2015/04/21

Science 2.0 April 19, 2015: Standards needed for post-conviction review of scientific evidence

So what methods and professional standards are applied to the review of scientific evidence long after the original work was completed?
Very few.
This morning's Washington Post article titled FBI overstated forensic hair matches in nearly all trials before 2000 doesn't answer the question. Instead, it simply cites the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as the sources of data indicating that FBI experts "overstated" the significance of hair comparisons on a wide scale.
According to the Post, "Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far."
It is noteworthy that no representatives of the Department of Justice, including the FBI, are quoted in the Post's article.
The FBI previously announced a partnership with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to assist in the review of past forensic hair comparisons.  But it is likely that having a representative of the Innocence Project publicly state that "The FBI’s three-decade use of microscopic hair analysis to incriminate defendants was a complete disaster" was not part of the deal. more