Forensic Science Forum

(continue reading…)

(continue reading…)

(continue reading…)

(continue reading…)

In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of murder and executed for the deaths of his three young children by arson at the family home in Texas. The case gained attention when an investigative report in The New Yorker ostensibly demonstrated that, contrary to the claims of the prosecution, there was no evidence that the house fire was intentionally set, and that the State of Texas executed an innocent man.

Some point to this case as another example of the problems associated with forensic science and an additional example of issues like those noted in the National Academy of Science report.

What is your opinion of this case and how does it inform the current debate in forensic science? Fire science is one of those areas of expertise typically found outside of public forensic labs. Like traffic investigation and blood stain pattern interpretation, these disciplines may be used with limited oversight. How might they be improved?

The present budget climate has hit forensic labs hard. In some regions, there is discussion about charging for what historically have been free services. Various payment models are being considered, from a per capita fee based on population or simply recovering actual costs to establishing hourly rates for different types of cases. The UK as well as other areas have used fee-for-service models for a number of years. Some contend that the practice works while others argue that it causes many unanticipated problems.

 What is your view of the practice?

Authors: John M. Collins and Jay Jarvis

The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of claims that faulty forensic science is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. This sentiment has been reported at length by major news outlets across the United States. It has also been a matter of great concern to a group of activists in what is known as the innocence network and other individuals having varying degrees of interest in the formulation of public policies related to forensic science. (continue reading…)

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that expert testimony falls under the 6th Amendment right of the defendant to face adverse witnesses. States that have used affidavits for this purpose must now scramble to change their practices to accommodate the new ruling. But beyond this, there are a number of issues yet to be dealt with: What about old cases where evidence is no longer available for retesting? What about others who had a hand in the examination process? It would be instructive to learn how other regions are dealing with this issue, if at all. Readers are invited to discuss these issues and to offer examples.

What information is needed to form a conclusion about an identification? Do conclusions require statistical data, as in DNA cases, to offer an opinion? Is it possible to state that two items of evidence come from a sole source? What may an expert opine when no statistical data is readily available and only experience suggests a conclusion? The National Academy report raises some profound questions and some intriguing research possibilities. But in the interim, while we wait for academics to study the multitude of pattern evidence forensic scientists encounter in their day to day work, who may report cases and testify in court? Readers are invited to speak to these issues.

The so-called Daubert Trilogy (Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho) is made up of the following cases:

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. JOINER (96-188) 78 F.3d 524
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)

They, along with rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence, significantly changed the landscape of expert testimony, especially in criminal cases, by changing the focus from the generally accepted standard to the requirement to show reliability. Even in states that still follow the Frye standard, Daubert issues are being used to challenge the weight of the evidence proffered. Clearly, the courts will continue to debate these issues as they try to define expert evidence. Readers are invited to weigh in on these issues.