Top-ten problems in America's crime laboratories

Not all forensic science stories are impressive. Like all professions, forensic science has its share of problems that continue to haunt an otherwise healthy and robust profession. But only an honest and realistic approach to addressing these issues will yield success. In this section, we will look at the top-ten most common problems facing crime laboratories, some of the mistakes they make, and why they happen.

1. Inability to secure funding that is on par with demand for services.
At one time, crime laboratories were expected to provide proof during trial. Today, crime labs are expected to provide proof during trial, during the investigation, and during the charging phase. No longer are crime labs simply called upon to link a suspect to a crime, they are now expected to lend scientific credence to every theory and curiosity that prosecutors and investigators are able to formulate. This results in a flood of evidence that can choke crime laboratories nearly to the point of incapacitation. While this increase in demand is the most conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of crime laboratories, funding and budgets have failed to grow proportionately.

2. Operating in facilities that are outdated and failing.
Many taxpayers would be shocked to see the conditions in which many of America's forensic scientists must work. While professionalism and skill are called upon to prevent these conditions from affecting the integrity of the testing results, poor ventilation, outdated equipment, insufficient supplies, and other shortfalls drastically reduce the positive impact that a crime laboratory can have on the justice system. But in the end, it's the squad cars and shiny badges that get the attention of administrators, policy makers, and the media. Rarely is the public made aware of the plight of crime laboratories and the real affect that these labs have on our quality of life.

3. Failing to seek accreditation.
There are few legitimate reasons why any crime laboratory, public or private, would not seek accreditation. It provides a framework from which to construct a powerful and reliable quality management system. In some cases, laboratories may struggle to afford the extra cost. In other cases, laboratory managers may fear the intense scrutiny that comes with accreditation. Regardless, accreditation is critical to the long-term stability of the forensic sciences and our crime labs.

4. Promoting crime lab leaders based on technical knowledge alone.
The promotion of some laboratory managers to leadership positions is based on an over-emphasis on the candidates' academic and technical credentials. While these are certainly important, organizational management skills are a distinct set of attributes that are often unrelated to a manager's technical expertise. The ability to lead effectively, solve problems with vision and fairness, and maintain an awareness and sensitivity to employee concerns are not taught in most college science courses. They are skills that emerge from people having a special set of personal traits that are necessary for leadership.

5. Tolerating an unhealthy organizational culture.
In many instances, major technical failures are preceded by a steady decline in the organizational culture of a crime laboratory. Good employees with low morale can be as much of a quality-assurance risk as downright lousy employees. It takes quality leaders to recognize when organizational culture is collapsing and take the actions necessary to correct it.  Furthermore, criminal justice officials often take little interest in the health and stability of their crime laboratories until it is too late. 

6. Becoming overly involved with the prosecutorial function.
Most forensic scientists have experienced pressure from prosecutors to "tweak" the wording of a testing report, omit unfavorable results, or slant the language of court testimony in a way that bolsters the prosecution's case. Prosecutors are often very effective and passionate advocates for their case. Scientists must have the internal fortitude to maintain their scientific integrity when this kind of pressure is brought to bear on them. There is never an excuse not to; however, younger or less experienced scientists can quickly become intimidated by a well-spoken and passionate prosecutor. Laboratory managers, and the courts, must be aware of this and ensure that it does not compromise the fairness of a trial.

7. Issuing laboratory reports that are incomplete or confusing.
This may be one of the more pervasive problems in forensic science. Forensic scientists generally like to keep the wording of their results consistent from report to report. But over time, the wording used to communicate testing results can become ambiguous as scientists attempt to avoid language that could precipitate an aggressive cross-examination by opposing counsel.

8. Failing to arrange pre-trial conferences.
Pre-trial conferences, particularly in more sensitive or significant cases, are critical to ensuring that the results of a crime laboratory are introduced in court effectively and within the proper context. Too often, trial attorneys become familiar and comfortable with their crime lab's scientists and fail to take the time to sit down with them and discuss the results. This can be a critical step in preventing bad science from contaminating a criminal proceeding. Crime labs should vigorously encourage pre-trial conferences, particularly in major cases.

9. Failing to host major-case meetings with investigators and prosecutors.
While this can be construed as a funding and resource issue, crime labs can generally provide a much better level of service when scientists are able to sit down and speak with investigators to gain a better understanding of the crime scene in a major case. This helps to prioritize the evidence that will be submitted and avoid expending time and resources on analyses that are unlikely to result in probative results.

10. Under-emphasizing the screening of job candidates.
The single-most important action that a crime laboratory director can take is to carefully screen and interview job candidates seeking employment in the crime laboratory. Because employees can have such a powerful impact on organizational culture (good or bad), it is worth the time to make every possible effort to ensure that bad candidates are not allowed to set foot through the front door. Not all laboratory managers make this effort, which is eventually revealed in personnel problems, low employee morale, and yes, instances of misconduct and incompetence that are quick to make newspaper headlines.

CRIME LAB REPORT
The forensic science authority for journalism, criminal justice, and public policy.