For decades, forensic scientists have made sweeping claims about fingerprints, ballistics, handwriting, bite marks, shoe prints and blood splatters that lack empirical grounding and have never been verified by science.
That is just one conclusion of a two-year study by the National Academy of Sciences, which Wednesday called for a wholesale overhaul of the crime lab system that has become increasingly important to American jurisprudence.
The academy, the pre eminent science adviser to the federal government, found a system in disarray, with labs that are underfunded and beholden to law enforcement, lacking independent oversight and without consistent standards.
The report concludes that the deficiencies pose “a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice,” imperiling efforts to protect society from criminals and shield people from wrongful convictions.
With the notable exception of DNA evidence, the report says that many forensic methods haven’t consistently and reliably connected crime-scene evidence to a specific individual or source.
“The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity,” the report says.
For example, the frequent claims that fingerprint analysis had a zero-error rate are “not scientifically plausible,” the report said.
Regarding bite marks, it said, “the scientific basis is insufficient to conclude that bite-mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match.”
Of the 232 people exonerated by DNA evidence, more than 50 percent of cases involved faulty or invalidated forensic science, according to the Innocence Project.
Margaret Berger, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School and a member of the panel, explained, “We’re not saying all these disciplines are useless. We’re saying there is a lot of work needs to be done.”
Although the panel’s recommendations are not binding, they are considered influential. Many experts say the report could usher in changes at least as significant as those generated by the advent of DNA evidence two decades ago. But the reforms proposed by the academy would take years of planning and major federal funding to enact.
In the short term, a flood of legal challenges — in current cases and convictions that have relied on the techniques — are planned, defense attorneys say. To the frustration of some, the report is silent on how such legal issues should be handled.
The report was hailed by defense attorneys, scientists and law professors, who for years have been raising scientific and legal challenges to the techniques in the courts.
National Academy of Sciences calls for forensic overhaul
Among the panel’s recommendations:
• Create a federal agency, the National Institute of Forensic Science, to fund scientific research, disseminate basic standards and put control of the field in the hands of scientists who are independent of law enforcement. Currently, much of this work is done by the FBI laboratory and the National Institute of Justice, which the report notes “are part of a prosecutorial department of the government” and “should not be allowed to undercut the power of forensic science.”
• Make crime labs independent of law enforcement. Currently, most crime labs are run by police agencies, and a growing body of research shows that can lead to bias.
• Require that expert witnesses and forensic analysts be certified by the new agency, and that labs be accredited. Currently, these standards are optional.
• Fund research into the scientific basis for claims routinely made in court, as well as studies of the accuracy and reliability of forensic techniques.
