False or Misleading Forensic Evidence Plays an Oversized Role in Wrongful Convictions
by Jo Ellen Nott
The National Institute of Justice (“NIJ”) published a paper titled “The Impact of False or Misleading Forensic Evidence on Wrongful Convictions,” providing grim facts and figures on one of the worst injustices in the criminal justice system – wrongful convictions.
As of 2023, The National Registry of Exonerations has documented over 3,000 cases of wrongful convictions in the U.S., with organizations like The Innocence Project having helped exonerate 375 individuals, including 21 who were on death row. Faulty forensic science is to blame in a great many of these miscarriages of justices.
Dr. Jon Gould of the University of California at Irvine (with 21 publications and associations with four universities) has identified flawed forensic science as a crucial factor contributing to wrongful convictions. Other key factors include eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, erroneous testimonies, and misconduct by police and prosecutors.
The NIJ wanted to understand the causes of forensic errors and enlisted Dr. John S. Morgan (known internationally for his work in forensic science, body armor, special operations technology, and police technology) to analyze the impact of forensic science on wrongful convictions.
Dr. Morgan examined 732 cases and 1,391 forensic examinations from the National Registry of Exonerations. The study identified five error types: (1) the actual forensic report, (2) incorrection individualization or classifications, (3) testimony, (4) officer of the court, and (5) evidence handling and reporting.
Examples of errors in Type 1 are lab errors, poor communication, and resource constraints. In Type 2, examples are interpretation error and fraudulent interpretations. Within Type 3, Morgan found expert witnesses mischaracterized statistical weight or probability. In the officer of the court type of error, Type 4, evidence was excluded, or the court accepted faulty testimony. In the last type, Morgan saw chain of custody issues, lost evidence issues, or police misconduct characterizing Type 5.
Of great interest was the fact forensic disciplines like serology, hair comparison, forensic pathology, and seized drug analysis were found to contribute disproportionately to these errors. Dr. Morgan’s research also revealed that seized drug analysis, bitemark comparisons, and shoe/foot impression analyses had high rates of Type 2 errors (incorrect individualizations or classifications). Many errors were linked to incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with inadequate scientific foundations, and organizational deficiencies.
The study demonstrates the importance of addressing cognitive biases in those fields. On the positive side, fields like seized drug analysis and DNA analysis were less prone to cognitive bias.
Dr. Morgan emphasized the need for follow-up analyses in forensic science, comparable to high-reliability fields like air traffic control. Forensic science organizations should treat wrongful convictions as triggering events to identify system deficiencies. It’s not always the organizations themselves, however. Errors often stem from actors outside forensic science organizations, such as investigators or prosecutors who may misrepresent or suppress exculpatory evidence.
Dr. Morgan’s typology serves as a critical resource for pointing out areas within forensic science that need improvement. Key factors associated with wrongful convictions include poorly validated scientific standards, overly complex analyses, reliance on presumptive tests without laboratory confirmation, use of independent experts, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence.
Dr. Morgan concludes the study by saying, “In approximately half of the wrongful convictions analyzed, advancements in technology, testimony standards, or practice standards could have prevented the wrongful conviction at the time of trial.”
Developing and enforcing clear standards within each forensic discipline and establishing oversight to enforce these standards are absolutely critical to minimize wrongful convictions and restore public trust in the criminal justice system according to the research scientist and operator of Coptech Systems, Inc.
Source: National Institute of Justice
As a digital subscriber to Criminal Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
