GIST: "According to the National Registry of Exonerations,
no fewer than 490 people
have been exonerated since 1989 after being convicted on the basis of
false or misleading forensic techniques. Just last month, a
Michigan man was freed
from jail 41 years after his conviction after prosecutors agreed that
evidence against him — based on an analysis of a single hair — didn’t
meet FBI standards. Another Michigan man
was released in May after 25 years in prison following a faulty conviction based on bullets matched to a gun........ During the past decade, thanks largely to a
2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences, we have made important progress in ridding our nation’s courtrooms of such scenarios. But the Justice Department’s
recent decision
to not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science — the primary
forum through which scientists, forensic lab technicians, lawyers and
judges have worked together to guide the future of forensic science —
threatens to stall and even reverse that progress. The
NAS report found that too few forensic disciplines, other than DNA
analysis, have adequate scientific basis. The report also found that
experts often overstate their claims in testimony, invoking unscientific
terms like “scientific certainty” and claiming 100 percent accuracy. The
Justice Department is the responsible agency for prosecuting federal
crimes and, in this role, makes frequent use of forensic techniques. It
is therefore not appropriate for the Justice Department to be the
evaluator of forensic practices. In the 2009 report, the NAS strongly
recommended that to avoid a conflict of interest, an entity independent
of the Justice Department should oversee forensic standards. While
the Justice Department did not fully embrace this recommendation, it
went ahead and, in collaboration with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, helped create the National Commission on
Forensic Science. From 2013 until earlier this year, the commission
provided a venue for all of the relevant stakeholders to discuss issues
facing forensic labs and foundational science and to advance a path
forward to strengthen forensic practices and research. By
building consensus among these diverse groups who all care deeply about
the integrity of our justice system, the commission promoted important
reforms, such as
mandatory accreditation of crime labs used by the government and the immediate disclosure to defense counsels of a government forensic expert’s
entire file
relating to a defendant. Many of the commission’s recommendations have
been adopted not only by the Justice Department but also by state and
local crime labs. They have also resulted in changes both to
prosecutorial practices and to codes of professional conduct for those
working in forensic laboratories. With these improvements in providing
justice, it is not time to pull back from the forensic commission. More
than 250 individuals and groups, including leading legal scholars and
scientific organizations such as the American Association for the
Advancement of Science,
recently submitted public comments
to the Justice Department on how to proceed on forensic science. The
overwhelming majority of comments urged the department to ensure that
there be an independent and transparent oversight body for forensic
science like the now-suspended commission. For now, the Justice
Department has taken the opposite view, that there is no conflict with
having internal department evaluators oversee forensic science research
that their prosecutors hope to use in the courtroom. We urge the
attorney general and the department to take a thorough look at the many
thoughtful comments from concerned citizens and quickly reconsider this
approach. Forensic science requires conflict-free independent evaluation
if it is to advance the truth. People’s lives and our society’s faith
in the American justice system are at stake."
