Forensic Science

The past few decades, Forensic Science has been the “new” vocation that everyone is intrigued about, whether they have seen it on CSI shows, online, or on television it’s the topic of our society. It is easily portrayed that all crimes are solved and analyzed within twenty-four hours. In reality, forensic science crimes could take anywhere from a week to several months before results are even reached. In the past few decades’ forensic science has evolved tremendously. Technologies, instrumentations, training and protocols are not the same they continue to change. Scientific research, study are also becoming highly revolved around concepts and improvement in daily performance. Forensic can be said to be the new trend, due to being heavily

publicized around the world. It cannot be emphasized enough that results must have validity reproducibility; chain of custody and ethics must be in place in laboratories. Laboratories throughout the world must have basic knowledge on what specific terms are in order to have an appropriate set up in the work environment. Terms such as standards, control, reproducibility, quality assurance and quality control have come across the nation in journals, articles. Since, cases and crimes are increasing throughout the year, forensic science must maintain protocols and current scientific standards. If forensic science does not maintain these standards settings it may be seen as falsification and lack professional and could possibly lead to loss of credibility in court and laboratories. In recent years, the forensic science field has been under scrutinizing results, audits and accreditation. A great explanation was explained for recent failure to create awareness, it was opined that:
“ For the future is it important to consider why scientist acted as they did. For lawyers, jurors and judges a forensic scientists conjures up the image of man in a white coat working in a laboratory, approaching his tasks with cold neutrality, and dedicated only to pursuit of scientific truth. It is somber thought that the reality is sometimes different. Forensic scientist may be partisan”. And they also make mistakes (Nolan and Steyn).
In this paper, we will discuss to why forensic scientist are falsify report results, not following standard operational procedures, lack of training and many more issues.
In the past several years even decades, the issues with the laboratories were kept quiet, but because now media and the network play a huge role in today’s world, these arising issues are being challenge by the general public. With that said numerous errors are occurring in laboratories. Not only is being challenged by the general public, but prosecutors have been challenging the admission of expert, testimony but they also have not always been careful as to what should be presented as forensic evidence. Prosecutors rely heavily on the knowledge of the scientist.
Scrutiny is defined as searching examination or investigation. In the scientific field being under scrutinizing results is something that every lab should avoid, but unfortunately laboratories continued to find themselves under these circumstances. For example, in a recent story in the Houston Chronicles it was announced that the FBI might terminate the Houston Police department access to its national DNA database by the end of the week dependent on the outcome of federal review on the growing controversy. It said that the problems uncovered in an independent audit, where multiple of issues arise. One of the many issues was untrained staff, shoddy science and a leaky roof and has possibly compromised integrity of evidence (Whitehurst). This particular issue led a 21-year-old Josiah Sutton from Houston to be released from prison due to flaw analysis. He was originally charged with rape, but because these investigations occur, the DNA evidence had to be retested. When the DNA evidence was resubmitted to be tested it did not match the suspect. The DNA analysis at the time, accepted as positive evidence of guilt that the evidence had been flawed without anyone recognition for many years. When the FBI was asked to how was HPD able to access the database, they were even unsure. This goes to show that FBI also does not paying relatively close attention to who is accessing the information. According to Forensic Science System Chief John Behun, in order to even be able to access the FBI DNA database you must meet the federal operational standards.
In addition to HPD, being under, they were other laboratories across the nation who were also falsifying evidence. On January 14, 2001 it was reported that, “a supervisor at the Illinois State police crime lab gave false testimony in nine cases, including trails that resulted in wrongful rape convictions of three Chicago men, according to an analysis by leading forensic expert for lawsuits against the City of Chicago( Whitehurst, pg.2).” When this lab went under investigation the next day it was said by a former director in New York City laboratory, described the Chicago lab being unorganized, poorly supervised, and lacking standard operational producers. It also went on to say that the staff was untrained. If this is the case why would we allow inadequately trained workers to testify on anything and why wasn’t the investigated before? We would think that the reliability and value of DNA testing has far outstripped much longer-living forensic science evidence (Stride). More and more cases are being solved involving DNA evidence and the process is becoming the main focus. DNA evidence is being rely on, the more they rely on it the more perks and changes come along like new techniques, instrumentation to enhance testing performed. Therefore, not properly training or following is not acceptable in the science field.
Once again, people are being wrongly imprisoned on other allegations such as drugs. At first, it was DNA being flawed now we have drugs being wrongfully analyzed. In a recent case, another lab had to be shut down. The Columbia Police department has shut down its drug laboratory after an investigation in the lab was found that an analyst in the lab was not properly trained and due to inadequate training, her analysis of drugs was most likely flawed (McShane). It is said, that the analyst who apparently isn’t qualified to do drug scientist analysis has testified to similar cases in the recent years. It is embarrassing to say, because when it comes to drug analysis it based on chemical tests to determine exactly what substance is handed off to the analyst. The analyst is trained to weigh the substance. Then, the results are relocated to the prosecutors for use in the court, but based on the weight of the substance is how the charges are placed. Johnson states,” If you can’t trust the weight, we have problems” he goes on to say, that everyone needs to rely on that information, if it’s not correct then what do we testify to (McShane, pg.2).
When it comes to standard operational procedures (SOP), some of the laboratories that have been previously discussed have all lacked in this area. Standard Operational Procedure is a document that every laboratory should have and follow. SOP are documents that consist of step-by-step information on how to execute specific tasks, usually these SOP are modified and updated frequently to ensure that everyone working in the lab is current on changes being made. Most of the labs fell short when they were audited. In the recent case of Columbia drug lab the auditor Garvin said he reviewed the lab on July 11th and Aug 5th, 2014. According to Garvin’s findings, cited in the letter were:
• Many of the laboratory’s written standard operating procedures did not appear to be consistent with actual practices.
• The lab’s standard operating procedures were issued only after the analysis was performed.
• There was inadequate quality assurance for the weighing of physical evidence.
• Frazier may not be familiar with or understand proper evidence sampling methods.

Sampling may have fallen short of best practices.

• Improper storage temperatures may have allowed physical evidence to degrade.

• Frazier has “significant gaps in her previous training and experience and may not currently possess the knowledge necessary to competently perform drug analysis.” (

McShane)
All these findings seemed like a surprise to Holbrook.

Holbrook is the person who oversees the Columbia drug lab. Holbrook said is goal is to reopen a top crime lab, “to have a functioning, accredited forensic drug laboratory that follows sounds and accept scientific methodology-that is the only acceptable standard there should be. Nothing else is acceptable (McShane pg. 3)”. Johnson who works hand in hand with prosecution side said , not only will he be reviewing cases that are still open but also closed one performed by this specific person to make sure that someone else was not wrongfully sentence ( McShane 2). The goal here is to avoid these types of situations from happening and not to have the forensic science field frown upon due simply not following SOP. With SOP being placed, accreditations also come along.

Unlike everything else, accreditation is another key to maintain a lab

As the field evolves, the problem with flawed forensic science are being highly recognized in the profession. These problems are being published in books were other incoming forensic scientist or ever current employs can refer to. In a recent book, called Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation it stated what situation are occurring and to be aware. He states by saying, “the following situation, unfortunately, refer to actual incidents”. He states a few incidents that are clearly things that continue to happen in the science field:

• Planting evidence at a crime scene to point to a

defendant
• Collecting evidence without a warrant by claiming exigent circumstances
• Falsifying laboratory examination to enhance the prosecution’s case
• Fabricating scientific opinions based on invalid interpretation of tests or evidence to assist the prosecution
• Extending expertise beyond one’s knowledge
• Using unproved methodologies
• Overstating an expert opinion ‘terms of art’ unfamiliar to juries
• Examining physical evidence when not qualified to do so ( Barry Fisher)
These issues that Fisher brought up are significant. Suggestions have to be brought up in these laboratories in order for something to change or decrease.
In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued its report to congress on the state of forensic sciences in the United States on the issues that are happening nationally and locally. The group of commissioner were selected to examine and report findings in the forensic field. The findings reported were very crucial. The NAS, critiqued the forensic science field harshly. One of the few things that they proposed is to:
• Identify potential scientific advances to assist law enforcement
• Make recommendations for programs that will increase the number of qualified forensic scientist and medical examiners
• Disseminate best practices and guidelines for collection and analysis of forensic evidence to ensure its quality and conspiracy (NAS)