Science has been a part of courtroom drama for decades. While it has been useful in some regards, it has also led to some wrongful convictions. If you are facing charges that are based largely on scientific analysis, there are some facts that a good defense attorney should know.
Bite Mark Analysis
The President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) has found that forensic conclusions related to bite mark analysis simply do not meet scientific standards for legitimacy. Although the use of this unreliable analysis is fairly common in front of criminal juries, it bears some scrutiny. While attorneys like to dangle so-called expert witnesses in front of juries to stock up their cases, the limits of the technology are rarely presented. In fact, juries deserve to know the rates of error and the potential pitfalls of relying on bite-mark analysis. The questions around this science are so pervasive, in fact, that FBI examiners cannot make claims that such analysis provides reasonable certainty in the decision of outcomes.
For more pseudoscience, look to The Guardian’s report of improper testimony related to forensic analysis of hair. When matching hair samples, it turns out that because certain characteristics of hair are so common, it is unlikely that accurate matches can be found. One expert concludes that this type of microscopic examination is effectively useless when it comes to identifying someone, although it might be useful to exclude a suspect.
Surprisingly, tests still need to be done on the accuracy of the science behind fingerprint identifications. One problem lies in the training standards that examiners have, which vary widely. Believe it or not, the majority of fingerprint examiners have not passed certification tests. Hence, the depth of knowledge any given “expert” has could be called into question. Beyond problems with the examiners themselves, (who train to say that the results of their examination provide absolute certainty), there are serious questions about the science itself. Many courts throughout the country have excluded the use of fingerprint evidence altogether.
Handwriting analysis is problematic in a courtroom for a number of reasons. One of the bigger reasons is the fact that it is largely subjective. Although training is becoming more standard with time, views of the analysis is shaky, at best. Problems with this practice include:
- Scientists still need to determine an error rate in the assessment procedure;
- You cannot rely on comparisons of upper- and lowercase letters;
- An individual’s handwriting may differ greatly based on a number of factors. This includes illness, the type of writing (applications and forms vs. letters, for example) and even state of mind;
- Exemplars with which to compare a writing sample may be difficult to locate.
The Right to a Strong Defense
Every American is entitled to a vigorous defense in a court of law. At the Robert Foley Law Firm, we pride ourselves on our ability to challenge questionable evidence, like science in the courtroom, in our efforts to provide clients with the best defense possible. Contact us in Fort Myers or Punta Gorda for a free, confidential consultation.