Ethics in Forensic Science – Comprehensive Study Notes

Introduction

• The criminal justice system in a democracy relies on public confidence in government institutions; the social contract between the governed and governing is essential for operation and existence of justice systems.
• Public perception of fairness in forensic science matters as much as actual fairness; unethical conduct can erode public trust and affect the efficiency and stability of the judicial system.
• Focus of the chapter: ethics within the crime laboratory and crime scene investigations; ethics in practice, including potential breaches and how to respond.
• Ethical behavior in forensic science is guided by established codes, yet real-world enforcement and consistency vary by organization and jurisdiction.

Defining Ethical Behavior in Forensic Science

• A long-standing code of ethics from the California Association of Criminalists (CAC) states the duty to serve justice to the best of one’s ability, using scientific means to ascertain significant physical facts, interpret and evaluate findings, and report findings with accuracy and clarity so others can understand their relationship to the problem.
  • Preamble emphasizes: use all scientific means, arrive at opinions with sound judgment, report findings accurately and understandably.
• Other professional bodies (ASCLD, ASCLD/LAB, AAFS, IAI) provide guidance on professional practice and conduct.
• Ethical conduct in practice requires discipline and understanding of what is right within the forensic context; sometimes the right action isn't obvious and requires deliberate decision-making.
• A simple ethical screen is the “headline test”: would your conduct look good on the front page of the morning newspaper, and would you be proud if family members read about it?
• Ethics range from minor infractions to serious malfeasance; even small actions can have long-term consequences for individuals, agencies, and the justice system.
• When faced with ethical dilemmas, individuals may choose to confront immediately, discuss with a trusted colleague or supervisor, or memorialize the situation (e.g., in an email) to document the issue; doing nothing is rarely the solution.
• Practical question: what is the ethical or right way to behave in given situations?

Everyday Practice: From Dilemmas to Decisions

• Scenarios illustrate the tension between law enforcement pressures and ethical duties:
  • Scenario: A police officer asks to revise a report to omit drugs findings; the detective offers a payoff for helping; should you comply or document? The issue centers on integrity of the findings and the risk of perjury and altered evidence.
  • Scenario: At a murder scene, a detective discards a capsule of a controlled substance; the time the trunk was opened is falsified; testifying to a false time constitutes perjury. How should one respond?
  • Scenario: At a lock-up crime scene, detectives pressure you to collect blood in a way that supports a narrative; ignoring other relevant bloodstains could be misleading. Should the scene be re-processed after the detective leaves?
  • Scenario: A detective pressures you to suppress or exclude relevant evidence that might confuse the case.
• These narratives illustrate ethical choices that confront practitioners regularly and highlight the need for proactive, principled action.
• The chapter emphasizes that there are many additional ethically fraught situations, including how to handle requests that may implicate ethics or legality.

Additional Examples of Potential Ethical Lapses

• Collecting evidence without a warrant by claiming exigent circumstances; while there are gray areas and genuine exigencies, there is potential for abuse.
• Planting evidence at a crime scene to point to a defendant; a latent print example where a card was fabricated to place a print at the scene.
• Falsifying laboratory examinations to bolster the prosecution’s case; historical cases noted where talented practitioners misused capability to find evidence that did not exist.
• Ignoring evidence at a crime scene that might exonerate a suspect or mitigate liability.
• Reporting for forensic tests that have not actually been performed (believing tests are unnecessary).
• Fabricating scientific opinions based on invalid interpretations to aid prosecution or defense.
• Examining physical evidence beyond one’s qualifications.
• Extending expertise beyond one’s knowledge.
• Using unproved methodologies.
• Overstating an expert opinion.
• Being unclear in testimony by using specialized terminology unfamiliar to juries (terms of art).
• Non-whistleblower behavior: failing to report a colleague or supervisor who engages in unethical activities to the proper authorities.
• These examples prompt the question: how should situations be handled, and what best-practice solutions exist for addressing perceived ethical lapses?

Codes of Ethics and Their Limits

• Debates exist about a universal national code of ethics for forensic science; NAS (National Academy of Sciences) recommended one, but enforcement remains challenging.
• Many professional organizations have codes of conduct, but membership is voluntary and does not automatically ensure ethical behavior or prevent testifying in court if disciplined.
• Expulsions or suspensions from professional organizations do not always prevent a practitioner from testifying; the judge ultimately determines admissibility and credibility.
• A notable historical case: Fred Zain (West Virginia State Police) demonstrated egregious misconduct; although the state provided restitution for convictions, criminal redress was not successful; the case illustrates how ethics failures can persist and be difficult to correct.
• Codes of professional conduct provide guidance but may not stop unwanted behavior; enforcement can be weak when not backed by statutory or regulatory authority.

Laboratory Accreditation and Professional Responsibility

• Accreditation status varies by jurisdiction; some states require accredited labs, others rely on voluntary accreditation.
• Accreditation and corrective actions: accredited labs must document corrective actions if errors are found; such logs can be discoverable in trials and can affect credibility of the witness.
• The ASCLD/LAB Guiding Principles of Professional Responsibility provide a framework for ethical and professional responsibilities in the forensic laboratory community.
  • Their purpose is to promote integrity and to increase public confidence in laboratory services, regardless of accreditation status.
  • Accreditation by ASCLD/LAB can be sanctioned if a lab willfully fails to follow these guidelines, potentially risking loss of accreditation.
• A major shortcoming: not all forensic laboratories are accredited; many crime-scene units and smaller specialized labs operate without full accreditation.
• Accreditation discussions exist alongside proposals for mandatory accreditation; currently, widespread mandatory accreditation remains a distant goal.

Brady Material and the NAS Recommendations

• Brady material refers to information that is exculpatory or could impeach a witness, affecting guilt or innocence; ethical violations by an expert or their agency can be Brady material and may affect admissibility.
• The law around ethics and Brady in forensic contexts is not fully settled; rare appellate cases exist, leaving uncertainty in how ethics disclosures should be handled in court.
• National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2009 report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward recommended:
  • Upgrading systems, training, and uniform best practices; widespread adoption of enforceable standards; mandatory certification and accreditation programs.
  • Standards for mandatory accreditation of laboratories and certification of forensic scientists.
  • No practitioner should be allowed to practice in a forensic discipline or testify without certification; certification should include written exams, supervised practice, proficiency testing, continuing education, recertification, adherence to a code of ethics, and disciplinary processes.
  • All laboratories should be accredited; all forensic scientists should be certified where eligible.
  • These recommendations emphasize mandatory accreditation and certification and the need for ethics codes.

Practical Issues: Enforcement and Culture

• Enforceable ethics codes would help provide concrete examples of appropriate behavior, but currently there is no universal code with uniform enforcement.
• Federation-wide enforcement is hampered by voluntary membership in professional organizations and the absence of broad statutory requirements.
• Even if a practitioner is expelled or suspended, it may not stop him or her from testifying; enforcement relies on the weight of credibility and the court’s decision.
• The NAS recommendation to adopt a national code of ethics and establish enforcement mechanisms could be pursued via certification processes for forensic scientists.
• In the meantime, practitioners should understand the difference between right and wrong, and supervisors and lab directors should take proactive steps to manage ethics concerns.

What Actions Should Be Taken When Ethics Concerns Arise?

• Immediate steps when faced with potential ethics issues:
  • Speak to a trusted colleague or supervisor; consider documenting the issue in writing.
  • When appropriate, escalate to higher levels of management and consider formal investigations.
  • Written accounts can be helpful later in explaining actions and significance.
• Roles and responsibilities:
  • Supervisors and crime lab directors must evaluate significance, determine administrative actions (e.g., reprimand or more severe action), and consider whether issues are Brady-related and require prosecutor notification.
  • If criminal actions are suspected, criminal investigations may involve interrogation with rights (e.g., Miranda) and potential cooperation versus self-preservation concerns.
  • Employees have property rights and may seek counsel or union representation; whistleblowing may be controversial and risky for all parties involved.
• Creating a supportive climate for reporting misconduct is crucial:
  • Establish an ombudsman for confidential advice on concerns.
  • Train and sign employees up for ongoing ethics education; require acknowledgments of training.
  • Promote a culture of professionalism that welcomes ethical reporting and discourages retaliation.
  • Avoid a “kill the messenger” mentality; early identification and action are preferable to late, punitive responses.
• Whistleblowing challenges:
  • Initial reactions may include dismissiveness or public-relations concerns; a climate that prioritizes transparency over blame is essential.
  • Mediation can be pursued in some cases, but not all relationships can be repaired; sometimes the best option is to minimize losses and move forward.
• Accountability and the Brady obligation:
  • Prosecutors should understand their Brady obligations and engage in discussions with crime labs to coordinate handling of ethical concerns.
  • The public agencies involved may be immune from some lawsuits, unless gross negligence is shown, but the credibility impact in court remains central.

Conclusion

• The existence of some unethical conduct in public forensic labs does not imply widespread misconduct, but vigilance is essential.
• The public has a right to expect high professionalism and integrity from those seeking justice.
• A combination of codes, accreditation, certification, training, and a culture that encourages reporting is needed to strengthen ethics in forensic science.

Notes and References

• [1] California Association of Criminalists (CAC) Handbook: http://www.cacnews.org/membership/handbook.shtml
• [2] ASCLD Code of Ethics: http://www.ascld.org/files/library/Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf
• [3] ASCLD/LAB Guiding Principles: http://www.ascld-lab.org/about_us/guidingprinciples.html
• [4] AAFS Bylaws (Art. 2): http://www.aafs.org/aafs-bylaws#Art2
• [5] IAI Latent Print Ethics: http://www.theiai.org/certifications/latent_print/ethics.php
• [6] CAC model code of ethics (inspired by NAS): http://www.cacnews.org/policies/ModelforNCPC.pdf
• [7] States mandating lab accreditation; FBI DNA regulation; medical licensure context: http://www.example.edu
• [8] Certification within labs and advancement practices: http://www.example.edu
• [9] Brady obligation discussion and disclosure practices: http://www.truthinjustice.org/zainreport.htm
• [10] Zain ethics case report: http://www.truthinjustice.org/zainreport.htm
• [11] ASCLD/LAB ALPD (guidelines) PDF: http://www.ascld-lab.org/documents/alpd1014.pdf
• [12] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963): $373 \text{ U.S. } 83$
• [13] NAS report: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589
• Note: NAS 2009 recommendations include: mandatory accreditation and certification; a national code of ethics; and enforceable standards across forensic disciplines.