Report questions science, reliability of crime lab evidence

The National Academy of Sciences says many courtroom claims about fingerprints, bite marks and other evidence lack scientific verification. It finds forensics inconsistent and in disarray nationwide.
By Jason Felch
LA Times

February 18, 2009

For decades, forensic scientists have made sweeping claims in court about fingerprints, ballistics, handwriting, bite marks, shoe prints and blood splatters that lack empirical grounding and have never been verified by science.

This is just one conclusion of a two-year study by the National Academy of Sciences, which today called for a wholesale overhaul of the crime lab system that has become increasingly critical to American jurisprudence.

The academy, the preeminent science advisor to the federal government, found a system in disarray: 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 innocent people from wrongful convictions.

With the notable exception of DNA evidence, the report says that many forensic methods have never been shown to consistently and reliably connect 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.

(More here.)