Back from the holidays!

I continue to see examples of a growing national trend toward institutional skepticism of the forensic sciences, including ones we’ve all come to rely on. For example, troubling new questions are being raised about common practices surrounding fingerprint analysis and gunshot residue (GSR) analysis. And now a Federal District court in Boston has taken this a step further, severely criticizing experts on both sides of a gunshot case coming out of the recently discredited Boston Police Ballistics unit.

In the matter of UNITED STATES of America, v. Darryl GREEN, et al, No. CRIM.02-10301-NG, District Court Judge Gertner granted a motion excluding ballistic evidence offered by the prosecution, and directed some ire at both sides in connection with the following troubling areas of concern:

1. Lack of standard practices;
2. Lack of certification;
3. Observer effect and examiner bias;
4. Lack of science in the premise “That the Markings on Each Firearm Are Unique”;
5. Lack of competency in the forensic examination; and
6. Error Rates and Proficiency Testing

Note in particular number 4, bringing into question the whole notion of uniqueness to firearm markings. Boggle.

I’ve commented before on the so-called “CSI Effect” and how the public’s infatuation with crime show reality TV is raising awareness in the jury pool regarding forensic sciences. It appears that the effect is extending to the judiciary now as they become increasingly more aware that competent expert testimony requires more than a resume and an impressive witness. There’s, you know, some actual science that needs to happen. (sound of hand slapping forehead)

Thanks to Ronald J. Miller for this update out of Boston.

RP

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 4th, 2006 at 10:53 am and is filed under News, Junk Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.