Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (August 2009)

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title:

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United

States: A Path Forward

Author:

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the

Forensic Sciences Community, National

Research Council

Document No.:

228091

Date Received:

August 2009

Award Number:

2006-DN-BX-0001

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally-

funded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

We ship printed books within 1 business day; personal PDFs are available immediately.

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United

States: A Path Forward

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic

Sciences Community, National Research Council

ISBN: 0-309-13131-6, 352 pages, 6 x 9, (2009)

This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at:

Visit the National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books

from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,

the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council:

• Download hundreds of free books in PDF

• Read thousands of books online for free

• Explore our innovative research tools - try the “Research Dashboard” now!

• Sign up to be notified when new books are published

• Purchase printed books and selected PDF files

Thank you for downloading this PDF. If you have comments, questions or

just want more information about the books published by the National

Academies Press, you may contact our customer service department toll-

free at 888-624-8373, visit us online, or send an email to

feedback@nap.edu.

This book plus thousands more are available at http://www.nap.edu.

Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File are copyrighted by the National

Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited without

written permission of the National Academies Press. Request reprint permission for this book.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern-

ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the

councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer-

ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for

the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri-

ate balance.

This study was supported by Contract No. 2006-DN-BX-0001 between the Na-

tional Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Justice. Any opinions,

findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies

that provided support for the project.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Strengthening forensic science in the United States : a path forward : summary

/ Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community,

Committee on Science, Technology, and Law Policy and Global Affairs,

Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, Division on Engineering and

Physical Sciences.

p. cm.

Includes index.

ISBN-13: 978-0-309-13135-3 (hardcover)

ISBN-10: 0-309-13135-9 (hardcover)

ISBN-13: 978-0-309-13131-5 (pbk.)

ISBN-10: 0-309-13131-6 (pbk.)

1. Forensic sciences—United States. 2. Criminal investigation—United States.

3. Evidence, Criminal—United States. I. National Research Council (U.S.).

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. II.

National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Science, Technology, and Law

Policy and Global Affairs. III. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on

Applied and Theoretical Statistics.

HV8073.S7347 2009

363.250973—dc22

2009011443

Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press,

500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or

(202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.

edu.

Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society

of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to

the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.

Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad-

emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific

and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy

of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter

of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding en-

gineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members,

sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the

federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer-

ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,

and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is presi-

dent of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of

Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in

the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti-

tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its

congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own

initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V.

Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci-

ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the

Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.

Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the

Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy

of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the

government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Coun-

cil is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr.

Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of

the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

Committee on Identifying the Needs of the

Forensic Science Community

HARRY T. EDWARDS, (Co-chair), Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit

CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, (Co-chair), Director, Center for Statistical

Sciences, Brown University

MARGARET A. BERGER, Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of

Law, Brooklyn Law School

JOE S. CECIL, Project Director, Program on Scientific and Technical

Evidence, Federal Judicial Center

M. BONNER DENTON, Professor of Chemistry, University of Arizona

MARCELLA F. FIERRO, Medical Examiner of Virginia (ret.)

KAREN KAFADAR, Rudy Professor of Statistics and Physics, Indiana

University

PETE M. MARONE, Director, Virginia Department of Forensic Science

GEOFFREY S. MEARNS, Dean, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law,

Cleveland State University

RANDALL S. MURCH, Associate Director, Research Program

Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

CHANNING ROBERTSON, Ruth G. and William K. Bowes Professor,

Dean of Faculty and Academic Affairs, and Professor, Department of

Chemical Engineering, Stanford University

MARVIN E. SCHECHTER, Attorney

ROBERT SHALER, Director, Forensic Science Program, Professor,

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Department, Eberly College of

Science, The Pennsylvania State University

JAY A. SIEGEL, Professor, Forensic and Investigative Sciences Program,

Indiana University-Purdue University

SARGUR N. SRIHARI, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Department of

Computer Science and Engineering and Director, Center of Excellence

for Document Analysis and Recognition (CEDAR), University at

Buffalo, State University of New York

SHELDON M. WIEDERHORN (NAE), Senior NIST Fellow, National

Institute of Standards and Technology

ROSS E. ZUMWALT, Chief Medical Examiner, Office of the Medical

Examiner of the State of New Mexico

Staff

ANNE-MARIE MAZZA, Study Director

SCOTT T. WEIDMAN, Director, Board on Mathematical Sciences and

Their Applications

JOHN SISLIN, Program Officer, Board on Higher Education and

Workforce

DAVID PADGHAM, Program Officer, Computer Science and

Telecommunications Board (until 5/08)

STEVEN KENDALL, Senior Program Associate

KATIE MAGEE, Senior Program Assistant (until 9/07)

KATHI E. HANNA, Consultant Writer

SARA D. MADDOX, Editor

ROBIN ACKERMAN, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology

Policy Fellow

GEMAYEL JEAN-PAUL, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology

Policy Fellow

JOHNALYN D. LYLES, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology

Policy Fellow

SANDRA OTTENSMANN, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology

Policy Fellow

DEIRDRE PARSONS, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy

Fellow

SARAH RYKER, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy

Fellow

SUNBIN SONG, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy

Fellow

Committee on Science, Technology, and Law

DONALD KENNEDY (NAS/IOM), (Co-chair), President Emeritus

and Bing Professor of Environmental Science Emeritus, Stanford

University; Emeritus Editor-in-Chief, Science

RICHARD A. MERRILL (IOM), (Co-chair), Daniel Caplin Professor of

Law Emeritus, University of Virginia Law School

FREDERICK R. ANDERSON, JR., Partner, McKenna, Long, & Aldridge

LLP

MARGARET A. BERGER, Suzanne J. and Norman Miles Professor of

Law, Brooklyn Law School

ARTHUR I. BIENENSTOCK, Special Assistant to the President for

SLAC and Federal Research Policy, Stanford University

BARBARA E. BIERER, Senior Vice President for Research, Brigham and

Women’s Hospital

ELIZABETH H. BLACKBURN (NAS/IOM), Morris Herzstein Professor

of Biology and Physiology, Department of Biochemistry and

Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco

JOE S. CECIL, Project Director, Program on Scientific and Technical

Evidence, Federal Judicial Center

RICHARD F. CELESTE, President, Colorado College

JOEL E. COHEN (NAS), Abby Rockefeller Mauzé Professor and Head,

Laboratory of Populations, The Rockefeller University and Columbia

University

KENNETH W. DAM, Max Pam Professor Emeritus of American and

Foreign Law and Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School

ROCHELLE COOPER DREYFUSS, Pauline Newman Professor of Law

and Director, Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy, New

York University School of Law

ALICE P. GAST (NAE), President, Lehigh University

LAWRENCE O. GOSTIN (IOM), Associate Dean for Research and

Academic Programs, Linda D. and Timothy J. O’Neill Professor

of Global Health Law, Georgetown University; Professor of Public

Health, The Johns Hopkins University

GARY W. HART, Wirth Chair Professor, School of Public Affairs,

University of Colorado, Denver

BENJAMIN W. HEINEMAN, JR., Senior Fellow, Harvard Law School

and Harvard Kennedy School of Government

DAVID BROCK HORNBY, Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Maine

DAVID KORN (IOM), Vice Provost for Research, Harvard University

RICHARD A. MESERVE (NAE), President, Carnegie Institution of

Washington

vii

DUNCAN T. MOORE (NAE), Professor, The Institute of Optics,

University of Rochester

ALAN B. MORRISON, Visiting Professor, Washington College of Law,

American University

HARRIET RABB, Vice President and General Counsel, Rockefeller

University

PAUL D. RHEINGOLD, Senior Partner, Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold,

Shkolnik & McCartney LLP

BARBARA ROTHSTEIN, Director, Federal Judicial Center

JONATHAN M. SAMET (IOM), Founding Director, Institute for

Global Health and Chairman, Department of Preventive Medicine,

University of Southern California

DAVID S. TATEL, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit

Staff

ANNE-MARIE MAZZA, Director

STEVEN KENDALL, Senior Program Associate

viii

Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics

KAREN KAFADAR, (Chair), Rudy Professor of Statistics and Physics,

Indiana University

AMY BRAVERMAN, MISR Co-Investigator, Statistics and Data Analysis,

Earth and Space Sciences Division, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, Director, Center for Statistical Sciences,

Brown University

MICHAEL GOODCHILD (NAS), Professor, Department of Geography,

University of California, Santa Barbara

KATHRYN B. LASKEY, Professor, Department of Systems Engineering

and Operations Research, George Mason University

MICHAEL LESK (NAE), Professor, Library and Information Sciences,

Rutgers University

THOMAS A. LOUIS, Professor, Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg

School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University

MICHAEL A. NEWTON, Professor, Department of Biostatistics and

Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison

MICHAEL L. STEIN, Professor, Department of Statistics, The University

of Chicago

Staff

SCOTT WEIDMAN, Director

NEAL GLASSMAN, Senior Program Officer

BARBARA WRIGHT, Administrative Assistant

Acknowledgments

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PRESENTERS

The committee gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the follow-

ing individuals who made thoughtful presentations before it:

Chris Asplen, Gordon Thomas Honeywell Government Affairs; Peter

D. Barnett, Forensic Science Associates; Richard E. Bisbing, McCrone

Associates, Inc., and Scientific Working Group on Materials Analysis

(SWGMAT); Joseph P. Bono, U.S. Secret Service; Michael R. Bromwich,

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; Bruce Budowle, Federal

Bureau of Investigation; James Burans, U.S. Department of Homeland

Security; Thomas Cantwell, U.S. Department of Defense; Larry Chelko,

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory; John Collins, DuPage

County Sheriff’s Office Crime Laboratory; Charles Cooke, Office of the

Director of National Intelligence; Robin Cotton, Boston University School

of Medicine; Joseph A. DiZinno, Federal Bureau of Investigation; James

Downs, National Association of Medical Examiners and Consortium of

Forensic Science Organizations and Georgia Bureau of Investigation; Itiel

Dror, University of Southampton; Arthur Eisenberg, Forensic Quality Ser-

vices; Barry A. J. Fisher, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; Eric

Friedberg, Stroz Friedberg, LLC; Robert E. Gaensslen, University of Il-

linois at Chicago; Brandon L. Garrett, University of Virginia; Michael D.

Garris, National Institute of Standards and Technology; Ed German, U.S.

Army (ret.); Paul C. Giannelli, Case Western Reserve University School of

Law; Bruce A. Goldberger, American Academy of Forensic Sciences; Hank

xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Greely, Stanford University; Barbara Guttman, National Institute of Stan-

dards and Technology; David W. Hagy, U.S. Department of Justice; Randy

Hanzlick, Fulton County Medical Examiner’s Center and Emory University

School of Medicine; Carol Henderson, National Clearinghouse for Science,

Technology and the Law and Stetson University; Matthew J. Hickman,

U.S. Department of Justice; Peter T. Higgins, The Higgins-Hermansen

Group; Max M. Houck, West Virginia University; Vici Inlow, U.S. Secret

Service; Jan L. Johnson, Illinois State Police; Jay Kadane, Carnegie Mellon

University; David Kaye, Arizona State University; Peter D. Komarinski,

Komarinski & Associates, LLC; Roger G. Koppl, Farleigh Dickinson Uni-

versity; Glenn Langenburg, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension;

Deborah Leben, U.S. Secret Service; John Lentini, Scientific Fire Analysis,

LLC; Alan I. Leshner, American Association for the Advancement of Sci-

ence; William MacCrehan, National Institute of Standards and Technology;

Bill Marbaker, American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors; Kenneth

F. Martin, Massachusetts State Police; Carole McCartney, University of

Leeds; Stephen B. Meagher, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Scien-

tific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology

(SWGFAST); Jennifer Mnooken, University of California, Los Angeles

Law School; John E. Moalli, Exponent; John Morgan, U.S. Department of

Justice; Michael Murphy, Las Vegas Office of the Coroner; Peter Neufeld,

The Innocence Project; John Onstwedder III, Illinois State Police; Garry

F. Peterson, Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office and National

Association of Medical Examiners; Joseph L. Peterson, California State

University, Los Angeles; Peter Pizzola, New York Police Department Crime

Laboratory; Joe Polski, Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations and

International Association for Identification; Larry Quarino, Cedar Crest

College; Irma Rios, City of Houston Crime Lab; Michael Risinger, Seton

Hall Law School; Michael J. Saks, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law,

Arizona State University; Nelson A. Santos, Scientific Working Group for

the Analysis of Seized Drugs (SWGDRUG); David R. Senn, The University

of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; Robert Stacey, American

Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, Laboratory Accreditation Board;

David Stoney, Stoney Forensic, Inc.; Peter Striupaitis, International Asso-

ciation for Identification and Scientific Working Group for Firearms and

Toolmarks (SWGGUN); Rick Tontarski, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation

Laboratory; Richard W. Vorder Bruegge, Federal Bureau of Investigation;

Victor W. Weedn; and Tom Witt, West Virginia University.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for

their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xiii

cedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee.

The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical

comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as

sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards

for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review

comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity

of the process.

We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this

report: R. Stephen Berry, University of Chicago; Christophe Champod,

Universite de Lausanne, Switzerland; William Chisum, Retired, National

Crime Investigation and Training; Joel Cohen, Rockefeller University; Peter

DeForest, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Stephen Fienberg, Carnegie

Mellon University; Barry Fisher, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Depart-

ment; Mark Flomenbaum, Boston University; Ross Gardner, Gardner Fo-

rensic Consulting; Paul Giannelli, Case Western Reserve University; Randy

Hanzlick, Emory University; Keith Inman, Forensic Analytical Sciences,

Inc.; Dan Kahan, Yale Law School; Roger Kahn, Harris County Medical

Examiner’s Office; Elizabeth Loftus, University of California, Irvine; C.

Owen Lovejoy, Kent State University; Kenneth Melson, George Washington

University; Michael Murphy, Office of the Coroner/Medical Examiner, Las

Vegas, Nevada; Hyla Napadensky, Retired, Napadensky Energetics, Inc.;

Joseph Peterson, California State University, Los Angeles; William Press,

University of Texas, Austin; Jed Rakoff, U.S. District Court Southern Dis-

trict of New York; Carl Selavka, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Labora-

tory; David Stoney, Stoney Forensic, Inc.; and Charles Wellford, University

of Maryland.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive

comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions

or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its

release. The review of this report was overseen by John Bailar, University

of Chicago, and Royce Murray, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Appointed by the National Academies, they were responsible for making

certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in

accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments

were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report

rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

xvi

CONTENTS

The Admission of Forensic Science Evidence in

Litigation Law and Science

Law and Science, 86

The Frye Standard and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence, 88

The Daubert Decision and the Supreme Court’s Construction of

Rule 702, 90

The 2000 Amendment of Rule 702, 92

An Overview of Judicial Dispositions of Daubert-Type

Questions, 95

Some Examples of Judicial Dispositions of Questions Relating to

Forensic Science Evidence, 99

Conclusion, 110

The Principles of Science and Interpreting Scientific Data

111

Fundamental Principles of the Scientific Method, 112

Conclusion, 125

Descriptions of Some Forensic Science Disciplines

127

Biological Evidence, 128

Analysis of Controlled Substances, 134

Friction Ridge Analysis, 136

Other Pattern/Impression Evidence: Shoeprints and Tire Tracks, 145

Toolmark and Firearms Identification, 150

Analysis of Hair Evidence, 156

Analysis of Fiber Evidence, 162

Questioned Document Examination, 164

Analysis of Paint and Coatings Evidence, 167

Analysis of Explosives Evidence and Fire Debris, 171

Forensic Odontology, 174

Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, 177

An Emerging Forensic Science Discipline: Digital and

Multimedia Analysis, 179

Conclusions, 183

Improving Methods, Practice, and Performance in

Forensic Science

183

Independence of Forensic Science Laboratories, 183

Uncertainties and Bias, 184

Reporting Results, 185

The Need for Research, 187

Conclusions and Recommendations, 188

CONTENTS

xvii

Strengthening Oversight of Forensic Science Practice

193

Accreditation, 195

Standards and Guidelines for Quality Control, 201

Proficiency Testing, 206

Certification, 208

Oversight as a Requirement of Paul Coverdell Forensic Science

Improvement Grants, 211

Codes of Ethics, 212

Conclusions and Recommendations, 213

Education and Training in Forensic Science

217

Status of Forensic Science Education, 218

Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Forensic

Science Education, 224

Research as a Component of Forensic Science Education

Programs, 230

Status of Training, 231

Education in the Legal System, 234

Conclusions and Recommendation, 237

Medical Examiner and Coroner Systems: Current and

Future Needs

241

Medical Examiners and Coroners (ME/C), 243

ME/C Jurisdiction, 244

ME/C Missions, 244

Variations in ME/C Systems, 245

Qualifications of Coroners and Medical Examiners, 247

ME/C Administration and Oversight, 249

ME/C Staffing and Funding, 249

The Movement to Convert Coroner Systems to Medical Examiner

Systems, 251

Utilization of Best Practices, 252

Potential Scientific Advances That May Assist ME/Cs, 253

The Shortage of Medical Examiners and Forensic Pathologists, 256

Standards and Accreditation for Death Investigation Systems, 258

Quality Control and Quality Assurance, 259

Continuing Medical Education, 259

Homeland Security, 260

Forensic Pathology Research, 261

Common Methods of Sample and Data Collection, 263

Conclusions and Recommendation, 265

Preface

Recognizing that significant improvements are needed in forensic sci-

ence, Congress directed the National Academy of Sciences to undertake

the study that led to this report. There are scores of talented and dedicated

people in the forensic science community, and the work that they perform

is vitally important. They are often strapped in their work, however, for

lack of adequate resources, sound policies, and national support. It is clear

that change and advancements, both systemic and scientific, are needed in

a number of forensic science disciplines—to ensure the reliability of the

disciplines, establish enforceable standards, and promote best practices and

their consistent application.

In adopting this report, the aim of our committee is to chart an agenda

for progress in the forensic science community and its scientific disciplines.

Because the work of forensic science practitioners is so obviously wide-

reaching and important—affecting criminal investigation and prosecution,

civil litigation, legal reform, the investigation of insurance claims, national

disaster planning and preparedness, homeland security, and the advance-

ment of technology—the committee worked with a sense of great commit-

ment and spent countless hours deliberating over the recommendations that

are included in the report. These recommendations, which are inexorably

interconnected, reflect the committee’s strong views on policy initiatives that

must be adopted in any plan to improve the forensic science disciplines and

to allow the forensic science community to serve society more effectively.

The task Congress assigned our committee was daunting and required

serious thought and the consideration of an extremely complex and decen-

tralized system, with various players, jurisdictions, demands, and limita-

tions. Throughout our lengthy deliberations, the committee heard testimony

xix

PREFACE

from the stakeholder community, ensuring that the voices of forensic prac-

titioners were heard and their concerns addressed. We also heard from

professionals who manage forensic laboratories and medical examiner/

coroner offices; teachers who are devoted to training the next generation

of forensic scientists; scholars who have conducted important research in a

number of forensic science fields; and members of the legal profession and

law enforcement agencies who understand how forensic science evidence is

collected, analyzed, and used in connection with criminal investigations and

prosecutions. We are deeply grateful to all of the presenters who spoke to

the committee and/or submitted papers for our consideration. These experts

and their work served the committee well.

In considering the testimony and evidence that was presented to the

committee, what surprised us the most was the consistency of the message

that we heard:

The forensic science system, encompassing both research and practice, has

serious problems that can only be addressed by a national commitment to

overhaul the current structure that supports the forensic science commu-

nity in this country. This can only be done with effective leadership at the

highest levels of both federal and state governments, pursuant to national

standards, and with a significant infusion of federal funds.

The recommendations in this report represent the committee’s studied opin-

ion on how best to achieve this critical goal.

We had the good fortune to serve as co-chairs of the committee en-

trusted with addressing Congress’ charge. The committee, formed under

the auspices of the National Academies’ Committee on Science, Technol-

ogy, and Law and Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was

composed of many talented professionals, some expert in various areas of

forensic science, others in law, and still others in different fields of science

and engineering. They listened, read, questioned, vigorously discussed the

findings and recommendations offered in this report, and then worked

hard to complete the research and writing required to produce the report.

We are indebted to our colleagues for all the time and energy they gave

to this effort. We are also most grateful to the staff, Anne-Marie Mazza,

Scott Weidman, Steven Kendall, and the consultant writer, Kathi Hanna, for

their superb work and dedication to this project; to staff members David

Padgham and John Sislin, and editor, Sara Maddox, for their assistance;

and to Paige Herwig, Laurie Richardson, and Judith A. Hunt for their ster-

ling contributions in checking source materials and assisting with the final

production of the report.

Harry T. Edwards and Constantine Gatsonis

Committee Co-chairs

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On November 22, 2005, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 became law.¹ Under the terms

of the statute, Congress authorized “the National Academy of Sciences to

conduct a study on forensic science, as described in the Senate report.”² The

Senate Report to which the Conference Report refers states:

While a great deal of analysis exists of the requirements in the discipline

of DNA, there exists little to no analysis of the remaining needs of the

community outside of the area of DNA. Therefore . . . the Committee

directs the Attorney General to provide [funds] to the National Academy

of Sciences to create an independent Forensic Science Committee. This

Committee shall include members of the forensics community represent-

ing operational crime laboratories, medical examiners, and coroners; legal

experts; and other scientists as determined appropriate.³

The Senate Report also sets forth the charge to the Forensic Science

Committee, instructing it to:

(1) assess the present and future resource needs of the forensic science

community, to include State and local crime labs, medical examin-

ers, and coroners;

¹ P.L. No. 109-108, 119 Stat. 2290 (2005).

² H.R. Rep. No. 109-272, at 121 (2005) (Conf. Rep.).

³ S. Rep. No. 109-88, at 46 (2005).

STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

(2)

make recommendations for maximizing the use of forensic tech-

nologies and techniques to solve crimes, investigate deaths, and

protect the public;

(3)

identify potential scientific advances that may assist law enforce-

ment in using forensic technologies and techniques to protect the

public;

(4)

make recommendations for programs that will increase the number

of qualified forensic scientists and medical examiners available to

work in public crime laboratories;

(5)

disseminate best practices and guidelines concerning the collection

and analysis of forensic evidence to help ensure quality and con-

sistency in the use of forensic technologies and techniques to solve

crimes, investigate deaths, and protect the public;

(6)

examine the role of the forensic community in the homeland secu-

rity mission;

(7)

[examine] interoperability of Automated Fingerprint Information

Systems [AFIS]; and

(8)

examine additional issues pertaining to forensic science as deter-

mined by the Committee.⁴

In the fall of 2006, a committee was established by the National Acad-

emy of Sciences to implement this congressional charge. As recommended

in the Senate Report, the persons selected to serve included members of the

forensic science community, members of the legal community, and a diverse

group of scientists. Operating under the project title “Identifying the Needs

of the Forensic Science Community,” the committee met on eight occasions:

January 25-26, April 23-24, June 5-6, September 20-21, and December 6-7,

2007, and March 24-25, June 23-24, and November 14-15, 2008. During

these meetings, the committee heard expert testimony and deliberated over

the information it heard and received. Between meetings, committee mem-

bers reviewed numerous published materials, studies, and reports related

to the forensic science disciplines, engaged in independent research on the

subject, and worked on drafts of the final report.

Experts who provided testimony included federal agency officials; aca-

demics and research scholars; private consultants; federal, state, and local

law enforcement officials; scientists; medical examiners; a coroner; crime

laboratory officials from the public and private sectors; independent inves-

tigators; defense attorneys; forensic science practitioners; and leadership of

professional and standard setting organizations (see the Acknowledgments

and Appendix B for a complete listing of presenters).

⁴ Ibid.

SUMMARY

The issues covered during the committee’s hearings and deliberations

included:

(a) the fundamentals of the scientific method as applied to forensic

practice—hypothesis generation and testing, falsifiability and rep-

lication, and peer review of scientific publications;

(b) the assessment of forensic methods and technologies—the col-

lection and analysis of forensic data; accuracy and error rates of

forensic analyses; sources of potential bias and human error in in-

terpretation by forensic experts; and proficiency testing of forensic

experts;

ment in forensic science;

(d) current training and education in forensic science;

(e) the structure and operation of forensic science laboratories;

(f) the structure and operation of the coroner and medical examiner

systems;

(g)

budget, future needs, and priorities of the forensic science com-

munity and the coroner and medical examiner systems;

(h)

the accreditation, certification, and licensing of forensic science

operations, medical death investigation systems, and scientists;

(i)

Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) and their practices;

(j)

forensic science practices—

pattern/experience evidence

o fingerprints (including the interoperability of AFIS)

o firearms examination

o toolmarks

o bite marks

o impressions (tires, footwear)

o bloodstain pattern analysis

o handwriting

o hair

analytical evidence

o DNA

o coatings (e.g., paint)

o chemicals (including drugs)

o materials (including fibers)

o fluids

o serology

o fire and explosive analysis

digital evidence;

(k)

the effectiveness of coroner systems as compared with medical

examiner systems;

STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

(l ) the use of forensic evidence in criminal and civil litigation—

o the collection and flow of evidence from crime scenes to

courtrooms

o the manner in which forensic practitioners testify in court

o cases involving the misinterpretation of forensic evidence

o the adversarial system in criminal and civil litigation

o lawyers’ use and misuse of forensic evidence

o judges’ handling of forensic evidence;

(m) forensic practice and projects at various federal agencies, including

NIST, the FBI, DHS, U.S. Secret Service, NIJ, DEA, and DOD;

(n) forensic practice in state and local agencies;

(o) nontraditional forensic service providers; and

(p) the forensic science community in the United Kingdom.

The testimonial and documentary evidence considered by the commit-

tee was detailed, complex, and sometimes controversial. Given this reality,

the committee could not possibly answer every question that it confronted,

nor could it devise specific solutions for every problem that it identified.

Rather, it reached a consensus on the most important issues now facing the

forensic science community and medical examiner system and agreed on 13

specific recommendations to address these issues.

Challenges Facing the Forensic Science Community

For decades, the forensic science disciplines have produced valuable

evidence that has contributed to the successful prosecution and conviction

of criminals as well as to the exoneration of innocent people. Over the last

two decades, advances in some forensic science disciplines, especially the

use of DNA technology, have demonstrated that some areas of forensic

science have great additional potential to help law enforcement identify

criminals. Many crimes that may have gone unsolved are now being solved

because forensic science is helping to identify the perpetrators.

Those advances, however, also have revealed that, in some cases, sub-

stantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses

may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people. This fact

has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence

and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Moreover, im-

precise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the

admission of erroneous or misleading evidence.

Further advances in the forensic science disciplines will serve three im-

portant purposes. First, further improvements will assist law enforcement

officials in the course of their investigations to identify perpetrators with

higher reliability. Second, further improvements in forensic science practices

SUMMARY

should reduce the occurrence of wrongful convictions, which reduces the

risk that true offenders continue to commit crimes while innocent persons

inappropriately serve time. Third, any improvements in the forensic science

disciplines will undoubtedly enhance the Nation’s ability to address the

needs of homeland security.

Numerous professionals in the forensic science community and the

medical examiner system have worked for years to achieve excellence in

their fields, aiming to follow high ethical norms, develop sound profes-

sional standards, ensure accurate results in their practices, and improve

the processes by which accuracy is determined. Although the work of these

dedicated professionals has resulted in significant progress in the forensic

science disciplines in recent decades, major challenges still face the forensic

science community. It is therefore unsurprising that Congress instructed

this committee to, among other things, “assess the present and future re-

source needs of the forensic science community,” “make recommendations

for maximizing the use of forensic technologies and techniques,” “make

recommendations for programs that will increase the number of qualified

forensic scientists and medical examiners,” and “disseminate best practices

and guidelines concerning the collection and analysis of forensic evidence to

help ensure quality and consistency in the use of forensic technologies and

techniques.” These are among the pressing issues facing the forensic science

community. The best professionals in the forensic science disciplines invari-

ably are hindered in their work because these and other problems persist.

The length of the congressional charge and the complexity of the mate-

rial under review made the committee’s assignment challenging. In under-

taking it, the committee first had to gain an understanding of the various

disciplines within the forensic science community, as well as the communi-

ty’s history, its strengths and weaknesses, and the roles of the people and

agencies that constitute the community and make use of its services. In so

doing, the committee was able to better comprehend some of the major

problems facing the forensic science community and the medical examiner

system. A brief review of some of these problems is illuminating.⁵

Disparities in the Forensic Science Community

There are great disparities among existing forensic science operations in

federal, state, and local law enforcement jurisdictions and agencies. This is

true with respect to funding, access to analytical instrumentation, the avail-

ability of skilled and well-trained personnel, certification, accreditation, and

⁵ In this report, the “forensic science community,” broadly speaking, is meant to include

forensic pathology and medicolegal death investigation, which is sometimes referred to as “the

medical examiner system” or “the medicolegal death investigation system.”

STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

oversight. As a result, it is not easy to generalize about current practices

within the forensic science community. It is clear, however, that any ap-

proach to overhauling the existing system needs to address and help mini-

mize the community’s current fragmentation and inconsistent practices.

Although the vast majority of criminal law enforcement is handled by

state and local jurisdictions, these entities often are sorely lacking in the

resources (money, staff, training, and equipment) necessary to promote and

maintain strong forensic science laboratory systems. By comparison, federal

programs are often much better funded and staffed. It is also noteworthy

that the resources, the extent of services, and the amount of expertise that

medical examiners and forensic pathologists can provide vary widely in dif-

ferent jurisdictions. As a result, the depth, reliability, and overall quality of

substantive information arising from the forensic examination of evidence

available to the legal system vary substantially across the country.

Lack of Mandatory Standardization, Certification, and Accreditation

The fragmentation problem is compounded because operational prin-

ciples and procedures for many forensic science disciplines are not stan-

dardized or embraced, either between or within jurisdictions. There is no

uniformity in the certification of forensic practitioners, or in the accredita-

tion of crime laboratories. Indeed, most jurisdictions do not require forensic

practitioners to be certified, and most forensic science disciplines have no

mandatory certification programs. Moreover, accreditation of crime labo-

ratories is not required in most jurisdictions. Often there are no standard

protocols governing forensic practice in a given discipline. And, even when

protocols are in place (e.g., SWG standards), they often are vague and not

enforced in any meaningful way. In short, the quality of forensic practice in

most disciplines varies greatly because of the absence of adequate training

and continuing education, rigorous mandatory certification and accredita-

tion programs, adherence to robust performance standards, and effective

oversight.⁶ These shortcomings obviously pose a continuing and serious

threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice.

The Broad Range of Forensic Science Disciplines

The term “forensic science” encompasses a broad range of forensic dis-

ciplines, each with its own set of technologies and practices. In other words,

there is wide variability across forensic science disciplines with regard to

⁶ See, e.g., P.C. Giannelli. 2007. Wrongful convictions and forensic science: The need to

regulate crime labs. 86 N.C. L. Rev. 163 (2007); B. Schmitt and J. Swickard. 2008. “Detroit

Police Lab Shut Down After Probe Finds Errors.” Detroit Free Press. September 25.

SUMMARY

techniques, methodologies, reliability, types and numbers of potential er-

rors, research, general acceptability, and published material. Some of the

forensic science disciplines are laboratory based (e.g., nuclear and mito-

chondrial DNA analysis, toxicology and drug analysis); others are based

on expert interpretation of observed patterns (e.g., fingerprints, writing

samples, toolmarks, bite marks, and specimens such as hair). The “forensic

science community,” in turn, consists of a host of practitioners, including

scientists (some with advanced degrees) in the fields of chemistry, biochem-

istry, biology, and medicine; laboratory technicians; crime scene investiga-

tors; and law enforcement officers. There are very important differences,

however, between forensic laboratory work and crime scene investigations.

There are also sharp distinctions between forensic practitioners who have

been trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and medicine (and who

bring these disciplines to bear in their work) and technicians who lend sup-

port to forensic science enterprises. Many of these differences are discussed

in the body of this report.

The committee decided early in its work that it would not be feasible

to develop a detailed evaluation of each discipline in terms of its scientific

underpinning, level of development, and ability to provide evidence to ad-

dress the major types of questions raised in criminal prosecutions and civil

litigation. However, the committee solicited testimony on a broad range

of forensic science disciplines and sought to identify issues relevant across

definable classes of disciplines. As a result of listening to this testimony

and reviewing related written materials, the committee found substantial

evidence indicating that the level of scientific development and evaluation

varies substantially among the forensic science disciplines.

Problems Relating to the Interpretation of Forensic Evidence

Often in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation, forensic evidence

is offered to support conclusions about “individualization” (sometimes

referred to as “matching” a specimen to a particular individual or other

source) or about classification of the source of the specimen into one of

several categories. With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however,

no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to

consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection

between evidence and a specific individual or source. In terms of scientific

basis, the analytically based disciplines generally hold a notable edge over

disciplines based on expert interpretation. But there are important varia-

tions among the disciplines relying on expert interpretation. For example,

there are more established protocols and available research for fingerprint

analysis than for the analysis of bite marks. There also are significant varia-

tions within each discipline. For example, not all fingerprint evidence is

STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

equally good, because the true value of the evidence is determined by the

quality of the latent fingerprint image. These disparities between and within

the forensic science disciplines highlight a major problem in the forensic sci-

ence community: The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evi-

dence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity. This

is a serious problem. Although research has been done in some disciplines,

there is a notable dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing

the scientific bases and validity of many forensic methods.⁷

The Need for Research to Establish Limits and Measures of Performance

In evaluating the accuracy of a forensic analysis, it is crucial to clarify

the type of question the analysis is called on to address. Thus, although

some techniques may be too imprecise to permit accurate identification of

a specific individual, they may still provide useful and accurate information

about questions of classification. For example, microscopic hair analysis

may provide reliable evidence on some characteristics of the individual from

which the specimen was taken, but it may not be able to reliably match the

specimen with a specific individual. However, the definition of the appro-

priate question is only a first step in the evaluation of the performance of a

forensic technique. A body of research is required to establish the limits and

measures of performance and to address the impact of sources of variability

and potential bias. Such research is sorely needed, but it seems to be lack-

ing in most of the forensic disciplines that rely on subjective assessments

of matching characteristics. These disciplines need to develop rigorous

protocols to guide these subjective interpretations and pursue equally rigor-

ous research and evaluation programs. The development of such research

programs can benefit significantly from other areas, notably from the large

body of research on the evaluation of observer performance in diagnostic

medicine and from the findings of cognitive psychology on the potential for

bias and error in human observers.⁸

⁷ Several articles, for example, have noted the lack of scientific validation of fingerprint iden-

tification methods. See, e.g., J.J. Koehler. Fingerprint error rates and proficiency tests: What

they are and why they matter. 59 Hastings L.J. 1077 (2008); L. Haber and R.N. Haber.

2008. Scientific validation of fingerprint evidence under Daubert. Law, Probability and Risk

7(2):87; J.L. Mnookin. 2008. The validity of latent fingerprint identification: Confessions of

a fingerprinting moderate. Law, Probability and Risk 7(2):127.

⁸ The findings of forensic science experts are vulnerable to cognitive and contextual bias. See,

e.g., I.E. Dror, D. Charlton, and A.E. Péron. 2006. Contextual information renders experts

vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International 156:74, 77.

(“Our study shows that it is possible to alter identification decisions on the same fingerprint,

solely by presenting it in a different context.”); I.E. Dror and D. Charlton. 2006. Why experts

make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 56(4):600; Giannelli, supra note 6, pp. 220-

222. Unfortunately, at least to date, there is no good evidence to indicate that the forensic

SUMMARY

The Admission of Forensic Science Evidence in Litigation

Forensic science experts and evidence are used routinely in the service

of the criminal justice system. DNA testing may be used to determine

whether sperm found on a rape victim came from an accused party; a latent

fingerprint found on a gun may be used to determine whether a defendant

handled the weapon; drug analysis may be used to determine whether pills

found in a person’s possession were illicit; and an autopsy may be used

to determine the cause and manner of death of a murder victim. In order

for qualified forensic science experts to testify competently about forensic

evidence, they must first find the evidence in a usable state and properly

preserve it. A latent fingerprint that is badly smudged when found cannot

be usefully saved, analyzed, or explained. An inadequate drug sample may

be insufficient to allow for proper analysis. And, DNA tests performed on a

contaminated or otherwise compromised sample cannot be used reliably to

identify or eliminate an individual as the perpetrator of a crime. These are

important matters involving the proper processing of forensic evidence. The

law’s greatest dilemma in its heavy reliance on forensic evidence, however,

concerns the question of whether—and to what extent—there is science in

any given forensic science discipline.

Two very important questions should underlie the law’s admission

of and reliance upon forensic evidence in criminal trials: (1) the extent

to which a particular forensic discipline is founded on a reliable scientific

methodology that gives it the capacity to accurately analyze evidence and

report findings and (2) the extent to which practitioners in a particular

forensic discipline rely on human interpretation that could be tainted by

error, the threat of bias, or the absence of sound operational procedures

and robust performance standards. These questions are significant. Thus, it

matters a great deal whether an expert is qualified to testify about forensic

evidence and whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to merit a fact

finder’s reliance on the truth that it purports to support. Unfortunately,

these important questions do not always produce satisfactory answers in

judicial decisions pertaining to the admissibility of forensic science evidence

proffered in criminal trials.

In 1993, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,⁹ the Su-

preme Court ruled that, under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

(which covers both civil trials and criminal prosecutions in the federal

courts), a “trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or

evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.”¹⁰ The Court indicated

science community has made a sufficient effort to address the bias issue; thus, it is impossible

for the committee to fully assess the magnitude of the problem.

⁹ 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

¹⁰Ibid., p. 589.

STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

that the subject of an expert’s testimony should be scientific knowledge, so

that “evidentiary reliability will be based upon scientific validity.”¹¹ The

Court also emphasized that, in considering the admissibility of evidence, a

trial judge should focus “solely” on the expert’s “principles and methodol-

ogy,” and “not on the conclusions that they generate.”¹²In sum, Daubert’s

requirement that an expert’s testimony pertain to “scientific knowledge”

established a standard of “evidentiary reliability.”¹³

In explaining this evidentiary standard, the Daubert Court pointed

to several factors that might be considered by a trial judge: (1) whether a

theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether the theory

or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the

known or potential rate of error of a particular scientific technique; (4) the

existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s opera-

tion; and (5) a scientific technique’s degree of acceptance within a relevant

scientific community.¹⁴ In the end, however, the Court emphasized that the

inquiry under Rule 702 is “a flexible one.”¹⁵ The Court expressed confi-

dence in the adversarial system, noting that “[v]igorous cross-examination,

presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden

of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but

admissible evidence.”¹⁶ The Supreme Court has made it clear that trial

judges have great discretion in deciding on the admissibility of evidence

under Rule 702, and that appeals from Daubert rulings are subject to a

very narrow abuse-of-discretion standard of review.¹⁷ Most importantly,

in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, the Court stated that “whether

Daubert’s specific factors are, or are not, reasonable measures of reliability

in a particular case is a matter that the law grants the trial judge broad

latitude to determine.”¹⁸

¹¹ Ibid., pp. 590 and 591 n.9 (emphasis omitted).

¹² Ibid., p. 595. In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997), the Court

added: “[C]onclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another. Trained

experts commonly extrapolate from existing data. But nothing in Daubert or the Federal Rules

of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing

data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.”

13 Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 590 n.9, 595.

¹⁴Ibid., pp. 593-94.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 594. In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Court

confirmed that the Daubert factors do not constitute a definitive checklist or test. Kumho Tire

importantly held that Rule 702 applies to both scientific and nonscientific expert testimony;

the Court also indicated that the Daubert factors might be applicable in a trial judge’s as-

sessment of the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony, depending upon “the particular

circumstances of the particular case at issue.” Ibid., at 150.

¹⁶ Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.

¹⁷ See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142-143 (1997).

¹⁸ Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 153.

SUMMARY

Daubert and its progeny have engendered confusion and controversy.

In particular, judicial dispositions of Daubert-type questions in criminal

cases have been criticized by some lawyers and scholars who thought that

the Supreme Court’s decision would be applied more rigorously.¹⁹ If one

focuses solely on reported federal appellate decisions, the picture is not

appealing to those who have preferred a more rigorous application of

Daubert. Federal appellate courts have not with any consistency or clarity

imposed standards ensuring the application of scientifically valid reasoning

and reliable methodology in criminal cases involving Daubert questions.

This is not really surprising, however. The Supreme Court itself described

the Daubert standard as “flexible.” This means that, beyond questions of

relevance, Daubert offers appellate courts no clear substantive standard by

which to review decisions by trial courts. As a result, trial judges exercise

great discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude expert testimony,

and their judgments are subject only to a highly deferential “abuse of dis-

cretion” standard of review. Although it is difficult to get a clear picture

of how trial courts handle Daubert challenges, because many evidentiary

rulings are issued without a published opinion and without an appeal, the

vast majority of the reported opinions in criminal cases indicate that trial

judges rarely exclude or restrict expert testimony offered by prosecutors;

most reported opinions also indicate that appellate courts routinely deny

appeals contesting trial court decisions admitting forensic evidence against

criminal defendants.²⁰But the reported opinions do not offer in any way a

complete sample of federal trial court dispositions of Daubert-type ques-

tions in criminal cases.

The situation appears to be very different in civil cases. Plaintiffs and

defendants, equally, are more likely to have access to expert witnesses in

civil cases, while prosecutors usually have an advantage over most defen-

dants in offering expert testimony in criminal cases. And, ironically, the

appellate courts appear to be more willing to second-guess trial court judg-

ments on the admissibility of purported scientific evidence in civil cases than

in criminal cases.²¹

¹⁹ See, e.g., P.J. Neufeld. 2005. The (near) irrelevance of Daubert to criminal justice: And

some suggestions for reform. American Journal of Public Health 95(Supp.1):S107.

²⁰Ibid., p. S109.

²¹ See, e.g., McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005); Chapman

v. Maytag Corp., 297 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2002); Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R.

Co., 215 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir. 2000); Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000);

Walker v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 208 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2000); 1 D.L. Faigman, M.J. Saks, J.

Sanders, and E.K. Cheng. 2007-2008. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of

Expert Testimony. Eagan, MN: Thomson/West, § 1.35, p. 105 (discussing studies suggesting

that courts “employ Daubert more lackadaisically in criminal trials—especially in regard to

prosecution evidence—than in civil cases—especially in regard to plaintiff evidence”).

STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

Prophetically, the Daubert decision observed that “there are important

differences between the quest for truth in the courtroom and the quest for

truth in the laboratory. Scientific conclusions are subject to perpetual revi-

sion. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputes finally and quickly.”²²

But because accused parties in criminal cases are convicted on the basis of

testimony from forensic science experts, much depends upon whether the

evidence offered is reliable. Furthermore, in addition to protecting innocent

persons from being convicted of crimes that they did not commit, we are

also seeking to protect society from persons who have committed criminal

acts. Law enforcement officials and the members of society they serve need

to be assured that forensic techniques are reliable. Therefore, we must limit

the risk of having the reliability of certain forensic science methodologies

judicially certified before the techniques have been properly studied and

their accuracy verified by the forensic science community. “[T]here is no

evident reason why [‘rigorous, systematic’] research would be infeasible.”²³

However, some courts appear to be loath to insist on such research as a

condition of admitting forensic science evidence in criminal cases, perhaps

because to do so would likely “demand more by way of validation than the

disciplines can presently offer.”²⁴

The adversarial process relating to the admission and exclusion of

scientific evidence is not suited to the task of finding “scientific truth.” The

judicial system is encumbered by, among other things, judges and lawyers

who generally lack the scientific expertise necessary to comprehend and

evaluate forensic evidence in an informed manner, trial judges (sitting alone)

who must decide evidentiary issues without the benefit of judicial col-

leagues and often with little time for extensive research and reflection, and

the highly deferential nature of the appellate review afforded trial courts’

Daubert rulings. Given these realities, there is a tremendous need for the

forensic science community to improve. Judicial review, by itself, will not

cure the infirmities of the forensic science community.²⁵ The development

Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596-97.

²³ J. Griffin and D.J. LaMagna. 2002. Daubert challenges to forensic evidence: Ballistics

next on the firing line. The Champion, September-October:20, 21 (quoting P. Giannelli and E.

Imwinkelried. 2000. Scientific evidence: The fallout from Supreme Court’s decision in Kumho

Tire. Criminal Justice Magazine 14(4):12, 40).

²⁴ Ibid. See, e.g., United States v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261, 270 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting “that

while further research into fingerprint analysis would be welcome, to postpone present in-court

utilization of this bedrock forensic identifier pending such research would be to make the best

the enemy of the good.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

²⁵ See J.L. Mnookin. Expert evidence, partisanship, and epistemic competence. 73 Brook.

L. Rev. 1009, 1033 (2008) (“[S]o long as we have our adversarial system in much its pres-

ent form, we are inevitably going to be stuck with approaches to expert evidence that are

imperfect, conceptually unsatisfying, and awkward. It may well be that the real lesson is this:

those who believe that we might ever fully resolve—rather than imperfectly manage—the

SUMMARY

of scientific research, training, technology, and databases associated with

DNA analysis have resulted from substantial and steady federal support

for both academic research and programs employing techniques for DNA

analysis. Similar support must be given to all credible forensic science dis-

ciplines if they are to achieve the degrees of reliability needed to serve the

goals of justice. With more and better educational programs, accredited

laboratories, certified forensic practitioners, sound operational principles

and procedures, and serious research to establish the limits and measures

of performance in each discipline, forensic science experts will be better

able to analyze evidence and coherently report their findings in the courts.

The current situation, however, is seriously wanting, both because of the

limitations of the judicial system and because of the many problems faced

by the forensic science community.

Political Realities

Most forensic science methods, programs, and evidence are within

the regulatory province of state and local law enforcement entities or are

covered by statutes and rules governing state judicial proceedings. Thus,

in assessing the strengths, weaknesses, and future needs of forensic disci-

plines, and in making recommendations for improving the use of forensic

technologies and techniques, the committee remained mindful of the fact

that Congress cannot directly fix all of the deficiencies in the forensic sci-

ence community. Under our federal system of government, Congress does

not have free reign to amend state criminal codes, rules of evidence, and

statutes governing civil actions; nor may it easily and directly regulate local

law enforcement practices, state and local medical examiner units, or state

policies covering the accreditation of crime laboratories and the certifica-

tion of forensic practitioners.

Congress’ authority to act is significant, however. Forensic science pro-

grams in federal government entities—whether within DOJ, DHS, DOD,

or the Department of Commerce (DOC)—are funded by congressional

appropriations. If these programs are required to operate pursuant to the

highest standards, they will provide an example for the states. More im-

portantly, Congress can promote “best practices” and strong educational,

certification, accreditation, ethics, and oversight programs in the states by

offering funds that are contingent on meeting appropriate standards of

practice. There is every reason to believe that offers of federal funds with

“strings attached” can effect significant change in the forensic science com-

deep structural tensions surrounding both partisanship and epistemic competence that per-

meate the use of scientific evidence within our legal system are almost certainly destined for

disappointment.”).

STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

munity, because so many state and local programs currently are suffering

for want of adequate resources. In the end, however, the committee recog-

nized that state and local authorities must be willing to enforce change if

it is to happen.

In light of the foregoing issues, the committee exercised caution before

drawing conclusions and avoided being too prescriptive in its recommen-

dations. It also recognized that, given the complexity of the issues and the

political realities that may pose obstacles to change, some recommenda-

tions will have to be implemented creatively and over time in order to be

effective.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Fragmented System: Symptoms and Cures

The forensic science disciplines currently are an assortment of methods

and practices used in both the public and private arenas. Forensic science

facilities exhibit wide variability in capacity, oversight, staffing, certifica-

tion, and accreditation across federal and state jurisdictions. Too often they

have inadequate educational programs, and they typically lack mandatory

and enforceable standards, founded on rigorous research and testing, cer-

tification requirements, and accreditation programs. Additionally, forensic

science and forensic pathology research, education, and training lack strong

ties to our research universities and national science assets. In addition to

the problems emanating from the fragmentation of the forensic science

community, the most recently published Census of Crime Laboratories

conducted by BJS describes unacceptable case backlogs in state and local

crime laboratories and estimates the level of additional resources needed

to handle these backlogs and prevent their recurrence. Unfortunately, the

backlogs, even in DNA case processing, have grown dramatically in recent

years and are now staggering in some jurisdictions. The most recently

published BJS Special Report of Medical Examiners and Coroners’ Offices

also depicts a system with disparate and often inadequate educational and

training requirements, resources, and capacities—in short, a system in need

of significant improvement.

Existing data suggest that forensic laboratories are underresourced

and understaffed, which contributes to case backlogs and likely makes it

difficult for laboratories to do as much as they could to (1) inform investi-

gations, (2) provide strong evidence for prosecutions, and (3) avoid errors

that could lead to imperfect justice. Being underresourced also means that

the tools of forensic science—and the knowledge base that underpins the

analysis and interpretation of evidence—are not as strong as they could

be, thus hindering the ability of the forensic science disciplines to excel at

SUMMARY

informing investigations, providing strong evidence, and avoiding errors in

important ways. NIJ is the only federal agency that provides direct support

to crime laboratories to alleviate the backlog, and those funds are minimal.

The forensic science system is underresourced also in the sense that it has

only thin ties to an academic research base that could support the forensic

science disciplines and fill knowledge gaps. There are many hard-working

and conscientious people in the forensic science community, but this under-

resourcing inherently limits their ability to do their best work. Additional

resources surely will be necessary to create high-quality, self-correcting

systems.

However, increasing the staff within existing crime laboratories and

medical examiners’ offices is only part of the solution. What also is needed

is an upgrading of systems and organizational structures, better training,

the widespread adoption of uniform and enforceable best practices, and

mandatory certification and accreditation programs. The forensic science

community and the medical examiner/coroner system must be upgraded if

forensic practitioners are to be expected to serve the goals of justice.

Of the various facets of underresourcing, the committee is most con-

cerned about the knowledge base. Adding more dollars and people to the

enterprise might reduce case backlogs, but it will not address fundamental

limitations in the capabilities of forensic science disciplines to discern valid

information from crime scene evidence. For the most part, it is impossible

to discern the magnitude of those limitations, and reasonable people will

differ on their significance.

Forensic science research is not well supported, and there is no uni-

fied strategy for developing a forensic science research plan across federal

agencies. Relative to other areas of science, the forensic disciplines have

extremely limited opportunities for research funding. Although the FBI and

NIJ have supported some research in forensic science, the level of support

has been well short of what is necessary for the forensic science community

to establish strong links with a broad base of research universities. Moreover,

funding for academic research is limited and requires law enforcement col-

laboration, which can inhibit the pursuit of more fundamental scientific

questions essential to establishing the foundation of forensic science. The

broader research community generally is not engaged in conducting re-

search relevant to advancing the forensic science disciplines.

The forensic science enterprise also is hindered by its extreme

disaggregation—marked by multiple types of practitioners with different

levels of education and training and different professional cultures and

standards for performance and a reliance on apprentice-type training and

a guild-like structure of disciplines, which work against the goal of a

single forensic science profession. Many forensic scientists are given scant

opportunity for professional activities, such as attending conferences or

STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

publishing their research, which could help strengthen the professional

community and offset some of the disaggregation. The fragmented nature

of the enterprise raises the worrisome prospect that the quality of evidence

presented in court, and its interpretation, can vary unpredictably according

to jurisdiction.

Numerous professional associations are organized around the forensic

science disciplines, and many of them are involved in training and educa-

tion (see Chapter 8) and are developing standards and accreditation and

certification programs (see Chapter 7). The efforts of these groups are

laudable. However, except for the largest organizations, it is not clear how

these associations interact or the extent to which they share requirements,

standards, or policies. Thus, there is a need for more consistent and har-

monized requirements.

In the course of its deliberations and review of the forensic science en-

terprise, it became obvious to the committee that, although congressional

action will not remedy all of the deficiencies in forensic science methods

and practices, truly meaningful advances will not come without significant

concomitant leadership from the federal government. The forensic science

enterprise lacks the necessary governance structure to pull itself up from

its current weaknesses. Of the many professional societies that serve the

enterprise, none is dominant, and none has clearly articulated the need for

change or presented a vision for accomplishing it. And clearly no munici-

pal or state forensic office has the mandate to lead the entire enterprise.

The major federal resources—NIJ and the FBI Laboratory—have provided

modest leadership, for which they should be commended: NIJ has contrib-

uted a helpful research program and the FBI Laboratory has spearheaded

the SWGs. But again, neither entity has recognized, let alone articulated,

a need for change or a vision for achieving it. Neither has the full confi-

dence of the larger forensic science community. And because both are part

of a prosecutorial department of the government, they could be subject to

subtle contextual biases that should not be allowed to undercut the power

of forensic science.

The forensic science enterprise needs strong governance to adopt and

promote an aggressive, long-term agenda to help strengthen the forensic

science disciplines. Governance must be strong enough—and independent

enough—to identify the limitations of forensic science methodologies, and

must be well connected with the Nation’s scientific research base to effect

meaningful advances in forensic science practices. The governance structure

must be able to create appropriate incentives for jurisdictions to adopt and

adhere to best practices and promulgate the necessary sanctions to discour-

age bad practices. It must have influence with educators in order to effect

improvements to forensic science education. It must be able to identify

standards and enforce them. A governance entity must be geared toward

SUMMARY

(and be credible within) the law enforcement community, but it must have

strengths that extend beyond that area. Oversight of the forensic science com-

munity and medical examiner system will sweep broadly into areas of crimi-

nal investigation and prosecution, civil litigation, legal reform, investigation

of insurance claims, national disaster planning and preparedness, homeland

security, certification of federal, state, and local forensic practitioners, public

health, accreditation of public and private laboratories, research to improve

forensic methodologies, education programs in colleges and universities, and

advancing technology.

The committee considered whether such a governing entity could be

established within an existing federal agency. The National Science Founda-

tion (NSF) was considered because of its strengths in leading research and

its connections to the research and education communities. NSF is surely

capable of building and sustaining a research base, but it has very thin ties

to the forensic science community. It would be necessary for NSF to take

many untested steps if it were to assume responsibility for the governance

of applied fields of science. The committee also considered NIST. In the end

analysis, however, NIST did not appear to be a viable option. It has a good

program of research targeted at forensic science and law enforcement, but

the program is modest. NIST also has strong ties to industry and academia,

and it has an eminent history in standard setting and method development.

But its ties to the forensic science community are still limited, and it would

not be seen as a natural leader by the scholars, scientists, and practitioners

in the field. In sum, the committee concluded that neither NSF nor NIST has

the breadth of experience or institutional capacity to establish an effective

governance structure for the forensic science enterprise.

There was also a strong consensus in the committee that no existing

or new division or unit within DOJ would be an appropriate location for

a new entity governing the forensic science community. DOJ’s principal

mission is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States

according to the law. Agencies within DOJ operate pursuant to this mission.

The FBI, for example, is the investigative arm of DOJ and its principal mis-

sions are to produce and use intelligence to protect the Nation from threats

and to bring to justice those who violate the law. The work of these law

enforcement units is critically important to the Nation, but the scope of the

work done by DOJ units is much narrower than the promise of a strong

forensic science community. Forensic science serves more than just law

enforcement; and when it does serve law enforcement, it must be equally

available to law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and defendants in the

criminal justice system. The entity that is established to govern the forensic

science community cannot be principally beholden to law enforcement. The

potential for conflicts of interest between the needs of law enforcement and

the broader needs of forensic science are too great. In addition, the com-

STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

mittee determined that the research funding strategies of DOJ have not

adequately served the broad needs of the forensic science community. This

is understandable, but not acceptable when the issue is whether an agency is

best suited to support and oversee the Nation’s forensic science community.

In sum, the committee concluded that advancing science in the forensic sci-

ence enterprise is not likely to be achieved within the confines of DOJ.

Furthermore, there is little doubt that some existing federal entities are

too wedded to the current “fragmented” forensic science community, which

is deficient in too many respects. Most notably, these existing agencies have

failed to pursue a rigorous research agenda to confirm the evidentiary reli-

ability of methodologies used in a number of forensic science disciplines.

These agencies are not good candidates to oversee the overhaul of the fo-

rensic science community in the United States.

Finally, some existing federal agencies with other missions occasionally

have undertaken projects affecting the forensic science community. These

entities are better left to continue the good work that defines their principal

missions. More responsibility is not better for these existing entities, nor

would it be better for the forensic science community or the Nation.

The committee thus concluded that the problems at issue are too seri-

ous and important to be subsumed by an existing federal agency. It also

concluded that no existing federal agency has the capacity or appropriate

mission to take on the roles and responsibilities needed to govern and im-

prove the forensic science enterprise.

The committee believes that what is needed to support and oversee the

forensic science community is a new, strong, and independent entity that

could take on the tasks that would be assigned to it in a manner that is as

objective and free of bias as possible—one with no ties to the past and with

the authority and resources to implement a fresh agenda designed to address

the problems found by the committee and discussed in this report. A new

organization should not be encumbered by the assumptions, expectations,

and deficiencies of the existing fragmented infrastructure, which has failed

to address the needs and challenges of the forensic science disciplines.

This new entity must be an independent federal agency established to

address the needs of the forensic science community, and it must meet the

following minimum criteria:

• It must have a culture that is strongly rooted in science, with strong

ties to the national research and teaching communities, including

federal laboratories.

• It must have strong ties to state and local forensic entities as well

as to the professional organizations within the forensic science

community.

SUMMARY

• It must not be in any way committed to the existing system, but

should be informed by its experiences.

• It must not be part of a law enforcement agency.

• It must have the funding, independence, and sufficient prominence

to raise the profile of the forensic science disciplines and push ef-

fectively for improvements.

• It must be led by persons who are skilled and experienced in de-

veloping and executing national strategies and plans for standard

setting; managing accreditation and testing processes; and devel-

oping and implementing rulemaking, oversight, and sanctioning

processes.

No federal agency currently exists that meets all of these criteria.

Recommendation 1:

To promote the development of forensic science into a mature

field of multidisciplinary research and practice, founded on the

systematic collection and analysis of relevant data, Congress should

establish and appropriate funds for an independent federal entity,

the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS). NIFS should have

a full-time administrator and an advisory board with expertise in

research and education, the forensic science disciplines, physical

and life sciences, forensic pathology, engineering, information tech-

nology, measurements and standards, testing and evaluation, law,

national security, and public policy. NIFS should focus on:

(a) establishing and enforcing best practices for forensic sci-

ence professionals and laboratories;

(b) establishing standards for the mandatory accreditation of

forensic science laboratories and the mandatory certifica-

tion of forensic scientists and medical examiners/forensic

pathologists—and identifying the entity/entities that will

develop and implement accreditation and certification;

and technical development in the forensic science disci-

plines and forensic medicine;

(d) developing a strategy to improve forensic science research

and educational programs, including forensic pathology;

(e) establishing a strategy, based on accurate data on the fo-

rensic science community, for the efficient allocation of

available funds to give strong support to forensic method-

ologies and practices in addition to DNA analysis;

STRENGTHENING FORENSIC SCIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

(f) funding state and local forensic science agencies, inde-

pendent research projects, and educational programs as

recommended in this report, with conditions that aim to

advance the credibility and reliability of the forensic sci-

ence disciplines;

(g) overseeing education standards and the accreditation of

forensic science programs in colleges and universities;

(h) developing programs to improve understanding of the fo-

rensic science disciplines and their limitations within legal

systems; and

(i) assessing the development and introduction of new tech-

nologies in forensic investigations, including a comparison

of new technologies with former ones.

The benefits that will flow from a strong, independent, strategic, coher-

ent, and well-funded federal program to support and oversee the forensic

science disciplines in this country are clear: The Nation will (1) bolster

its ability to more accurately identify true perpetrators and exclude those

who are falsely accused; (2) improve its ability to effectively respond to,

attribute, and prosecute threats to homeland security; and (3) reduce the

likelihood of convictions resting on inaccurate data. Moreover, establishing

the scientific foundation of the forensic science disciplines, providing better

education and training, and requiring certification and accreditation will

position the forensic science community to take advantage of current and

future scientific advances.

The creation of a new federal entity undoubtedly will pose challenges,

not the least of which will be budgetary constraints. The committee is not

in a position to estimate how much it will cost to implement the recom-

mendations in this report; this is a matter best left to the expertise of the

Congressional Budget Office. What is clear, however, is that Congress must

take aggressive action if the worst ills of the forensic science community

are to be cured. Political and budgetary concerns should not deter bold,

creative, and forward-looking action, because the country cannot afford to

suffer the consequences of inaction. It will also take time and patience to

implement the recommendations in this report. But this is true with any

large, complex, important, and challenging enterprise.

The committee strongly believes that the greatest hope for success in

this enterprise will come with the creation of the National Institute of Fo-

rensic Science (NIFS) to oversee and direct the forensic science community.

The remaining recommendations in this report are crucially tied to the

creation of NIFS. However, each recommendation is a separate, essential

piece of the plan to improve the forensic science community in the United

States. Therefore, even if the creation of NIFS is forestalled, the committee

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (August 2009) - page 1