Call Today for a FREE Consultation

262-923-8761

24 HOUR EMERGENCY CONTACT

Will new federal policy address unscientific forensic testimony?

| Mar 30, 2018 | Criminal Defense

Studies have shown that invalid or inaccurate forensic science is a factor in almost half of wrongful convictions. In the approximately 354 cases where DNA later exonerated an Innocence Project client, poor forensic science contributed to most of the underlying convictions.

Poor forensic science gets into criminal cases in several ways. Analysts may commit errors when collecting the evidence or performing tests. Witnesses may present the findings in a misleading or exaggerated way. Or, the technique itself may be scientifically invalid.

The forensic science industry and the justice system have been grappling with this issue for a decade or more, especially since the National Academy of Sciences published a comprehensive study in 2009 of all the forensic disciplines and found nearly all lacking scientific validation.

The NAS report included comprehensive suggestions to test the validity of each of the forensic disciplines and to standardize interpretation of unknown samples to reduce the subjectivity of the examiner. The report also recommended making crime labs independent of law enforcement and that they employ “blind testing” as is used in all real science, to reduce the potential of bias affecting the results. The law enforcement community has fought or ignored virtually all of the recommendations.

Take fingerprint analyses, for example. We’ve all been told that every set of fingerprints is unique. Did you know that no actual studies have been done to prove that? The NAS study noted that fingerprint analysis is a subjective field, with no clear standards for how many points of similarity are required to call a match or when the analyst may ignore “points of dissimilarity” between two prints.

Studies show that results are not repeatable from one examiner to another, and that examiners may even disagree with their own past conclusions when they are presented to them again at a later time. Moreover, there are no population statistics on fingerprints, and the fingerprint analyst field resists developing those studies despite the NAS conclusion they could do so.

Similarly, there is no valid science backing up bitemark analysis. And, the FBI has recently admitted that microscopic hair comparison analysis is not scientifically valid.

About a year ago, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his Department of Justice disbanded the National Commission on Forensic Science, an independent panel made up of scholars and forensic science experts that had been advising the agency on how to improve scientific standards in the field. Instead, decisions about what techniques are reliable enough to use in court and how to accurately present those techniques has been brought in-house and are being decided by a smaller, less diverse group of law enforcement and prosecutors.

Last month, the Department of Justice issued a new policy it claims addresses questions about the validity and reliability of forensic analysis in the court room. It includes a specific set of policies for fingerprint analysis, but none for the other questionable fields, including hair, bite mark and ballistics/tool mark comparison. The new policy fails to satisfy many concerns about fingerprint analysis, although it does include some new uniform language to be used in reports and testimony meant to ensure that witnesses accurately describe what each test actually reveals and to what degree of certainty.

That is an improvement over existing practice, where some analysts falsely claim there is “zero rate of error,” or claim they are “100% certain” the prints came from the suspect and are “unique” to that person. The new policy bars such opinion testimony because it falsely implies the opinion is based on a statistically-derived or verified measurement of the world’s population.

However, the policy does nothing to standardize how and when an analyst may conclude the prints match. And it does not improve transparency by requiring the analyst to document the reasons for their findings. The 2009 NAS report noted:

At the very least, sufficient documentation is needed to reconstruct the analysis, if necessary. By documenting the relevant information gathered during the analysis, evaluation, and comparison of latent prints and the basis for the conclusion (identification, exclusion, or inconclusive), the examiner will create a transparent record of the method and thereby provide the courts with additional information on which to assess the reliability of the method for a specific case. Currently, there is no requirement for examiners to document which features within a latent print support their reasoning and conclusions.

Importantly, the DOJ’s new policy does nothing to address how forensic science is validated, performed or presented in state-level cases, where approximately 90% of criminal cases are prosecuted.

No defendant should ever be convicted based on invalid or inaccurate scientific testimony. The public’s faith in justice cannot be secured until the fields of forensic analysts divorce themselves from their long-entrenched, too-cozy relationship with law enforcement and they apply validated, unbiased science to techniques offered in a court of law. This DOJ policy fails to do that.

Archives

“I just want to say thank you for the outstanding work you have done for him and let you know how much we appreciate the time and attention you gave to his case. We are obviously overjoyed by today’s dismissal!” (Child pornography case dismissed after motion to suppress was granted)”

“After having had time to exhale, we thank each one of you and all the others who contributed to the exemplary Supreme Court presentation. We are proud of your efforts on our behalf and, equally important, on behalf of the many present and future defendants statewide.” (Client’s comment after Supreme Court oral argument)

“Thank you. Thank you. I am so pleased to hear that we won. It doesn’t seem that it was even a close call. I appreciate your efforts.” (Oconto County defendant after Buting, Williams & Stilling got his prison sentence overturned in the court of appeals) ”

“Your time and advice was appreciated more than words can express at a time when we really needed someone to guide us.” (Client)

“The outcome was amazing, one unavailable even under identical circumstances in probably 98 percent of federal courtrooms around the country. Separate and apart from the outcome, though, I am supremely impressed by your efforts on your client’s behalf. Your comments in support of the requested sentence were perfect in tone and, having now reviewed the extensive sentencing memorandum you filed, your work in that regard was exemplary as well. Your client was certainly fortunate to have you as his attorney.” (Local federal court attorney present at a sentencing)

“I can’t thank you enough, not only for all of the tireless work that you and your staff put into my case, but for telling me what I needed to hear, at a time when I absolutely had to hear it. I consider myself blessed for everything turning out the way it did, especially since I blindly picked you out of a phone book! You helped me, my family and friends in many more ways than the money ever could.” (Child pornography client)

“I think you will find that in any circles where Kathy’s name is raised, people will always respond positively and identify her as an extremely hardworking, knowledgeable and ethical lawyer who is timely and effective with any endeavor she takes on. These circles would include colleagues, friends, prosecutors, judges, professors and others who have crossed paths with Kathy. They would also include the many lawyers like me who have referred numerous cases to Kathy, invariably with positive feedback from the clients regarding her knowledge of their case, empathy, professionalism and fair-mindedness in addressing their concerns.” (Fellow attorney)

“Thank you for giving [our son] back to us. Wonderful work!” (Family of client accused of armed robbery after charges were dismissed)

“Yes, His perfect time and perfect place, you were a part of this plan. I almost didn’t hire you, but I took a step of faith trusting Him and look what happened? Praise God. Our Lord put you in your vocation for a reason, continue to help those He brings your way. May He bless you in ALL you do!” (Client who was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in a northwestern Wisconsin county. He was released from prison after attorneys got his conviction reversed.)

“I really cannot thank you enough for your past help. You really know your stuff. It is actually funny when I think about my other past attorney’s knowledge and then when I talk with you. It’s like night and day. You’re like a walking book of knowledge with a purpose-driven life. Thanks.” (Brown County client of attorney Buting)

“A year later and I still believe your defense is the single best example of lawyering I have ever seen.” (Television reporter commenting on attorney Buting’s defense of Steven Avery)

“You have a certain brilliance that makes me sure that when you talk, it is good information and I am in good hands. You tell it to me like it is even when the things you say are not always the things that I would like to hear. You keep it REAL!!!” (Brown County client)

“Thank you, thank you, thank you! I feel like this was one of the biggest blessings that happened in my life. I put this along with my children being born healthy and when I survived that horrific shooting. I appreciate everything you have done for me. I couldn’t ask for better lawyers. I want to say thank you to everybody at your firm. I owe you more than the fee you so rightfully deserve. … You gave me back hope. Thank you, man! Out of my 36 years … I have never seen such kindness before. I don’t know what I did to deserve this; I’m very thankful nonetheless. Thank you for giving me hope again. Thank you for your generosity. There are still some really good people around.” (Federal criminal appeal client)

“There is no other attorney I’ve ever even heard of I’d rather have as chief counsel and leader of my defense/appeals than Jerome Buting. You’re the best. Period.” (Dane County client)

“Your advice and counsel were greatly appreciated. We appreciate you taking the time on your Sunday and evenings to help us. We are SO happy about the results! Thanks again.” (Waukesha County client)

“Thank you again … for everything. Five and one-half years of commitment, so many ups and downs and an outcome like that. You did a GREAT job.” (Waukesha County felony drug offense client)