Wednesday, June 7, 2017

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' war on science/forensics: (Part 20): National Association of Public Defenders stands up for the National Commission on Forensic Science as "a watershed entity promoting an open and public discussion on a topic of growing importance -- the accuracy and reliability of the forensic evidence being used to both convict and exonerate."..." Few, if any, state or local defender offices or criminal justice systems can afford or access the scientific and policy expertise available at the federal level to fully address the serious questions being raised about forensic evidence. If the state and local systems were so equipped the questions being raised by the scientific community about the scientific foundation of forensic evidence and about quality assurance in forensic laboratories would have already been resolved given that most criminal cases relying on forensic evidence occur at the state and local level. Instead, scandals involving malfeasance and incompetence in forensic laboratories continue at an alarming level at the local level,[1] with the drug analysis problems in Massachusetts being only the most recent example, and forensic evidence is routinely admitted in state and local courts conveyed in bare bone reports and without serious scientific analysis of the evidence's reliability or limitations. Based on our collective experience we believe that addressing quality assurance in forensic laboratories and addressing the scientific foundation of forensic evidence testimony requires national policy and scientific leadership. That said it is not at all clear that the Department of Justice is best suited, or well suited, to this task."




POST: "National Association of Public Defenders (NAPD)  Offers Public Comment to  Department of Justice (DOJ)  re Forensic Science," published by the association on May 31, 2017.
GIST:  "Forensic evidence is having an ever greater role in criminal cases.  But many, if not most techniques, have not been generated by the scientific community.  Instead, the techniques have been and likely will continue to be developed in the investigative community.  As a result, to ensure the scientific accuracy of the forensic evidence used in criminal cases it is critical that the scientific community be at the table and that the scientific method be brought to bear on assessing forensic methods.   The National Association for Public Defense is an organization of over 15,000 public defense professionals, almost all of whom are currently active in courtrooms around the country.  Our membership includes over 110 organizations large and small, with members from every state in the country.  We are committed to a reasonable criminal justice system that includes hearing the call of our clients for being treated with justice and fairness.  We write to address the recent decision to sunset the National Commission on Forensic Science. Our defender organizations vary in size and structure, but all strive to provide effective assistance of counsel for those facing criminal charges who cannot afford a lawyer. While there is considerable variation in our organizations, we are all confronted with forensic evidence on a daily basis while also handling significant caseloads with limited budgets; thus our keen interest in federal leadership, federal guidance, and federal review of forensic evidence. Few, if any, state or local defender offices or criminal justice systems can afford or access the scientific and policy expertise available at the federal level to fully address the serious questions being raised about forensic evidence.  If the state and local systems were so equipped the questions being raised by the scientific community about the scientific foundation of forensic evidence and about quality assurance in forensic laboratories would have already been resolved given that most criminal cases relying on forensic evidence occur at the state and local level.  Instead, scandals involving malfeasance and incompetence in forensic laboratories continue at an alarming level at the local level,[1] with the drug analysis problems in Massachusetts being only the most recent example, and forensic evidence is routinely admitted in state and local courts conveyed in bare bone reports and without serious scientific analysis of the evidence's reliability or limitations. Based on our collective experience we believe that addressing quality assurance in forensic laboratories and addressing the scientific foundation of forensic evidence testimony requires national policy and scientific leadership.  That said it is not at all clear that the Department of Justice is best suited, or well suited, to this task. For any organization or process to “improve the underlying science and validity of forensic evidence” independent scientists need to be the controlling voice.  The Department of Justice is not a scientific organization.  It has a different mission, different expertise, and a different culture.  Studies on human and organizational behavior teach us that it is very difficult for an institution or an individual with a vested interest in a result or a technique to see or investigate the flaws and the limitations. That is why scientific research and medical research strives to identify and minimize biases. It is why clinical trials blind participants and researchers. It is why the hallmark of science is transparency, data sharing, and peer review.  The Department of Justice is not designed to be transparent often for good reason.  As a result, when looking for entities or processes to “improve the underlying science and validity of forensic evidence” the Department of Justice needs to see itself as a consumer of science and turn to scientific institutions, federal and academic, to assess and improve the forensic disciplines. For this reason we are troubled by the decision to sunset the National Commission on Forensic Science and the apparent proposal to create an office of forensic science within the Department of Justice........."Forensic evidence is having an ever greater role in criminal cases.  But many, if not most techniques, have not been generated by the scientific community.  Instead, the techniques have been and likely will continue to be developed in the investigative community.  As a result, to ensure the scientific accuracy of the forensic evidence used in criminal cases it is critical that the scientific community be at the table and that the scientific method be brought to bear on assessing forensic methods.  Though the Commission at times has been fraught with debate, disagreement, and imperfect compromise, it has been a watershed entity promoting an open and public discussion on a topic of growing importance -- the accuracy and reliability of the forensic evidence being used to both convict and exonerate."
The entire post can be found at:
http://www.publicdefenders.us/blog_home.asp?Display=574