Justice and Science: Foundations of Forensic Science Part 1

Course Overview and Readings

• The lecture is the first part of Module $1$, titled "Justice and Science."

• There are two required readings for Module $1$:

  • Bell ($2019$), Chapter $1$.

  • Cook et al. ($1998$) (excerpts posted on Moodle).

• For Part $1$ of the lecture, students only need to have completed the Bell ($2019$) reading; Cook ($1998$) will be discussed in Part $2$.

• The agenda for this lecture includes:

  • Defining forensic science.

  • Introduction to forensic science fields/disciplines.

  • Interaction with the justice system.

  • Quality assurance and quality management systems.

  • The value of ethics in forensic science.

Defining Forensic Science

• The term "forensic" originates from the Latin word "forensis," which literally translates to "court."

• In the original Latin context, "court" referred to an open forum or public discussion rather than a modern court of law.

• Forensic science can be technically referred to as "court science."

• A standard definition of forensic science is the application of science to the law and legal systems.

• While theoretical scholars may debate the nuances of this definition, it serves as the functional definition for the course.

• Every forensic field shares a commonality: the application of a specific tool, method, or technique to the judicial system.

The Scope of Forensic Disciplines

• Technically, any field applied to the legal system becomes a forensic field. Examples include:

  • Forensic Accounting: Accounting applied to the law.

  • Forensic Linguistics: Linguistics applied to the legal system.

• Common disciplines under the umbrella of forensic science include:

  • Bloodstain pattern analysis.

  • Forensic chemistry.

  • Forensic pathology.

  • Digital forensic evidence.

  • Trace evidence.

  • Serology.

  • Crime scene investigation ($CSI$).

  • Friction ridge analysis (fingerprints).

  • Impressions evidence.

  • Forensic anthropology.

• There is a minor linguistic preference in the field: some practitioners dislike the term "forensics" with an "s," though the lecturer finds it acceptable.

Purpose and Objectives of Forensic Science

• Forensic scientists perform specific actions, including:

  • Collecting evidence.

  • Analyzing evidence.

  • Interpreting evidence.

  • Writing forensic reports.

  • Testifying in court.

• These actions are not the "why," but rather the "what." The actual purpose of forensic science is to aid in crime reconstruction.

• The goal is to assist the criminal justice system through:

  • Providing objective and unbiased analyses.

  • Forming sound interpretations and conclusions.

  • Delivering useful and understandable testimony to the rest of the criminal justice system.

The Process of Crime Reconstruction

• Crime reconstruction is defined as an attempt to recreate past criminal events through the analysis of physical remnants (evidence) left behind.

• Analysts establish relationships or "links" between events, relevant people, places, and objects.

• This work occurs in both the field and the lab:

  • Field Forensic Scientists: Typically crime scene investigators who collect evidence.

  • Lab Forensic Scientists: Conduct analysis within a controlled laboratory environment.

• Professional roles include:

  • Practitioners: Those actively practicing forensic science.

  • Researchers: Those conducting scientific studies in the lab or field.

  • Some individuals serve as both researchers and practitioners.

Relationship to the Criminal Justice System

• Forensic science is one small component of the much larger criminal justice system.

• The system is comprised of various stakeholders, including:

  • Forensic scientists.

  • Policymakers.

  • Law enforcement.

  • The community/public.

• It is critical to distinguish what forensic science is NOT:

  • It is NOT the investigation of crime; forensic scientists do not solve crimes or catch criminals.

  • It is NOT criminology; criminology is the study of crime and criminal behavior.

• Practitioners often lack full information about a case and may never learn the outcome of an investigation after submitting their report.

• Information about cases is sometimes only learned through the "grapevine" (e.g., a DNA analyst working for the Baltimore Police Department hearing from a detective friend).

Challenges in Forensic Science: The $2009$ NAS and $2016$ PCAST Reports

• Forensic science has not always been rooted in empirical research; many past analysts relied solely on personal experience.

• The National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences ($NAS$) produced a landmark report in $2009$.

  • The report stated that forensic fields (other than $DNA$) lacked sufficient scientific evidence and published research.

  • It criticized fields for being too subjective and lacking standardization.

• The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology ($PCAST$) released a follow-up report in $2016$.

  • It focused on pattern matching/comparison disciplines (e.g., tool marks, fingerprints, tire tread marks).

  • It reiterated that these fields lacked empirical scientific support, often relying on the subjective experience of the examiner.

• These reports have fueled a large push to transform forensics into a more rigorous scientific discipline.

Quality Management and Standards Organizations

• Several organizations work to improve the reliability and objectivity of forensic science:

  • $ANSI$: American National Standards Institute.

  • $ANAB$ ($ANSI$ National Accreditation Board): An accreditation body under $ANSI$. (Note: They prefer to be called by their full names, not just the acronyms).

  • $A2LA$: American Association for Laboratory Accreditation.

  • $ASCLAD$: American Society of Crime Lab Directors.

  • $AAFS$: American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

  • $ASB$: Academy Standards Board (sponsored by $AAFS$).

• $NIST$ and $OSAC$:

  • $NIST$: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

  • $OSAC$: Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science.

  • $OSAC$ produces standards and best practice recommendations (e.g., for $DNA$, chemistry, pattern interpretation).

  • $OSAC$ has approximately seven sections, including Biology, Chemistry/Drugs, Trace Evidence, Physics/Pattern Interpretation, Scene Examination, Medicine/Anthropology (formerly under Scene Examination), and Digital Multimedia.

• Compliance with these standards is voluntary; there is no legal mandate that labs must follow $OSAC$ recommendations.

Quality Assurance ($QA$) and Quality Control ($QC$)

• $QA$ and $QC$ are related but distinct concepts within a Quality Management System ($QMS$).

• Overall, these systems improve quality, reduce costs, and ensure compliance.

• Quality Assurance ($QA$):

  • Measures taken by the lab to monitor, verify, and document performance.

  • Focuses on the process (e.g., documenting that staff wore hairnets and gloves).

• Quality Control ($QC$):

  • Specific measures taken to ensure a product meets a quality standard.

  • Focuses on the product itself (e.g., ensuring swabs are sterile and free of contamination).

• Relationship: $QC$ is a subset of $QA$, and both fall under the broader $QMS$.

Accreditation and Certification

• Accreditation (Organizational Level):

  • Evaluation by an external body (e.g., $ANAB$, $A2LA$) to verify that an organization meets professional standards.

  • The $NAS$ ($2009$) report recommended all labs be accredited, yet it remains voluntary.

  • Approximately $88\%$ of $US$ crime labs are accredited.

  • Accreditation is complex and can take years of planning, documentation, training, and site visits.

  • Example of gaps: The state of New Jersey has zero accredited labs for latent print (fingerprint) or firearm and toolmark examination.

• Certification (Individual Level):

  • Validation that an individual possesses specific knowledge, skills, and abilities ($KSAs$).

  • Usually involves written and practical exams.

  • Example: Forensic anthropology certification requires a written test, a practical bone analysis test, and the submission of three full casework reports to be reviewed by a certified professional.

  • Certifying Bodies: American Board of Pathology, American Board of Criminalistics ($ABC$), boards for toxicology, entomology, and more.

The Legal System and Forensic Testimony

• Scientists work alongside law enforcement and lawyers, but each has different goals:

  • Law Enforcement: Goal is to investigate and solve crimes.

  • Scientists: Goal is to provide objective conclusions based solely on evidence.

  • Lawyers: Function in an adversarial system where two parties (prosecution and defense) dispute facts.

• Difference in Methodology:

  • The Law: Moves based on historical precedent and the judge acting as "gatekeeper."

  • Science: Moves based on the scientific method and peer-reviewed empirical evidence.

• Legal Proceedings:

  • Criminal Law: Government brings charges; requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" (often conceptualized as $99\%$ certainty).

  • Civil Law: Disputes between parties; involves compensation or monetary relief; requires "preponderance of evidence" (conceptualized as $51\%$ or the majority).

• Courtroom Stakeholders:

  • Prosecution/Plaintiff: The party filing charges.

  • Defendant: The accused party.

  • Jurisdiction: Geographic area of legal authority (county, state, federal).

  • Trier of Fact: The judge or jury that makes the final decision based on evidence.

Courtroom Procedures for the Scientist

• Testimony is rare compared to total charges; many cases end in plea bargains or dismissals.

• If called to testify (refusal can lead to a warrant), the process is:

  • $1.$ Voir Dire: The scientist is asked about their background, education (e.g., Bachelors in Anthropology, Master of Science in Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology, $ABD$ for a $PhD$ in Biological Anthropology), and training.

  • $2.$ Qualification: The judge decides whether to admit the individual as an expert witness.

  • $3.$ Direct Examination: Questions from the side that called the witness.

  • $4.$ Cross-Examination: Questions from the opposing side intended to discredit the witness or evidence.

  • $5.$ Redirect and Recross: Potential follow-up questioning.

Ethics and Misconduct

• Ethics: A set of rules governing professional conduct for a group/field.

• Morals: Personal beliefs regarding right and wrong.

• Ethics in forensics are vital for integrity, transparency, and public trust.

• Professional guidelines dictate that scientists should only speak within their "scope of expertise" (e.g., an anthropologist should not perform fingerprint analysis).

• Academic integrity in the classroom (e.g., avoiding plagiarism, cheating, or $AI$ misuse) is seen as the foundation for professional ethics.

• Case Study: Annie Ducan and Sonia Ferrek (Massachusetts).

  • Documented in the Netflix documentary "How to Fix a Drug Scandal."

  • Sonia Ferrek was caught consuming evidence (e.g., smoking meth) at work.

  • Annie Ducan was "dry labbing" results (writing reports without actually testing substances).

  • This blatant misconduct resulted in over $20,000$ convictions being dropped, leading to the release of both those wrongly convicted and those who potentially belonged in jail.

Assignments and Next Steps

• First Assignment: "The Importance of Accreditation."

  • Instructions are on Moodle.

  • Includes reading the Shoop ($2017$) article about Annie Ducan.

• Students should complete this before moving to Module $1$, Part $2$.