American Forensic Roundtable: Progress, Status, and the Future (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2009
The forensic sciences are under review more so than ever before. Such review is necessary and healthy and should be a continuous process. It identifies areas for improvement in quality practices and services. The issues surrounding error, i.e., measurement error, human error, contextual bias, and confirmatory bias, and interpretation are discussed. Infrastructure is already in place to support reliability. However, more definition and clarity of terms and interpretation would facilitate communication and understanding. Material improvement across the disciplines should be sought through national programs in education and training, focused on science, the scientific method, statistics, and ethics. To provide direction for advancing the forensic sciences a list of recommendations ranging from further documentation to new research and validation to education and to accreditation is provided for consideration. The list is a starting point for discussion that could foster further thought and input in developing an overarching strategic plan for enhancing the forensic sciences.
Fifty Years of Forensic Science
Fifty Years of Forensic Science, 2010
Forensic apartheid? 39 (2)-1999 Let me through, I'm a ummmm. .. 39 (3)-1999 Something nasty hiding. .. (4)-1999 From Bach to Schoenberg 42 (2)-2002 A professional body for forensic scientists 45 (1)-2005 Professionalism-duties and privileges 45 (3)-2005 Who guards the guards? 45 (4)-2005 Everything changes and nothing is constant 47 (2)-2007 Eight years on 47 (2)-2007 Regulation of Forensic Physicians and the CRFP 47 (3)-2007 CPD, an effective means of professional development.. .or is it? 48 (1)-2008 President of the Forensic Science Society 48 (3)-2008 The forensic science regulator 43 (1)-2003 Hunting truffles 44 (1)-2004 Reiterative justice? 45 (2)-2005 Science & Justice-DNA and the courts CONTENTS ix 47 (4)-2007 DNA-what's next? 48 (4)-2008 Do we value research? 49 (1)-Lessons from the past 49 (2)-2009 IRMS SECTION III: EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION OF EVIDENCE (3)-1979 Away with the fuzz 23 (1)-1983 Patience 23 (1a)-1983 Statistics and forensic science-a fruitful partnership 23 (1b)-1983 The probability of exclusion or likelihood of guilt of an accused: Paternity 23 (1c)-1983 The probability of non-discrimination or likelihood of guilt of an accused: Criminal Identification 23 (1d)-1983 What is the probability that this blood came from that person? A meaningful question? 23 (1e)-1983 A frame of reference or Garbage in, Garbage out 23 (4)-1983 On circumstantial evidence 26 (3)-1986 Evaluation of associative physical evidence 23 (3a)-1987 The use of statistics in forensic science 23 (3b)-1987 The use of statistics in forensic science 28 (3)-1988 Heads we win 37 (2)-1997 Does justice require less precision than chemistry? 43 (2)-2003 Sally Clark-a lesson for us all 44 (2)-2004 Context-free forensic science 46 (1)-2006 Lies, damn lies and statistics SECTION IV: EDUCATION IN FORENSIC SCIENCES 2 (1)-1961 Research and teaching in forensic science 2 (1)-1961 A preliminary survey of education and research in the forensic sciences in the United Kingdom 9 (1&2)-1968 Education in the forensic sciences 11 (1)-1971 What is the future for the study and practice of the forensic sciences in Britain? 16 (2)-1976 The Greeks had a word for it 44 (4)-2004 Wither academic forensic science? 48 (2)-2008 Educating the next generation 48 (4)-2008 Letter to the Editor 48 (4)-2008 Letter to the Editor 49 (1)-2009 Letter to the Editor SECTION V: FORENSIC SCIENCE AND THE LAW 1 (2)-1960 An expert witness looks at the courts 3 (2)-1962 The design of law courts 6 (4)-1965 Bowlers, brollies and bifocals 8 (1)-1967 The expert witness 8 (2)-1967 Two encouraging cases x CONTENTS 10 (1)-1970 Law and order 12 (2)-1972 There is a time to speak 12 (3)-1972 Not Pygmalion likely 12 (4)-1972 Where have all the lawyers gone? 13 (2)-An honest opinion (3)-Modern times 16 (3a)-1976 A camel is a horse.. . 17 (2&3)-1977 The four letter swear word 18 (3&4)-1978 Not for the faint hearted 19 (2)-1979 Preliminary hearings-just or unjust-justified or unjustified (2)-1980 The canons of expertise 24 (2)-Have you heard the one about. .. 24 (5)-1984 Master or servant? 25 (4)-1985 Don't Panic 27 (4)-1987 Philosophy and obligations of a state-funded forensic science laboratory 27 (5)-1987 Answers are easy 29 (2)-1989 Science and law, a marriage of opposites 34 (3)-1994 The image of the scientist and the lawyer 38 (2)-1998 The role of the forensic scientist in an inquisitorial system of justice 40 (2)-2000 And what of the evidence! 41 (3)-2001 The boundaries of expert evidence 41 (4)-2001 Reform of the criminal justice system in England and Wales 42 (3)-2002 Justice in a goldfish bowl 42 (4)-2002 Gristle in the sausage.. . 43 (3)-2003 Coroners-what next for death investigation in England and Wales? 44 (3)-2004 The Human Tissue Bill-an opportunity about to be missed? 46 (2)-2006 All's fair in love and war
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2010
2019
Houston Forensic Science Center * This article is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences ** This article benefited greatly from insightful comments provided by the peer-reviewers. Several of the ideas herein were discussed and improved at the annual meeting of the Evidencebased Forensics Initiative (EBFI). We also thank Kirsty Kent for assistance with data collection. Sarah Hamid provided indefatigable editorial and research support for which we are endlessly grateful. Part I. Introduction Science has long been regarded as 'self-correcting', given that it is founded on the replication of earlier work. Over the long term, that principle remains true. In the shorter term, however, the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity have been hobbled. This has compromised the ability of today's researchers to reproduce others' findings. 1 Over the past several decades, forensic science has faced immense criticism. 2 This criticism often reduces to the notion that forensic scientific knowledge has not traditionally been produced and presented in a way that allows judges and juries to assess its reliability. As a result, untestedoften invalid-"science" contributed to many miscarriages of justice. 3 Along a similar timeline, but with almost no express recognition of the issues happening in forensics, a scientific
International Perspectives of Forensic Science Spr 2016
Since the late 19th century, the United Kingdom has been pivotal in both the development of forensic techniques and the setting of forensic science standards. Recent media attention has thrust forensics reluctantly into the spotlight to both positive and negative effect. This course aims to introduce the history and evolution of forensic science, significant cases, and the framework of international standards within forensic science. We will examine how forensic science is practiced in the UK, the strengths and weaknesses of the US and UK systems, and how the disciple is changing in each country. Finally, we will consider a number of related disciplines and issues, such as evidence admissibility, the CSI effect, human rights, and forensic regulation to gain a broader understanding of forensics' modern role and future development within criminal justice. The on-campus portion of this course will introduce students to key historical figures and milestones within forensic science. We will examine the similarities and differences between the Scottish, English and American legal systems as they pertain to forensic science and how these systems regulate and maintain standards within the profession. Finally we will look at popular media and its influence on the practice and perception of forensic sciences. Assessment will be through a combination of essays, oral presentations and classroom discussion of case studies. A final discussion document will be due following the international visit. The field study will take place in the United Kingdom, starting in Glasgow, Scotland and finishing in London, England. Other stops include Edinburgh, Leeds, Bradford, and Cambridge. Through site visits and guest speakers, students will gain insight into the forensic profession as it exists in the UK, UK laboratory practice, forensic standards and regulation in the UK and Europe, and the presentation of forensic evidence in British courts. As per the individual states of the USA, the UK has a diverse legal structure. An evaluation will be made between the Scottish and English systems and a comparison made between this and the State and Federal systems of the USA. The UK also provides the unique opportunity to visit sites key to the history of forensic science. Some of the trip highlights include visits to the Hunterian Museum, a Jack the Ripper tour, a visit to the pub at the heart of the infamous Worlds End Murders, trips to both Scottish and English courts in session, the Sherlock Holmes Museum, plus talks by CSIs, lab scientists, barristers, and forensic researchers. Each of these places and speakers will be introduced during the classroom component of the course with an emphasis on its relevance to the key aim and objectives. The length of the field trip will be two weeks with a minimum of 10 students and maximum of 20 students. This course is intended for MSFS students, pre-Forensic Science (3+2 and 4+2) chemistry and biology students and is also applicable for Criminal Justice, Anthropology, Sociology, and History majors.
Forensic Sciences: Review of Status and Needs | NIST
Book, 1999
The work of forensic laboratories is varied and complex. Technical analyses performed must be able to forestall or defeat any challenge. To provide the best service possible to the criminal justice system, forensic laboratories must stay abreast of and have access to the latest technology and methods. To assess the current state of forensic laboratories, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)/Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES), and the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD), held a joint workshop, Forensic Science Summit: Roadmap to the Year 2000, March 5–6, 1997, at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The purpose of the workshop was to determine the current status and needs of forensic laboratories on training; technology transfer; methods research, development, testing, and evaluation; and analytical services. The workshop also provided a forum to explore the use of national and Federal laboratory resources [e.g., Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DOD)] and how best to take advantage of this external support. Representatives from DOE attended the workshop to observe and learn how DOE could further contribute. For technology transfer to be successful, there must be a true partnership between local or State forensic laboratories and national laboratories. Existing strengths that are fragmented and dispersed need to be consolidated. Over the years, a large amount of development work has been done at the national laboratories that some forensic laboratories may be aware of because of their geographic location, but the work may not be known to the entire forensic community. No formal process exists for technology transfer to forensic laboratories. The key is to identify technology currently in use or under development at national facilities that can be quickly transferred for use in the forensic field. Areas of technology at national laboratories that could be applied to the forensic community include robotics, remote sensors, supercomputers for computational power, and satellite communications.
Failed forensics: How forensic science lost its way and how it might yet find it
Annual Review of Law and Social …, 2008
A group of nonscience forensic sciences has developed over the past century. These are fields within the broader forensic sciences that have little or no basis in actual science. They are not applications of established basic sciences, they have not systematically tested their own hypotheses, and they make unsupported assumptions and exaggerated claims. This review explains the nature and origins of those nonscience forensic fields, which include the forensic individualization sciences and certain other areas, such as fire and arson investigation. We explore the role of the courts in maintaining the underdeveloped state of these fields and consider suggestions for improving this state of affairs (addressing the potential role that could be played by these fields themselves, by the courts, and by normal sciences).
Reliability and validity of forensic science evidence
Significance, 2019
I n 1983, Keith Harward, a US Navy sailor, was convicted of breaking into the home of a married couple near the shipyard in Newport News, Virginia, beating the husband to death with a crowbar, and repeatedly raping the wife. Notably, the wife also had been bitten on her legs. After the wife stated that the attacker was wearing a sailor's uniform, dentists reviewed the dental records and teeth of the crew of the aircraft carrier harboured near the couple's home. This dental investigation excluded Harward as the source of the marks. Months later, however, after his girlfriend accused him of biting her during a fight, Harward became a prime suspect in the murder and rape. Police sent wax impressions and dental moulds of Harward's teeth to dentists certified by the American Board of Forensic Odontology. They concluded that he was the source of the bite marks after all. Dr Lowell Levine, a leading expert in forensic dentistry, testified to a "very, very, very, very high degree of probability" and told the jury that it was a "practical impossibility that someone else would have all these characteristics" in his dentition. In 2015, in an effort to secure post-conviction relief for Harward, DNA analysis was conducted using material from the 1982 rape kit. It found no traces of Harward's DNA. Indeed, it identified another sailor from the same ship as the source of the semen. That man had already died in prison while serving time for numerous other crimes committed after the 1982 rape and murder. In 2016, the Virginia Supreme Court recognised Harward's innocence. At the age of 60, after spending 33 years in Virginia prisons, Keith Harward walked out a free man. How could such a miscarriage of justice have happened? Scientific evidence can be extremely helpful to investigators and the court system in identifying and convicting criminals. But, as Harward's case shows, expert evidence also can lead to wrongful convictions. The rules of evidence therefore both authorise and limit testimony from scientific, medical and other experts. For example, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows experts to supply information or opinions to the jury only when