CSI and NCIS give false confidence in forensic science

The National Academy of Sciences noted a new Supreme Court decision:

A Supreme Court opinion issued yesterday, which ruled that defendants have a right to cross-examine forensic analysts, cites a National Research Council report on forensic science released in February. The majority opinion noted the report's findings that the reliability of forensic methods varies widely and that forensic labs -- which are usually under the control of law-enforcement agencies -- may feel pressured to sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency.

The opinion also cited one of the report's major conclusions:

“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 community in this country.”

Comment: Unfortunately the results of forensic analyses are not only difficult for the lay person to understand, and sometimes of dubious quality, there are often invested with a spurious authority by the average person. Subjecting the forensic scientists who do the work to testimony and cross-examination should help to improve the information provided to judge and jury in the trial process. I bet that the testimony will usually not be needed, as the existence of the evidence will encourage criminals to plead out. JAD

• Majority opinion, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
• Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward