Forensic scientists are tasked with the job of explaining often complex scientific data to judges, jurors, and attorneys who may have little understanding of the science underlying the forensic analysis in a case.
Revelations in recent years that hair analysts provided testimony that had no scientific validity has highlighted the importance of using correct language to convey information about forensic analysis and its limitations. Several wrongful convictions have been overturned based on faulty testimony about hair evidence and a massive review of hair cases is ongoing.
In an effort to improve expert testimony, the U.S. Department of Justice has released proposed guidelines called the Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports. These guidelines, once finalized, will apply to all USDOJ personnel who issue reports or provide expert forensic testimony, and they will probably be viewed as best practices for the entire forensic community. The guidelines are currently accessible at https://justice.gov/dag/forensic-science, with the public comment section running through July 8, 2016.
Attorneys should be aware of these guidelines and be prepared to object to any lab report language or testimony that does not comply. For example, the Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports for the Forensic Latent Print Discipline provides the following guidance on what experts cannot say about their evidence: (1) they cannot state that two prints originate from the same source to the absolute exclusion of all other sources; (2) they cannot state that there is any statistical level of certainty attributed to their determination; (3) they cannot testify that their science is infallible. Similarly, for the testing of bodily fluids, analysts may not state or imply that a level of numerical certainty is calculated to support the identification of blood or semen (i.e., they cannot say they are 95 per cent confident that the stain contained blood or there is a one in a hundred chance that the stain was something other than semen) and may not state or imply that the methods used in performing serological examinations have error rates of zero or that they are infallible. For drug analysis, the guidelines specify that when no sampling plan was used and no reasonable assumption of homogeneity of an item was determined, the examiner may not report or state an opinion that the conclusions apply to the entirety of an item (or a percentage of the item). This limitation is important in pill cases where only one pill is tested.
So, if you have any suggestions about appropriate limitations for expert testimony, or the language they should use in reports, please take the time to provide feedback on these documents.
Paul Bieber (Director at Arson Research Project: http://thearsonproject.org/research/) explores the misidentification of an accidental fire as an act of arson and how unreliable, quasi-scientific techniques led to the mistaken execution of an innocent man. On June 30th, join the UNC School of Government and the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services for the seventh installation in the Evenings at the School of Government series, Beyond Willingham: Recognizing Errors and Crafting Solutions in Fire Investigations. The program provides one and a half (1.5) CLE credit hours and is designed to enhance the knowledge of all criminal law practitioners, not only in understanding the investigative techniques used, but in raising challenges to that evidence.
Location, Date, and Time: Thursday, June 30th, 2016 at the UNC School of Government room 2603. Sign-in begins at 5:15pm, the program begins at 5:30pm, and is set to conclude by 7:00pm.
RSVP: Registration is not required, but we ask that you RSVP via email to Monica Yelverton, at email@example.com.
Materials: Materials for this program are forthcoming and will be available on the program website http://www.sog.unc.edu/courses/evenings-school-government under the materials tab. Those who RSVP for this event will receive a confirmation email on June 23, 2016 with a link to the program materials. Please note that the materials will not be provided in hard-copy form at the program. We recommend that you either bring a laptop to access the materials electronically or bring a hardcopy.
Take a tour inside a state-operated crime lab with Professor Carol Henderson, Director of Stetson’s National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology, and the Law (NCSTL); Ann Talbot, the director of the Metro Nashville, Police Department Crime Laboratory; and Christine Funk, a criminal defense attorney with over 20 years of practice experience.
Crime Laboratory Essentials is a webinar provided by the Capital Litigation Initiative: Crime Scene to Courtroom Forensics Training series funded by the US Department of Justice. This seminar follows all the steps of forensic analysis for the five core disciplines of Forensic Science: latent fingerprint analysis, firearms, forensic biology (DNA analysis), drug identification, and toxicology. The free archived version of the webinar is available via the link above.
Using evidence from a mock crime to show the lab procedures and machinery used, this webinar takes you step by step through how each of these five sorts of evidence is tested. The panelists also provide additional information about each of the techniques by responding to questions from the audience. If you have a question about how a lab operates, from chain of custody, to testing, to post-trial evidence storage, this webinar has answers.