"The
Justice Department proposed the first department-wide standards for
forensic expert testimony Friday, responding to findings in 2014 that
nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit had overstated
testimony in criminal trials for decades. The draft uniform
language for court testimony and reports is based on written guidance
developed by the FBI for about 20 techniques, and it would apply to all
department personnel, including those with the bureau, Drug Enforcement
Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, officials said in an announcement. Deputy Attorney
General Sally Q. Yates invited public comment and said the department is
committed to ensuring that its experts’ claims are supported by strong
science. “Forensic science is a critical component of our
criminal justice system, both for identifying the perpetrator of a crime
and for clearing the innocent,” Yates said in a statement. “Once
finalized and adopted, these guidance documents will clarify what
scientific statements our forensic experts may – and may not – use when
testifying in court and in drafting reports, in turn strengthening the
integrity of our system overall.” The draft standards apply to
serology, toxicology and drug and chemical examiners, as well as more
frequently challenged experts who make subjective, pattern-based
comparisons of fibers, glass, foot- and tire prints and fingerprints. Proposals
will follow this summer for more techniques, including analysis of DNA,
hair, handwriting and explosive devices, the department said. The
move comes after an April 2015 finding by the FBI and Justice
Department that nearly all FBI hair examiners overstated testimony about
hair matches incriminating defendants during the 1980s and 1990s. A
root-cause analysis is pending, but authorities acknowledged that until
2012, they lacked standards defining scientifically appropriate and
erroneous ways to explain results in court. In
March, Yates proposed an expanded review of FBI forensic testimony to a
National Commission on Forensic Science appointed by the attorney
general, recommending audits of statements made in other pattern-based
techniques used by crime labs in more than 100,000 examinations each
year, including tracing fibers, fingerprints, tread marks, marks that
guns leave on bullets, soil and other crime-scene evidence. Yates then characterized the inquiry into “testimonial overstatement” as a forensic science “stress test.” A
National Academy of Sciences panel in 2009 reported that although
examiners had long claimed to be able to match pattern evidence to a
source with “absolute” or “scientific certainty,” only DNA analysis had
been validated through statistical research..........Peter Neufeld, co-founder
of the Innocence Project, a member of the commission and a partner in
the Justice Department and FBI’s hair review, applauded the proposed
standards. However, he said, “It’s remarkable that the FBI
developed internal standards for decades, without ever subjecting those
guidelines either to public comment or more importantly, to the scrutiny
of the nation’s leading experts in statistics and probabilities, with
the exception of DNA,” Neufeld said. “But we hope this is the beginning
of a new era, and we applaud that.”"
Monday, June 6, 2016
Bulletin: Forensic expert testimony: U.S. Justice Department proposes the first department-wide standards for forensic expert testimony Friday, responding to findings in 2014 that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit had overstated testimony in criminal trials for decades...."A root-cause analysis is pending, but authorities acknowledged that until 2012, they lacked standards defining scientifically appropriate and erroneous ways to explain results in court. In March, Yates proposed an expanded review of FBI forensic testimony to a National Commission on Forensic Science appointed by the attorney general, recommending audits of statements made in other pattern-based techniques used by crime labs in more than 100,000 examinations each year, including tracing fibers, fingerprints, tread marks, marks that guns leave on bullets, soil and other crime-scene evidence. Yates then characterized the inquiry into “testimonial overstatement” as a forensic science “stress test.” A National Academy of Sciences panel in 2009 reported that although examiners had long claimed to be able to match pattern evidence to a source with “absolute” or “scientific certainty,” only DNA analysis had been validated through statistical research..........Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a member of the commission and a partner in the Justice Department and FBI’s hair review, applauded the proposed standards. However, he said, “It’s remarkable that the FBI developed internal standards for decades, without ever subjecting those guidelines either to public comment or more importantly, to the scrutiny of the nation’s leading experts in statistics and probabilities, with the exception of DNA,” Neufeld said. “But we hope this is the beginning of a new era, and we applaud that.” Reporter Spencer S. Hsu. The Washington Post;
