Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic
Sciences Community, National Research Council
ISBN: 0-309-13131-6, 352 pages, 6 x 9, (2009)
This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html
The Admission of Forensic Science Evidence in Litigation
Forensic science experts and evidence are used routinely in the service of the criminal justice system. Two very important questions should underlie the law’s admission of and reliance upon forensic evidence in criminal trials:
- (1) the extent to which a particular forensic discipline is founded on a reliable scientific methodology that gives it the capacity to accurately analyze evidence and report findings and
(2) the extent to which practitioners in a particular forensic discipline rely on human interpretation that could be tainted by error, the threat of bias, or the absence of sound operational procedures and robust performance standards.
proffered in criminal trials.
The situation appears to be very different in civil cases. Plaintiffs and defendants, equally, are more likely to have access to expert witnesses in civil cases, while prosecutors usually have an advantage over most defendants in offering expert testimony in criminal cases. And, ironically, the appellate courts appear to be more willing to second-guess trial court judgments on the admissibility of purported scientific evidence in civil cases than in criminal cases.
The adversarial process relating to the admission and exclusion of scientific evidence is not suited to the task of finding “scientific truth.” The judicial system is encumbered by, among other things, judges and lawyers who generally lack the scientific expertise necessary to comprehend and evaluate forensic evidence in an informed manner, trial judges (sitting alone) who must decide evidentiary issues without the benefit of judicial colleagues and often with little time for extensive research and reflection, and the highly deferential nature of the appellate review afforded trial courts’ Daubert rulings. Given these realities, there is a tremendous need for the forensic science community to improve. Judicial review, by itself, will not
cure the infirmities of the forensic science community.
Areas covered
- forensic science practices—
pattern/experience evidence
fingerprints (including the interoperability of AFIS)
firearms examination
toolmarks
bite marks
impressions (tires, footwear)
bloodstain pattern analysis
handwriting
hair
analytical evidence
DNA
coatings (e.g., paint)
chemicals (including drugs)
materials (including fibers)
fluids
serology
fire and explosive analysis
digital evidence;
- the collection and flow of evidence from crime scenes to
courtrooms
the manner in which forensic practitioners testify in court
cases involving the misinterpretation of forensic evidence
the adversarial system in criminal and civil litigation
lawyers’ use and misuse of forensic evidence
judges’ handling of forensic evidence;