POST: "National Association of Public Defenders (NAPD) Offers Public Comment to Department of Justice (DOJ) re Forensic Science," published by the association on May 31, 2017.
GIST: "Forensic evidence is having an ever greater role in criminal cases. But
many, if not most techniques, have not been generated by the scientific
community. Instead, the techniques have been and likely will continue
to be developed in the investigative community. As a result, to ensure
the scientific accuracy of the forensic evidence used in criminal cases
it is critical that the scientific community be at the table and that
the scientific method be brought to bear on assessing forensic
methods. The National Association for Public Defense is an organization of over
15,000 public defense professionals, almost all of whom are currently
active in courtrooms around the country. Our membership includes over
110 organizations large and small, with members from every state in the
country. We are committed to a reasonable criminal justice system that
includes hearing the call of our clients for being treated with justice
and fairness. We write to address the recent decision to sunset the
National Commission on Forensic Science. Our defender organizations vary in size and structure, but all strive to
provide effective assistance of counsel for those facing criminal
charges who cannot afford a lawyer. While there is considerable
variation in our organizations, we are all confronted with forensic
evidence on a daily basis while also handling significant caseloads with
limited budgets; thus our keen interest in federal leadership, federal
guidance, and federal review of forensic evidence. Few, if any, state or local defender offices or criminal justice systems
can afford or access the scientific and policy expertise available at
the federal level to fully address the serious questions being raised
about forensic evidence. If the state and local systems were so
equipped the questions being raised by the scientific community about
the scientific foundation of forensic evidence and about quality
assurance in forensic laboratories would have already been resolved
given that most criminal cases relying on forensic evidence occur at the
state and local level. Instead, scandals involving malfeasance and
incompetence in forensic laboratories continue at an alarming level at
the local level,[1] with the drug analysis problems in Massachusetts being only the most
recent example, and forensic evidence is routinely admitted in state and
local courts conveyed in bare bone reports and without serious
scientific analysis of the evidence's reliability or limitations. Based on our collective experience we believe that addressing quality
assurance in forensic laboratories and addressing the scientific
foundation of forensic evidence testimony requires national policy and
scientific leadership. That said it is not at all clear that the
Department of Justice is best suited, or well suited, to this task. For any organization or process to “improve the underlying science and
validity of forensic evidence” independent scientists need to be the
controlling voice. The Department of Justice is not a scientific
organization. It has a different mission, different expertise, and a
different culture. Studies on human and organizational behavior teach
us that it is very difficult for an institution or an individual with a
vested interest in a result or a technique to see or investigate the
flaws and the limitations. That is why scientific research and medical
research strives to identify and minimize biases. It is why clinical
trials blind participants and researchers. It is why the hallmark of
science is transparency, data sharing, and peer review. The Department
of Justice is not designed to be transparent often for good reason. As a
result, when looking for entities or processes to “improve the
underlying science and validity of forensic evidence” the Department of
Justice needs to see itself as a consumer of science and turn to
scientific institutions, federal and academic, to assess and improve the
forensic disciplines. For this reason we are troubled by the decision to sunset the National
Commission on Forensic Science and the apparent proposal to create an
office of forensic science within the Department of Justice........."Forensic evidence is having an ever greater role in criminal cases. But
many, if not most techniques, have not been generated by the scientific
community. Instead, the techniques have been and likely will continue
to be developed in the investigative community. As a result, to ensure
the scientific accuracy of the forensic evidence used in criminal cases
it is critical that the scientific community be at the table and that
the scientific method be brought to bear on assessing forensic methods.
Though the Commission at times has been fraught with debate,
disagreement, and imperfect compromise, it has been a watershed entity
promoting an open and public discussion on a topic of growing importance
-- the accuracy and reliability of the forensic evidence being used to
both convict and exonerate."
The entire post can be found at:
