NAS Report Executive Summary & Remarks of Judge Harry Edwards - harry-edwards

First Public Meeting of the National Commission on Forensic Science

  • Date: February 3, 2014

  • Location: Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street, NW, 3rd floor ballroom, Washington, DC 20531

  • Topic: Reflections on the Findings of the National Academy of Sciences

  • Speaker: The Honorable Harry T. Edwards, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Introduction

  • Remarks to Deputy Attorney General Cole, Under Secretary Gallagher, members of the National Commission on Forensic Science, and esteemed guests.

  • Honored to participate as past Co-Chair of NAS Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community.

  • Acknowledgment of the shared commitment in addressing forensic science challenges.

Findings of the NAS Committee

  • The NAS Committee identified several critical issues within forensic disciplines:

    • Inadequate Scientific Research: Lack of rigorous studies confirming the validity and reliability of forensic methods.

    • Human Observer Bias: Insufficient research on how bias and human errors affect forensic examinations.

    • Transparency Issues: Crime labs lack autonomy and transparent practices.

    • Certification and Accreditation: Absence of mandatory certification for practitioners and uniform accreditation programs for labs.

    • Performance Standards: Forensic practitioners have not adhered to robust performance standards.

    • Terminology Consistency: Inconsistencies in terminology used by forensic experts.

    • Oversight Deficiencies: There is a notable lack of effective oversight in the forensic community.

    • Training Needs: Significant shortages in training and continuing education for forensic practitioners.

Recommendations of the NAS Report

  • Establishment of a new, independent federal entity to support and oversee forensic disciplines.

  • Need for a fresh agenda to tackle forensic community issues.

  • While the Commission provides hope, it does not fully meet the needs expected by the NAS Committee.

Emphasis on Scientific Foundation

  • The importance of science in supporting forensic disciplines is highlighted.

  • Judicial review is insufficient to cure forensic community issues; action is necessary from scientists and forensic analysts.

Challenges in Judicial Acceptance of Forensic Evidence

  • Concerns that courts may not adequately limit the admissibility of forensic evidence.

    • Daubert Standard: Created in 1993 to ensure scientific reliability in expert testimony but has seen limited impact in practical court scenarios due to its inherent flexibility.

    • Precedence in the law often leads to the continued acceptance of unverified evidence due to historical reliance on such methods.

    • Judges' experiences often lead to a treatment of unreliable methods as acceptable, based on their historical usage in the legal system.

Illustrative Judicial Precedents

  • Examples of courts admitting forensic evidence despite recognizing lack of scientific validation:

    • Tenth Circuit Case: Admitted fingerprinting evidence without sufficient scientific basis due to longstanding usage in law enforcement.

    • First Circuit: Upheld fingerprint evidence admission despite acknowledging scientific shortcomings, thus creating a presumption of admissibility.

Need for Change in Forensic Expert Testimony

  • Many forensic practitioners claim a level of certainty that lacks a scientific basis.

  • Studies Required: More research needed to properly assess error rates and uncertainties in forensic methodologies, along with improved training for examiners.

Closing Remarks

  • The task at hand is pivotal not only for protecting the innocent but also for ensuring public safety by preventing wrongful convictions.

  • The necessity for scientific input into the forensic strengths is emphasized, alongside the critical view of systemic issues in the judicial approach to forensic evidence.

  • Calls for federal support and sustained research in forensic disciplines, akin to the federal backing seen in DNA analysis development.

  • Acknowledgment of the broader societal implications linked to reliable forensic practices—justice prevails when the science is credible.