Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Deputy AG announces new Forensic Science Working Group but still doesn’t grasp the extent of problem

leave a comment »

The criminal-justice system seems unable to reform itself.

Radley Balko writes in the Washington Post:

In a speech at the International Association for Identification on Monday, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein announced the creation of a Forensic Science Working Group within the Justice Department. Recall that one of the first moves by Attorney General Jeff Sessions was to end the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS), which brought in independent scientists to evaluate the credibility of forensics fields used in U.S. courtrooms.

The new group will be housed within the Justice Department, which will inevitably make it less independent and less transparent than the NCFS. It will be led by Ted Hunt, a longtime prosecutor. Though Hunt worked with the NCFS, putting a prosecutor in charge of forensic reform doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in the new working group’s impartiality.

For that matter, neither does Rosenstein’s speech. It’s been striking to see prosecutors and law enforcement groups react to the critiques of forensics that have come from the scientific community. Those critiques didn’t come out of nowhere. They came from commissions and panels formed after DNA testing, crime lab scandals and exonerations showed us that for decades prosecutors have been presenting juries with “scientific” evidence that is anything but. The FBI’s hair fiber analysis scandal alone tainted thousands of cases. And yet the reactions from prosecutors to these critiques — that experts are overstating their findings, wrongly implicating suspects, or practicing fields utterly lacking in any scientific principles at all — have been utterly devoid of any humility.

Rosenstein’s speech Monday is less strident than others I’ve seen, but it’s still preachy and didactic.

Those disciplines have been around for a long time. When subjected to informed cross examination, expert testimony can be tremendously probative and helpful to the jury.

Nevertheless, some critics have sought to limit the forensic evidence and testimony that can be presented in court. These critics suggest that unless a forensic discipline has a “known error rate,” evidence derived from that discipline should not be admitted in court. Under that standard, trusted and reliable forensic evidence would be excluded simply because the discipline is not susceptible to an easy-to-calculate error rate.

The folly of that approach is clear when critics question fingerprint analysis. They admit that it usually works. Their objection is that it requires judgment.

This isn’t quite true. Few are suggesting fingerprint evidence be barred from the courtroom. The criticism is that experts have been overstating the certainty of fingerprint evidence, particularly when it comes to partial prints. Fingerprinting has long been touted as the “gold standard” in forensics. It’s been touted as foolproof and definitive. The criticism here is that if we don’t actually know how unique a fingerprint is in a given population, we can’t tell jurors that they’re unique. If prosecutors want to present fingerprint evidence, jurors should be made aware of this. And if experts want to testify about “matches” and levels of “certainty,” let’s give them regular competency tests arranged by outside entities.

More from Rosenstein:

Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a material fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. It is not necessary for the evidence to be indisputable.

For example, a shoeprint with irregular edges and unique wear on the outsole found at the scene of a burglary is likely relevant and admissible. Both the prosecution and the defense can use the evidence to help the jury decide whether to believe a defendant was at the scene of the crime.

Physical evidence may be more helpful to a jury if an expert can explain the evidence and place it in context. The jury may benefit from expert testimony in interpreting how probative the shoe print is. Is it the same size as the defendant’s foot? Does it match a shoe found in the defendant’s closet? Answers to those questions may determine whether the physical evidence is incriminating or exculpatory. If the testimony were excluded, the search for truth would be impeded. The jury would have no assistance in determining what to conclude about the discovery of the shoeprint.

There’s nothing wrong with an expert stating that a shoe print is similar in size to the foot of a suspect or that it appears to be of a similar brand of shoe. But how similar? What if an expert tries to claim not that the suspect’s shoe is of a similar size and brand to those found in dirt near the crime scene but that he can tell by the wear in the tread on the suspect’s shoes that only that particular pair of shoes could have left the marks at the crime scene?

The problem is that there are no standards for making these assessments, nor for the language analysts use to convey those assessments to juries. And here we get back to error rates. With DNA, with blood typing and with other science-based fields of forensics, we can give juries probabilities. In the fields of forensics known as “pattern matching,” there are no such calculations to be made, because those fields are little more than experts relying on their expertise to “eyeball” the evidence. And when you’re eyeballing it, it becomes pretty easy to start to seeing matches that aren’t matches at all.

More from Rosenstein:

When the judicial system functions as intended, justice is advanced. Our adversarial system is based on the principle that the truth is most likely to emerge when opposing parties have the opportunity to cross-examine each other’s witnesses, and each party is able to call its own witnesses and introduce conflicting evidence.

Our criminal justice system provides important procedural protections for defendants. For example, a federal defendant is entitled to a written summary of the testimony of the government’s forensic expert. That allows the defendant to know in advance what the government’s expert plans to say, and to rebut it with his own expert testimony. The defendant also has the right to examine and challenge the results of any scientific test.

The search for truth benefits from those protections. But most of all, the quest for truth benefits from prepared legal practitioners and trained forensic examiners.

This cuts to the heart of our adversarial justice system. It also cuts to the heart of what’s wrong with it. The very fact that two experts claiming to employ a form of scientific analysis can testify in direct opposition to one another about, say, a bite mark or blood spatter or a hair fiber, is a pretty good indication that the field isn’t all that scientific. You’ll rarely, if ever, see two DNA experts at odds over how many markers match between two samples.

There are a few reasons why we can’t simply rely on cross-examination and our adversarial system to weed out bad expert testimony. The first is that when two experts contradict one another, the jury will be won over by the expert who is most effective at persuading juries. And that isn’t always the expert who is using the best science. In fact, as prosecutors themselves often admit, juries love certainty. They love experts who will tell them what to think. Scientists tend to avoid speaking with certainty. They speak in probabilities. All of which means the adversarial system may be biased against more scientific evidence.

The second is that we have relied on the current system for most of our history. . .

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

8 August 2017 at 10:29 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.