Recommendations to prevent forensic science malpractice

In this section of Operation Accuracy by Crime Lab Report, we present a series of recommendations for dealing with bad science and preventing the adverse effects that it can have on our criminal justice system and the ability of the accused to present an effective and fair defense.

1. All crime laboratories should seek accreditation.

Crime Lab Report recommends all crime laboratories seek accreditation through the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors - Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). 

To help earn the confidence of the criminal justice system, accreditation was developed in 1982 to establish comprehensive scientific and professional standards to which crime laboratories can publicly demonstrate conformance. In 2002, 71% of publicly funded crime laboratories were accredited. The end-result has been revolutionary improvements to crime laboratories and their ability to prevent and respond to quality mishaps.

Any discussion of alleged misconduct or incompetence on the part of a forensic scientist must include an acknowledgement of whether or not his or her laboratory was accredited. Part of being an accredited laboratory means that procedures and standards are in place to identify problems and deal with them in a transparent and responsible fashion. Said another way, instances of substandard work are much less likely to reveal themselves in non-accredited laboratories because accreditation mandates transparency.

2. Exercise judicial and procedural caution during criminal trials.

a) Never assume that expert witnesses are competent, even when they are well-known or familiar to the court. Allow the voir dire process to work out the particulars of an expert's qualifications and disposition.

b) Judges must take notice of a crime laboratory's current accreditation status as well as its status at the time the relevant analysis was conducted. If the laboratory is not accredited, the expert can still be asked about his or her laboratory's conformance to those standards pertaining to quality.

c) Opposing counsel should fairly and aggressively question expert witnesses about their laboratories' conformance to accreditation standards and the systems that are in place to ensure that the scientist's work is subjected to peer review or verification.

d) If there is any legitimate question about the credentials of an expert witness or the methods that were employed, the court should hear testimony from the laboratory director or the person designated as the laboratory's quality or accreditation manager.

e) In major cases with high public significance, or in cases where the evidence is almost exclusively physical, attorneys should explore the overall culture and work-environment of the laboratory. Don't assume that a police lab is biased or that an independent private lab is objective. Ask to see policy language that requires scientists to remain objective and dispassionate in their work, and evaluate the inclination of the expert to be objective and forthright in his or her testimony.

f) Scrutinize the laboratory testing report and case notes both in and outside the presence of the expert - even if it requires assistance from an impartial and fair consultant. Make sure each reported result is adequately supported by the analytical documentation.

3. Trial lawyers must seek the truth.

The vast majority of forensic scientists and their crime laboratories will be able to successfully withstand the above scrutiny to the court's satisfaction - mainly because they are professionals who are good at what they do and ethical in how they do it. Therefore, scientists will likely earn credibility in the eyes of the judge and jury if given a fair chance to do so.

But do all trial lawyers want this to happen? Often times the answer is no. By avoiding probing questions for fear that a scientific expert might actually demonstrate competence and professionalism deprives the court of its opportunity to uncover any incompetence or misconduct that may have contaminated the case.

In questioning expert witnesses, opposing counsel will have to weigh their desire to objectively and sincerely test the witness's qualifications against their desire to avoid, at all costs, the opportunity for the expert to demonstrate competence and credibility.

While crime laboratories have a responsibility to provide accurate, timely, and complete forensic science services, they cannot avoid hiring imperfect human beings. Therefore, our system of justice must never shy-away from thoroughly questioning an expert's qualifications, disposition, and methodology - especially in cases where the life or freedom of the accused is at stake.

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