A forensic scientist trainee looks over bullet casings at a forensics lab in Richmond, Va., in July 2008. (AP)
If your image of crime labs comes from shows like “CSI,” get ready for a shocker: a landmark report released yesterday by the National Academy of Sciences says we’ve got a problem when it comes to forensic science.
From fingerprints and ballistics to blood splatter and bite marks, America’s crime labs just aren’t cutting it. The report calls for a major overhaul — and calls into question decades of cases based on forensic evidence.
How we move forward will have a far-reaching impact on crime labs, courts — and American criminal justice.
This hour, On Point: Crime labs, and the future of forensics.
You can join the conversation. Have you ever wondered about the validity of forensic evidence? How it’s used in court? Do you have first-hand experience?
-Jane Clayson, guest host
Tom Ashbrook is on vacation this week.
Guests:
Harry Edwards, co-chair of the National Academy of Sciences panel that put out the new report, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.” He’s a senior Circuit Judge and Chief Judge Emeritus for the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit.
James Doyle, director of the Center for Modern Forensic Practice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. A veteran litigator, he’s the author of “True Witness: Cops, Courts, Science, and the Battle against Misidentification.”
Barry Fisher, director of the Los Angeles County Crime Laboratory. In 1969 he joined the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department crime laboratory and has worked in most of the sections of the laboratory. He’s past president of the American Academy of Forensic Science and the American Academy of Crime Laboratory Directors.
Barry Scheck, co-founder and co-director of The Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people. He served on O.J. Simpson’s defense team, winning an acquittal in 1995 at Simpson’s murder trial.
More links:
Today’s Los Angeles Times runs a big piece on the new NAS report, along with an opinion piece by UCLA Law School’s Jennifer L. Mnookin.
Tags: criminal justice, law, science
I think the guy who you keep calling “Jim Doyle” is not Jim Doyle.
Posted by Michael Molla, on February 19th, 2009 at 11:58 am ESTWait. I’ve got that wrong. Please delete my previous comment.
Posted by Michael Molla, on February 19th, 2009 at 11:58 am ESTThis was a fascinating show. For one thing, IT WAS NOT ABOUT THE ECONOMY! I am a regular CSI watcher and was aware that the technology is portrayed correctly, but that most of the rest, especially the time lapse, was not. The shows, in fact, depict some of the problems discussed this a.m.: law enforcement is mixed with the forensics (most of the CSI personnel are also police persons, arrest people and so forth). Things that amuse me about the shows are that everyone is beautiful or good looking; and the women all have long hair which they do not tie back or up (won’t their hair contaminate the scene????). Anyway, fascinating show. I am going to read the report and I hope congress will act on it.
Posted by Barbara Bishop, on February 19th, 2009 at 12:31 pm ESTEscapism and the Entertainment Industry-What Should America be doing with its time?
The, ‘CSI effect,’ the ‘Law and Order effect,’ the ‘you name it,’ effect; all of these ‘effect,’ are due to the inadequate distribution and quality of our education system. It is the substitution of entertainment for education.
DNA evidence is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain of evidence.
Posted by Frederic C., on February 19th, 2009 at 12:54 pm ESTBarbara Bishop wrote, “I am a regular CSI watcher and was aware that the technology is portrayed correctly, but that most of the rest, especially the time lapse, was not.”
I wish to inform you that you are incorrect and I’m not sure where you were led to believe that the technology was portrayed correctly. It couldn’t be further from the truth. As a forensic scientist I can assure you that much of what you see is embelished, unrealistic, and incorrect. Examples that come to the top of my head are a fingerprint being searched in the AFIS database. In the real world you don’t see the scrolling of fingerprints on the screen and then suddenly the “match” appears on screen with the suspect’s name, picture, address, favorite color, etc. It is time consuming process in which a list of potential candidates is provided to an examiner who then does a detailed comparison, not the computer. Another example is when a victim was stabbed with a knife and the “CSI” poured some casting material in the wound and when removed, there was a perfect outline and representation of the knife. This simply is not possible. These types of things are why the so-called “CSI Effect” has been created and has given potential jurors (who assume what they see on these shows is “portrayed correctly”) an unrealistic expectation of what they think they will see as evidence presented in court.
Posted by Mark, on February 19th, 2009 at 6:42 pm EST[...] On Point: Crime Labs and Dismal Science – One-hour radio show with Judge Harry Edwards (the co-chair of the committee that published the [...]
Posted by More Media Coverage of Forensics Report | Innocence Project, on February 20th, 2009 at 5:50 am ESTI am curious about what the On Point listeners learned from this program. Please help me out by posting your comments so I can gage what the general reaction is to this program. 1. Regarding the state of forensic science what best represents your thoughts: forensic science is completely unscientific and unreliable, or forensic science is often reliable but its application is spotty, or other. 2. Regarding the integrity of forensic scientists: most forensic scientists are too poorly educated and are often duped into saying whatever law enforcement wants, or most forensic scientists fear for their jobs when working for law enforcement and say whatever law enforcement wants, or in general, forensic scientists reach their conclusions based on their results, not the influence of law enforcement, and keep their integrity intact, or other. 3. Regarding the ability of defense attorneys and the public to determine if their law enforcement crime lab is producing reliable results: currently, there is no system of oversite for crime labs and no way to know if the results are valid, or the defense and the public have ways of determining if their law enforcement owned crime lab is issuing reliable results (did this program help you learn the ways and what are they?). Thanks for your help. I think this is one of the great benefits of these sites.
Posted by Sue, on February 20th, 2009 at 2:31 pm ESTSorry, I have one more question. Regarding wrongful convictions, what best represents your thoughts: most wrongful convictions are the result of shoddy forensic science, or most wrongful convictions are the result of other systemic problems with the justice system, such as reliance on eyewitness testimony and informants with dubious motives, or other. Thanks. I promise to stop.
Posted by Sue, on February 20th, 2009 at 2:41 pm ESTwhen i was younger, i seen cops and heard from people how cops used forensic expects to convict innocent people and than found it was the wrong person. what happens it someone is force to a plea deal for a crime that there did not commit based on forensic science, does that person get compensated for the error?, do the police get in trouble? or is it a my bad situation? i feel there are 2 sets of courts one for the rich and elite, who are asked to come in, do not have to testify to there crimes, hanging at home while the case is going on, than there the other poor, minority, where your guilty till proven innocent,and often time cops with throw charges that are not even true to force a plea deal. I do agree that it should be independent from law enforcement cause i believe that it is abused more than people like to let on.
I do not believe in the system as it stands today is fair and feel forensic science is used in place of real evidence even when it is unlikely its true.exp black male between 5′8 and 6′2 170 to 220 pounds so therefore x did it cause he is 5′9 and 180 pounds.
I also believe there should be more liability for officers,experts who wrongly convict people and what currently is the liability or responsibility for the officers/experts to thoroughly do there job. Is it without a doubt the person has done it? no its just enough, and blaming lawyers and not officers as well does not solve the problem cause the officers are the ones who put them there, and if like many(not all) have control of the forensic science it will be biased, and officers who know this to be true will not tell due to there own personal code of protecting each other.
Posted by mike, on February 21st, 2009 at 12:40 pm ESTHas Harry Edwards, James Doyle or Barry Scheck ever been to accredited forensic laboratories in the last few years and seen for themselves the level of documentation and training required of laboratories/forensic scientists?
Posted by Evan, on April 24th, 2009 at 9:31 am EDT