STORY: "The shifting science of DNA in the courtroom: Still the gold standard in forensics," by Channon Hodge, published by NBC Montana on June 9, 2017.
GIST: "During his years in the White House, President Obama implemented
several initiatives to improve forensic evidence gathering. In a 2017
Harvard Law Review article, he said they were sparked by lingering
concerns from a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, along with a
rash of "high-profile exonerations of wrongfully convicted individuals
that indicated that testimony exceeded the scientific capabilities of
the technique." "Contrary to the perception of TV dramas, forensic
science disciplines are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty and
misinterpretation," Obama wrote. Forensic evidence pinning a
suspect to the scene of a crime can be powerful in the courtroom. But
scientists agree that when investigators testify about that evidence,
they haven't always emphasized to the jury that science can make
mistakes, such as DNA contamination in labs or DNA transferred from one
crime scene to another. One of Obama's initiatives launched a
review of FBI testimony in cases. Another brought together scientists,
law enforcement officials, judges and lawyers to create the National
Commission on Forensic Science. Both of these initiatives were ended in
April by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who said the Trump
administration would seek its own path toward improving criminal
investigations under a new task force. Some investigators said
that over the years, funding has not kept up with the demand for
evidence analysis, and labs are overwhelmed. "Forensic science has
been dealing with a resource problem," said former investigator John M.
Collins Jr., whose Forensic Foundations Group works to educate lab
technicians. Indeed, crime labs around the country now process
over 3 million requests per year, one-quarter of which is DNA profiling,
according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Here are a few notable cases in which DNA evidence made a mark........What
happened in the Amanda Knox trial, in that investigation, is
symptomatic of another issue, and that is that both the public and
prosecutors have been pressuring ... and I suppose defense attorneys,
the whole system ... is pressuring labs into pushing the envelope of
what these tests can do," said Dan E. Krane, a biology professor at
Wright State University who's reviewed cases for defense teams for
decades, including the Knox case. "The crux there, the central issue, is
ambiguity." Forensic analysts give a statistical analysis of
whether DNA can pinpoint the suspect in the case, but Krane and many
others argue that analysts could go further to explain the possibility
of error to the jury. DNA's presence on a scene, Krane said, does not
indicate when or how it got there. There's work to do on educating
jurors and the public about DNA's limitations, but, Krane said, it
remains "the gold standard of forensic science. It doesn't mean that
there isn't room to improve that gold standard, but all the rest of
forensic science, and I mean everything -- fingerprint, hair and fiber,
handwriting, blood spatter, gunshot residue, you name it -- everything
else needs to aspire to have that same sort of scientific rigor that is
now in play for DNA profiling."
http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/technology/the-shifting-science-of-dna-in-the-courtroom/533124173
The entire story can be found at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c