What about judges who lock 'em up and throw away the key, and don't really give a damn whether the convict is innocent?
This is not an indictment of all prosecutors and all judges. And many of those who have been on the wrong side of justice in some cases have surely been on the right side in others.
But this is America, where we're supposed to care more about the injustice of wrongly convicting and punishing innocent people than we are about the justice of convicting the guilty ones. That's obviously a tall order nowadays, given the heinous nature of many of the crimes that are taking place. But it's not obsolete.
Prosecutors and judges should care more about justice and about getting it right than they do about convicting anyone who happens to have been accused of a serious crime. And they should be held accountable when they behave irresponsibly and violate the rights of the accused.
Is he sure about that? What about our justice and correctional systems that make it incredibly difficult in many cases for wrongly convicted prisoners to be exonerated? What about prosecutors who care much more about winning and about being "right" than they do about justice? What about the ones who refuse to back off even after a wrongly convicted prisoner's actual innocence is established beyond doubt? What about judges who lock 'em up and throw away the key, and don't really give a damn whether the convict is innocent?
This is not an indictment of all prosecutors and all judges. And many of those who have been on the wrong side of justice in some cases have surely been on the right side in others.
But this is America, where we're supposed to care more about the injustice of wrongly convicting and punishing innocent people than we are about the justice of convicting the guilty ones. That's obviously a tall order nowadays, given the heinous nature of many of the crimes that are taking place. But it's not obsolete.
Prosecutors and judges should care more about justice and about getting it right than they do about convicting anyone who happens to have been accused of a serious crime. And they should be held accountable when they behave irresponsibly and violate the rights of the accused.
87
I'm sure that when Mr. Lander said "no one" he meant "no decent person." Those you enumerate are not in that population.
1
If they execute an innocent man based on falsified evidence, that is murder.
They may be protected by privilege, but it is still murder. They just get away with murder.
They may be protected by privilege, but it is still murder. They just get away with murder.
18
Reform is desperately needed along the whole chain of criminal evidence, from cops to technicians to prosecutors, perhaps the adversarial principle has failed somehow to find the truth because the cards are stacked against defendants.
It makes me wonder how this all works in other countries with advanced science capability? Are they also making errors 96% of the time?
It makes me wonder how this all works in other countries with advanced science capability? Are they also making errors 96% of the time?
3
In order for forensic findings to be based on science, scientific research needs to be properly funded and sufficient appropriations need to be put in place. As it is, NIJ funds are inadequate and getting any kind of research funding from federal agencies is like pulling teeth.
Forensic science is an oxymoron. Most people that think it is a science don't have even the most basic understanding of how science works.
Before DNA fingerprinting, there was the so called science of identifying fingerprints. This science was "validated" by assuming that no two people shared the same fingerprint. That assumption was never proven! More importantly, how would any scientist or experiment prove that? One would have to test everyone that has ever been born.
Science has to reconcile facts and assumptions are not facts. So many forensic "science" techniques are based on unproven science.
Even DNA fingerprinting can not prove that a criminal suspect is guilty. But DNA fingerprinting, through the use of statistics, can show that criminal suspect is highly unlikely to be guilty.
Before DNA fingerprinting, there was the so called science of identifying fingerprints. This science was "validated" by assuming that no two people shared the same fingerprint. That assumption was never proven! More importantly, how would any scientist or experiment prove that? One would have to test everyone that has ever been born.
Science has to reconcile facts and assumptions are not facts. So many forensic "science" techniques are based on unproven science.
Even DNA fingerprinting can not prove that a criminal suspect is guilty. But DNA fingerprinting, through the use of statistics, can show that criminal suspect is highly unlikely to be guilty.
4
If we educated the public about what 99.95 percent meant in science they might understand what the tests are telling the defense or the prosecution. If we taught statistics as part of high school math we could have a better educated juror listening to a case. If we also taught people how to read and understand what is being presented to them, they might be more wary of what they are being sold as certainty. Forensic science is a valuable tool for defense and prosecution. But it's only as good as the person doing the testing and interpretation of the testing. If the people in the lab are not properly supervised and trained forensic testing and the science it's based on are worthless.
The other thing that is worthless is when the prosecution uses hindsight to attribute motives to defendants that they don't know. Psychological/psychiatric exams are often useless because the examiner has already decided that the defendant did it, is a psychopath, and deserves the maximum sentence allowed. Unless the defendant can afford a good lawyer the system as it currently operates, is against him/her. It's not a justice system. It's who has the most money.
The other thing that is worthless is when the prosecution uses hindsight to attribute motives to defendants that they don't know. Psychological/psychiatric exams are often useless because the examiner has already decided that the defendant did it, is a psychopath, and deserves the maximum sentence allowed. Unless the defendant can afford a good lawyer the system as it currently operates, is against him/her. It's not a justice system. It's who has the most money.
9
Most of us, at one time, bought into the myth of the "science" and this has been exploited by prosecutors. The writer says: "Insistence on high-quality forensics should unite law enforcement, prosecutors and defense attorneys," but many DAs are not behind this. There are examples across the country where new exculpatory evidence is discovered but the "system" - embodied in local DAs - refuses to go to bat for the person wrongfully convicted. As knowledge increases, there should also be a system which supplies totally unbiased evidence for both sides in cases. Most defendants can't afford the best - they can't afford anybody -- and so cannot really defend themselves. An unbalanced adversary system like ours does not support uncovering of the " whole truth."
When you combine this with the knowledge that police reports - which generally at best are written in flat stereotypic language which rarely describes events accurately - are unreliable, there has to be better police training in order to convict those who are guilty --- but not trap innocent people.
And better standards, proven, for this level of evidence.
When you combine this with the knowledge that police reports - which generally at best are written in flat stereotypic language which rarely describes events accurately - are unreliable, there has to be better police training in order to convict those who are guilty --- but not trap innocent people.
And better standards, proven, for this level of evidence.
6
I have read that President Kennedy's autopsy was done is such a haste at Bethesda, the chosen location due to proximity and simply because Kennedy was in the Navy, neither doctor who participated in it, were trained in forensics. They were effectively not Forensic Pathologists. The most monumental assassination ( and unsolved for the most part) in American history (perhaps aside from that of President Lincoln) received less than the highest standard in science, by choice! That is truly shocking.
9
Unfortunately there were too many players involved. The Secret Service, The FBI, the CIA, the State Department and yes, the Kennedy family. The government would still have us believe that Oswald acted alone even though a later congressional investigation revealed that a second person was involved. Moreover, why would the wife of the president want most of the investigative documents sealed for 50 years?
I am stunned. This is monstrous injustice, by the forces of justice. It is not surprising to learn the Justice Department attempted to limit the scope of inquiry into the problems of corrupted forensic evidence. What started in Ferguson has ripples everywhere.
12
DEWaldron: The thug wasn't killed. The minor offender was. The thug retired.
2
Prosecutors want convictions, families want indemnification and society wants closure...while 'truth' and 'justice' are buzz words bandied before the media's microphones...and the FBI, politically 'encouraged' am betting, giving the customers what they wanted.
The 'Goddess of Justice' being blindfolded only means she can't see who's gaming the scales...
The 'Goddess of Justice' being blindfolded only means she can't see who's gaming the scales...
14
There seems to be a lot missing from this article, such as why the errors occurred. Was it a flaw in the process, over zealous investigators, confirmation bias, something else, or some combination. Saying there are problems without saying what they are only gives us half the picture.
61
Christopher: It's a systemic problem of who-cares-a-damn? Find a part of society that is without corruption, and I'll cheer you. Just to add to my earlier list: Police unaccountability, teachers faking rest results, VA hospital staffs faking records....
1
Very simple, many aspects of "forensic science" are not scienbtific. If you can mistake a dog hair from a human hair, then your classification is based on false premises. But its pretty easy to differentiate canine from human on the basis of DNA.
1
We've created a popular notion on what forensic science is. based largely on crime procedurals like all the variations of CSI. Community Colleges and for profit colleges are cranking out graduates to go into the new sexy field. Unfortunately, the science required is is exacting and it doesn't take hours or minutes it can take days, weeks or even longer. The public (members of Juries) are also essentially tainted by these shows in terms of what they "know" about forensics. Most defense teams, especially Public Defenders, cannot afford the expert witness to challenge the forensics either the testimony or attempt replicate the results. They're forced to depend on the accuracy and validity of that evidence. Without real rigor and oversight to ensure both accuracy and honesty the improper use of forensics will many times threaten and impede true Justice. Director Comey between his recent speeches and the courage to release this study shows real courage that I hope will start this very large ship turning in the right direction.
9
Dr. Landers comments are excellent but miss a larger truth: In an adversarial justice system such as ours, where were the defense lawyers when this shoddy evidence was presented?
Fake science is nothing new but it is the job of the defense bar to challenge baseless assertions on behalf of the defendant....who we all remember is"presumed innocent"
The larger truth is that our criminal justice system often seeks expediency rather than justice.
Fake science is nothing new but it is the job of the defense bar to challenge baseless assertions on behalf of the defendant....who we all remember is"presumed innocent"
The larger truth is that our criminal justice system often seeks expediency rather than justice.
5
Really? The defense attorney's fault?
How can they fight fake science presented by the government via prosecutors?
Who is the jury going to believe? Who will pay for the defense attn.'s expert witness - - might work for the 1% who unluckily find themselves at trial.
How can they fight fake science presented by the government via prosecutors?
Who is the jury going to believe? Who will pay for the defense attn.'s expert witness - - might work for the 1% who unluckily find themselves at trial.
1
Lkf, you want to know why the defense lawyers didn't challenge shoddy "forensic" evidence. How many impoverished defendants receive quality representation, compared to those who only meet an overworked public defender on the day of the trial? How much money does the state allow for the defense of an indigent, compared to the money it spends on the prosecution?
3
"The larger truth is that our criminal justice system often seeks expediency rather than justice."
Much like nearly every other aspect of our culture. As long as someone ultimately writes the check and pays who cares what kind of work was done.
Much like nearly every other aspect of our culture. As long as someone ultimately writes the check and pays who cares what kind of work was done.
2
And for all of you loosening up your fingers to write in about liberal, criminal-coddling softies, remember that for every innocent person convicted there is a real criminal running around loose---laughing at you. Get tough on crime by convicting only guilty people.
58
Yes, this seems like a no-brainer. This is why the "tough-on-crime" folk often seem foolish. It is as if they are more concerned with getting a conviction than finding the real criminal. A false conviction gives a false and dangerous sense of safety. The search for the real culprit is halted, the crime is forgotten and the criminal emboldened. Why would we ever want to do that?
3
The classic TV Series "Law & Order" had an excellent episode in 2001 on this important topic titled "Myth of Fingerprints".
6
Defense and prosecutors should try less to sell an argument than to seek truth because, once you focus on selling, the lawyers seek to become the winners and with the accused as secondary actors.
2
I think the proliferation of crime procedural dramas on television is a factor here. It is not uncommon (in fact it may almost always be the case) for a drama to use exaggeration to move the story along. As a result, people expect forensic experts to be better than they really are, or even can be.
3
We put people to death based on the quantity and quality of evidence, of which scientifically arrived at DNA evidence can be a significant factor in a guilty verdict. If the standards for obtaining scientific evidence isn't 100% accurate, the death penalty should come off the table completely.
7
I thank the author for this concise description of a problem. He writes, inter alia: "Insistence on high-quality forensics should unite law enforcement..." I would suggest that "Insistence on high-quality...: should be the motto in all of American life.
There are fine dedicated people in all walks of life (almost), but we know the effect of a bad apple. Rape on college campuses, rape in the military, partying Secret Service agents, bankers who've robbed the retirement dreams of too many Americans, politicians who prefer to traffic in character assassination than to do the hard work of governing, media clowns who make their fortunes by selling lies, a society where ownership of guns is prized above ownership of books... If this short list is not a wake-up call, where are we headed?
Forensic scientists are just another group of Americans—poorly trained, poorly paid, and poorly motivated. How can we return honor and dedication to a society where ministers of religion preach the easy gospel of "it's OK, God Loves you anyway," where the mass media preach that America has been stolen by "them," and where politicians work on finding new lows in discourse?
There are fine dedicated people in all walks of life (almost), but we know the effect of a bad apple. Rape on college campuses, rape in the military, partying Secret Service agents, bankers who've robbed the retirement dreams of too many Americans, politicians who prefer to traffic in character assassination than to do the hard work of governing, media clowns who make their fortunes by selling lies, a society where ownership of guns is prized above ownership of books... If this short list is not a wake-up call, where are we headed?
Forensic scientists are just another group of Americans—poorly trained, poorly paid, and poorly motivated. How can we return honor and dedication to a society where ministers of religion preach the easy gospel of "it's OK, God Loves you anyway," where the mass media preach that America has been stolen by "them," and where politicians work on finding new lows in discourse?
22
Actually, many of the witnesses brought in by prosecutors are extremely well paid - hundreds of dollars an hour in some high profile cases. That may not be true of rank and file serologists and other crminal science technicians, but at least they usually get state benefits. I don't think remuneration is the problem - it's the absence of ethics. Or just plain sloppiness. And - let's say it - willingness to lie.
All these decades, this country has disproportionately incarcerated its African American population for absolutely no law enforcement reason - 1.5 Million Black men are missing from our midst - and these convictions might be based on shoddy Science?
Like the Science behind Marijuana? That abysmal Science cooked up to fill America's Prison Industrial Complex with African Americans? That Marijuana that is now called 'medical Marijuana?'
At every turn of the Science that disproportionately dehumanizes one group - African Americans - you are bound to find Falsehood, not Science! Remember Eugenics? Remember Craniology? Remember 'Statistics'? Now Forensics?
Hurray America! Nothing else is new here. The dog just keeps learning new tricks! Hurray America!
Like the Science behind Marijuana? That abysmal Science cooked up to fill America's Prison Industrial Complex with African Americans? That Marijuana that is now called 'medical Marijuana?'
At every turn of the Science that disproportionately dehumanizes one group - African Americans - you are bound to find Falsehood, not Science! Remember Eugenics? Remember Craniology? Remember 'Statistics'? Now Forensics?
Hurray America! Nothing else is new here. The dog just keeps learning new tricks! Hurray America!
6
The system needs to provide real sanctions of those who mess with evidence. "Strivers" like the contemptible Annie Dookin, who lied about her academic qualifications as well as thousands of tests conducted on evidence in criminal cases here in Massachusetts. Ms. Dookin is currently serving a prison sentence, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Too many of these people are 'cop buffs' who fancy themselves integral parts of law enforcement. The truth is that the entire law enforcement apparatus in this country is deeply flawed. Prosecutorial misconduct is rife, cops kill unarmed black men with impunity, and correction officers include many among them who sexually abuse their charges.
Apologists for all the "good" prosecutors, cops, and correction officers will say that I'm unfairly painting them all with a broad brush, but I contend that those who turn a blind eye to these abuses are as culpable as those who commit them.
Apologists for all the "good" prosecutors, cops, and correction officers will say that I'm unfairly painting them all with a broad brush, but I contend that those who turn a blind eye to these abuses are as culpable as those who commit them.
61
It is difficult not to compare this to diagnostic testing in medicine. There the principles are rigorously tested, based on a large sample of subjects before being introduced. Then there is constant checking to make sure that the standards are maintained. This is the least that can be expected, but there should be more, but currently it seems that there is less.
This compares a lot with the death of Azaria Chamberlain, who it is now accepted was taken by a dingo (native dog) in Australia. Among other forensic errors a substance found in the parents care was declared to be infant blood, but was in fact a compound used in the manufacture of the car. What is need is a recognition of the scientific method, so that the methods are known to work properly.
This compares a lot with the death of Azaria Chamberlain, who it is now accepted was taken by a dingo (native dog) in Australia. Among other forensic errors a substance found in the parents care was declared to be infant blood, but was in fact a compound used in the manufacture of the car. What is need is a recognition of the scientific method, so that the methods are known to work properly.
5
The last sentence highlights what to me has always been the biggest worry about wrongful convictions. The real killer/rapist/renegade remains free to kill, maim. rape and pillage again, and again.
That fact alone should add extra imperatives for ensuring forensic processes AND court procedures for evaluating them, should both be of the most reliable, foolproof standards possible.
And then there's the matter of Justice. As that former prosecutor confessed a few weeks ago - it used to be all about winning, with truth a very sad second, if ever. Time for times to change on that one, too.
That fact alone should add extra imperatives for ensuring forensic processes AND court procedures for evaluating them, should both be of the most reliable, foolproof standards possible.
And then there's the matter of Justice. As that former prosecutor confessed a few weeks ago - it used to be all about winning, with truth a very sad second, if ever. Time for times to change on that one, too.
9
Our Super heroes are shooting their selves in the foot. Many have known for years why the statue of justice has a blindfold on it. Soon everyone will know. Poor people have been crying out for years telling us the deck is stacked against them. We for years have thought they were always lying and the people we entrusted to enforce our laws were always telling the truth. We always gave the benefit of the doubt to our Superheroes. We the people could never perceive of a lie coming out of the mouth of Superman. Maybe the following is true. That a hero is just a sandwich!.
6
Coming out of the mouth of Superman!
Don't underestimate the influence of TV crime shows on the expectations of jurors. The last time I went through jury selection the lawyers wanted to know if a prospective juror could vote to convict on a gun possession charge when no DNA was detected on the gun in question. About half of the prospective jurors said they would not.
7
When members of the criminal justice system are rewarded for arrests, prosecutions and convictions, the hope of impartiality on the governments side is diminished. The literature is replete with case after case after case of proctorial misconduct. Until those that break the law, on the government's side, are prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison, this abomination will continue. We truly have sociopaths in positions of power over peoples' liberty as well as life. I have personally known more that a few in the criminal justice system that should have spent the rest of their lives behind bars. When when arrests, prosecutions and convictions trump justice, there can be no justice.
19
Our entire criminal justice system is flawed. Prosecutors seek victory, not justice. Police seek convictions, not truth. Police laboratories seek evidence of guilt, not scientific results. Do any of them admit this, even to themselves? No. But from the beginning, whether it's the day they graduate from law school and join the prosecutor's office or the day they get their first badge and gun, they work together, and they work as a team against the "bad guys," the "crooks" and the attorneys who defend them. Except, of course, they're not crooks until justice says they are beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory is that they all work within an adversarial system which will suss out the truth through verbal and intellectual combat. It doesn't. It doesn't for many reasons, but the most important is that the prosecution side holds almost all the cards. It's a badly flawed system, and there is no doubt it has imprisoned and even killed innocent people.
22
DA's and prosecutors should be held liable - both criminally and through civic measures - if their case has been found to lead to a wrongful conviction through specious evidence and testimony. I simply don't believe that they are ignorant of the facts in cases that don't add up.
There is no accountability in the system. It's win-win for them. They get the conviction, even if it's not correct and if it turns out they convicted an innocent person, nothing happens to them.
When are we going to reform our judicial system to make sure justice is truly served for all people?
There is no accountability in the system. It's win-win for them. They get the conviction, even if it's not correct and if it turns out they convicted an innocent person, nothing happens to them.
When are we going to reform our judicial system to make sure justice is truly served for all people?
65
Not only is there no accountability in the U.S. criminal justice system, the 1976 Supreme Court decision, Imbler vs Pachtman, grants prosecutors full immunity from civil suits that would result from their malfeasance. The law implicitly encourages prosecutors seek to win a case rather than seek justice, as if it's all just a competitive game.
23
It will happen when each and every justice of the United States Supreme Court adopts the opinion that every criminal defendant must receive a "constitutionally fair trial."
It would help if every member of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees (many of them former prosecutors) also has this same belief. I have written to every single member of the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting that he or she support legislative amendment to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to permit civil damages to be imposed upon government prosecutors who withhold "Brady" exculpatory or government-witness impeaching evidence from defense counsel. Such constitutional "Brady" evidence disclosure violations essentially invalidate a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.
The only response that I received to my letter was from Senator Dianne Feinstein, who wrote: "As a United States Senator I cannot intervene in, or comment on, a matter that is within the jurisdiction of the courts. This policy preserves the separation of powers doctrine, delineated in the Constitution to the branches of government, and upholds the integrity of our system of justice."
It would help if every member of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees (many of them former prosecutors) also has this same belief. I have written to every single member of the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting that he or she support legislative amendment to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to permit civil damages to be imposed upon government prosecutors who withhold "Brady" exculpatory or government-witness impeaching evidence from defense counsel. Such constitutional "Brady" evidence disclosure violations essentially invalidate a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.
The only response that I received to my letter was from Senator Dianne Feinstein, who wrote: "As a United States Senator I cannot intervene in, or comment on, a matter that is within the jurisdiction of the courts. This policy preserves the separation of powers doctrine, delineated in the Constitution to the branches of government, and upholds the integrity of our system of justice."
1
Wow. Most crimes go unsolved, and now we find out that some of those cases of "solved" crimes were based on faulty evidence. Between this and prosecutorial misconduct, our criminal justice system really is broken.
33
All these TV programs hailing forensics as the holy grail of police investigative work has done us all a great injustice. Scientific evaluation has shown that forensic conclusions have a significant error rate. Some of it is due to the subjective conclusions by the examiner that are necessary in all this. One examiner may say "yes" while another may say "no."
Long ago I made up my mind that if I was on a jury and the prosecution's case was totally based on fiber evidence (hair etc) and not much else, I would not vote guilty...especially if it meant someone would be going to jail for 20 years. No sir. I have to sleep nights and knowing that the accuracy of fiber evidence is fraught with error I'd be tossing and turning for a very long time!
Long ago I made up my mind that if I was on a jury and the prosecution's case was totally based on fiber evidence (hair etc) and not much else, I would not vote guilty...especially if it meant someone would be going to jail for 20 years. No sir. I have to sleep nights and knowing that the accuracy of fiber evidence is fraught with error I'd be tossing and turning for a very long time!
83
If you're ever called for jury duty, make sure you reveal the bias you've disclosed in this comment.
Your overreaction to this story is as bad as some people's over-reliance on inexpert testimony.
Your overreaction to this story is as bad as some people's over-reliance on inexpert testimony.
Please Mr. Kaplan, don't lump all "forensics" together in your criticism. As Dr. Lander lays out, such evidence should be used when the validity of the evidence (and the converse, the error rate) can be objectively measured and contextualized with other evidence. For you to broadly claim that all forensic evidence has "a significant error rate" is the same mistake that the prosecutors made. You are lumping together things that are different (e.g., DNA analysis vs. hair fiber analysis) and this is inaccurate and misleading.
1
Back when I defended criminal cases I had a big problem with "expert" testimony about hair samples. They were always ready to imply that the hair in question came from the defendant but were not prepared to state the odds that it came from somebody else. The whole thing sounded like voodoo science to me but the damage to the defendant had been done. I hope this injustice gets corrected.
86
Two reasons that no one "is prepared to state" the odds a hair sample came from someone else are that a) there is no way to determine such odds, and b) it's not the right question.
Suppose (and I'm just making this figure up) there are 300 different kinds of identifiable hair types, and just one was found at the scene — and that it matches the person suspected of the crime for other reasons.
Then the fact that there are perhaps 1 million other people in the U.S. with the same one-out-of-300 hair type is quite irrelevant to the disposition of justice in this case. Far more relevant is that the suspect's hair matched the only hair found at the scene, and that there are 300 different types.
There is certainly more to it than this simple example, but one of the major causes of confusion in courtrooms is the gross misapplication of probability to evidence.
Suppose (and I'm just making this figure up) there are 300 different kinds of identifiable hair types, and just one was found at the scene — and that it matches the person suspected of the crime for other reasons.
Then the fact that there are perhaps 1 million other people in the U.S. with the same one-out-of-300 hair type is quite irrelevant to the disposition of justice in this case. Far more relevant is that the suspect's hair matched the only hair found at the scene, and that there are 300 different types.
There is certainly more to it than this simple example, but one of the major causes of confusion in courtrooms is the gross misapplication of probability to evidence.
This is an extremely important subject and I applaud the Times for publishing it. I first became aware of the problems Mr. Lander describes after I studied the Amanda Knox case. In that instance a young woman who was obviously completely innocent, was convicted partly on the basis of unimaginably bad forensic work.
One additional point I would emphasize is the importance of full disclosure of all evidence to the defense in cases where DNA analysis is used by the prosecution. Some police agencies have begun to push back against this seemingly common sense requirement. They need to be confronted and defeated on this point. To allow agencies to present only conclusions and not the underlying data is a lot like allowing them to present photoshopped images.
A similar and related problem involves who from the agency is required to testify in court. Some departments prefer to use polished "spokesmen" in court rather than the lab workers who did the work. This should not be allowed.
One additional point I would emphasize is the importance of full disclosure of all evidence to the defense in cases where DNA analysis is used by the prosecution. Some police agencies have begun to push back against this seemingly common sense requirement. They need to be confronted and defeated on this point. To allow agencies to present only conclusions and not the underlying data is a lot like allowing them to present photoshopped images.
A similar and related problem involves who from the agency is required to testify in court. Some departments prefer to use polished "spokesmen" in court rather than the lab workers who did the work. This should not be allowed.
103
You're right, Paul. Sadly, too many jurors watch Bones and the various CSI shows, and think that the "science" is perfect and immutable.
Using hairs for identification is of course absurd, and anyone who watches those shows knows that there must be hair roots, which contain DNA. Hairs without roots do not. And the DNA sample must be large enough to be able to be analyzed.
As for the case where the police did not even attempt to compare the recovered bullets with the gun imputed to the defendant, that is of course totally inexcusable. And has happened many times.
I have contributed to the Innocence Project, and recommend it for your personal contributions if you have any desire to help save innocent people who have been wrongly convicted, some sentenced to death, and in some cases executed. I read and see on TV almost weekly stories of people who have been in prison for many years and were released because an appellate court found prosecutorial misconduct (withholding or misrepresented evidence) or shoddy work on the part of police investigators (sometimes carelessness, sometimes thinking they "got the guy" and don't need to look further, and sometimes deliberate).
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
Using hairs for identification is of course absurd, and anyone who watches those shows knows that there must be hair roots, which contain DNA. Hairs without roots do not. And the DNA sample must be large enough to be able to be analyzed.
As for the case where the police did not even attempt to compare the recovered bullets with the gun imputed to the defendant, that is of course totally inexcusable. And has happened many times.
I have contributed to the Innocence Project, and recommend it for your personal contributions if you have any desire to help save innocent people who have been wrongly convicted, some sentenced to death, and in some cases executed. I read and see on TV almost weekly stories of people who have been in prison for many years and were released because an appellate court found prosecutorial misconduct (withholding or misrepresented evidence) or shoddy work on the part of police investigators (sometimes carelessness, sometimes thinking they "got the guy" and don't need to look further, and sometimes deliberate).
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
18
The polymerization chain reaction can be used to replicate one DNA molecule into a sample large enough to be analysed.
The scary thing is when they want to trap you. They get a piece of your hair via your best friend of hairdresser who works for government and they have everything...they just need to set you up.
1