Science and the Law

Science magazine this week has C. Michael Bowers's review of the book Forensics Under Fire: Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? whose author is Jim Fisher.

It appears to me that scientific advisory services should be employed more generally in our legal system. Lawyers can and often do employ expert advice in preparing their cases, and indeed judges can similarly employ scientific advisory panels to advise on specific cases.

In my local county, the State's Attorney's Office found the turnaround from its police forensic laboratory was slower than that available in other districts, even though the county boasts one of the strongest scientific communities in the country. A scientific advisory panel might have advised it on the nature of the problem. Such an advisory committee might also deal with individual important cases, suggesting non-traditional scientific tests or approaches which might provide useful information.

It occurs to me that a scientific advisory panel serving prosecutors might by matched by one created by the bar association which would provide similar services to defense attorneys. It might also provide a defense oriented overview of the quality of the police forensics laboratory and its practices within the specific jurisdiction.

Would the case level application of scientific advice be improved by institutionalized measures?

How could this be done?

Licensing: Lawyers have to be admitted to the bar, and doctors have to be licensed to practice medicine. Would it make sense to license scientific experts before allowing them to offer expert testimony? In medicine, Professional Boards certify specialists as qualified experts in their fields. Would Board Certification work for those offering expert testimony in the forensic sciences?

Peer Review: How about a system in which experts in forensic science review the testimony of their peers and provide feedback? I suspect that this is done in police laboratories, but are those laboratories large enough to provide real independent peer review?

Measurement and Testing Aids: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has some programs focusing on forensic science (e.g. the Computer Forensics Tool Testing (CFTT) Project and NIST Forensic Sciences). This seems primarily to focus on testing and mensuration (e.g. assuring the validity of computer software or providing standardized reagents for forensic science labs), and is of course very important.

Standards: Would it not also be possible to identify forensic standards, such as the confidence to be assigned to fingerprint identification according to the number of points of comparison or to DNA identification according to the numbers of comparisons. A system in which an such standards were debated publicly, and in which independent bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences could provide disinterested advice on standards might be useful.

For some reason, many of my friends are lawyers, and I admire their analytic and rhetorical skills. One of my friends is both a fine scientist and a lawyer, but works in intellectual property law. I suspect, however, that many lawyers involved in criminal law would benefit from scientific advice. Indeed, i have found that it is scientists themselves who are most active and most effective in seeking scientific advice. Suggesting that one institutionalize systems to improve access to specialized scientific advice is not intended to be a criticism of the legal system, but rather a suggestion as to how the experience in another knowledge system might be adapted to further improve the legal system.