SHOCKING RESEARCH PAPER BY NEUFIELD AND GARRETT: PART ONE; INVALID TESTIMONY BY FORENSIC ANALYSTS FOUND IN 60% OF CASES STUDIED;

At a recent conference in Toronto which explored the nexus between "expert" forensic evidence and "wrongful convictions," Innocence Project co-founder Peter Neufeld referred to a research paper he had co-authored with Brandon L. Garrett called "Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions" published in the March, 2009, issue of the Virginia Law Review;

Neufeld explained that he and Garrett had made the disturbing finding that
in 82 cases or 60% of the trials, forensic analysts provided “invalid” testimony, meaning they had presented conclusions that either misstated empirical data or that were entirely unsupported by empirical data.

This invalid testimony did not come from a small group of analysts –not just the “bad apples”–but from 72 different analysts from 52 laboratories, practices, or hospitals in 25 states.

This disturbing finding should also be of concern to Canadians - as well as people in jurisdictions throughout the world - because the expert opinions provided by so-called forensic pathologists have been shielded from close scrutiny for so many years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will be devoting several posts to this important paper which can be found in Volume 95, Issue 1, of the Virginia Law Review (2009); at 009, Volume 95, Issue 1

For a start, here is a description of the paper provided by the Law Review:

"This is the first study to explore the forensic science testimony by prosecution experts in the trials of innocent persons, all convicted of serious crimes, who were later exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing.

Trial transcripts were sought for all 156 exonerees identified as having trial testimony by forensic analysts, of which 137 were located and reviewed.

These trials most commonly included serological analysis and microscopic hair comparison, but some included bite mark, shoe print, soil, fiber, and fingerprint comparisons, and several included DNA testing.

This study found that in the bulk of these trials of innocent defendants—82 cases or 60 percent—forensic analysts called by the prosecution provided invalid testimony at trial—that is, testimony with conclusions misstating empirical data or wholly unsupported by empirical data.

This was not the testimony of a mere handful of analysts: this set of trials included invalid testimony by seventy-two forensic analysts called by the prosecution and employed by fifty-two laboratories, practices, or hospitals from twenty-five states.

Unfortunately, the adversary system largely failed to police this invalid testimony.

Defense counsel rarely cross-examined analysts concerning invalid testimony and rarely obtained experts of their own.

In the few cases in which invalid forensic science was challenged, judges seldom provided relief.

This evidence supports efforts to create scientific oversight mechanisms for reviewing forensic testimony and to develop clear scientific standards for report writing and testimony.

The scientific community can promulgate standards to ensure the valid presentation of forensic science in criminal cases and thus the integrity and fairness of the criminal process."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;