Running head: ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 1

Entering the Discourse:

Heavy Reliance on Forensic Science
Crystal Rodriguez
University of TexasEl Paso








ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 2

Abstract
For many years, forensic science has played an increasing role in both law
enforcement and in the medical field. The use of forensic applications has helped
solve many cases, however, individuals out of 225 cases, a total of 116 cases (which
is more than 50%) have been exonerated, or pardoned, by being wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned due to mistakes in forensic evidence. Other factors that
play a role in wrongful convictions and false imprisonment are error rates in bite
mark analysis and latent print examinations, along with subjective judgments made
by forensic analysts when doing site visitation. The problem at hand is that as the
need for forensic evidence skyrockets, the criminal court systems continue to rely
heavily on forensic evidence, and as a result, make incorrect convictions or
accusations based off of collected forensic evidence, which can be potentially
flawed; therefore causing innocent people being convicted or guilty criminals be
released into society. The purpose of this article is to prove that forensic evidence is
not as accurate and reliable and should therefore stop being so heavily depended on
by the criminal court system when convicting suspects.

ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 3

Entering the Discourse:
Heavy Reliance on Forensic Science
As early as the 16
th
century, forensic science has played an increasing role in
both law enforcement and medical fields. Forensic science has paved the way for
personal use, such as using DNA testing to know your biological background, and for
crime scene investigation. However, as forensic science has progressed throughout
the years, enhancing the use of technology in order to identify someone, the criminal
court system has relied heavily upon forensic evidence in order to solve criminal
cases. It may seem apparent that the use of forensic evidence has improved the
court system by incarcerating identified murders/criminals, however, the use of
forensic evidence has also led to misinterpretation and misidentification of a
suspect, leading the defendant into facing drastic sentences such as the death
penalty. If forensics has led to the wrongful accusationwhich decides the fate of
the suspectshould the criminal court system rely heavily on the evidence
provided by forensic scientists? The answer is no. Because of the presence of error
rates in forensic testing, the criminal court system should not depend exclusively on
forensic evidence; instead, the criminal court system should take into consideration
that some pieces of forensic evidence are not as accurate and reliable and should
therefore stop greatly depending on forensic science to solve a court case, in order
to minimize wrongful convictions/imprisonment.
Because the criminal court system relied so heavily on forensic science, there
have been many cases that have been exonerated, or pardoned, due to a wrongful
conviction based on forensic evidence. Out of the first 225 wrongful convictions that
ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 4

were overturned by DNA testing, a total of 116 cases, which weighs more than 50%
of the cases, were involved with improper forensic science (Innocence Project, n.d,
p. 1). According to Dwight E. Adams (2012) in Challenges for forensic science: new
demands in todays world, it was found that of the first 200 individuals in the
United States identified by the Innocence Project as being wrongfully convicted, 32
were wrongfully convicted at least in part through faulty forensic science analysis
and testimony (p. 348). Now this may seem minimal, however, 32 individuals out of
200 had their freedom stripped away from them all due to a mistake in forensic
evidence, serving them tainted injustice.
As this issue has presented itself, many scholars have offered their position
about the issue, along with a couple of suggestions as well. For example, Kris
Mohandie (2013), author of The Value of Crime Scene and Site Visitation by
Forensic Psychologists and Psychiatrists, believes that forensic evidence gains
accuracy if the forensic scientists goes to the crime scene site themselves rather
than have collected evidence taken to them. According to Mohandie (2013), findings
from site visits accounted for most discrepancies, better anchored discreet
behaviors sequentially during specific points of the event, ruled out at least one
alternative hypothesis (officers or witnesses lying), and verified assumptions about
these matters that otherwise may have been deemed speculation by a potential trier
of fact (p. 721). Unlike Mohandie (2013), however, Linda Geddes (2009) in
Forensic evidence goes on trial believes that subjective judgments of collected
evidence from a forensic analyst are determining the fates some suspects arent
responsible in facing. Geddes (2009) also believes that the problem with mistrials
ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 5

due to forensic evidence is because the system that allows prosecutors to bring
expert witnesses into court to interpret evidence that they have had no hand in
collecting (pr. 7). Along with Mohandie (2013), yes site visitation may increase
reliability on forensic evidence, nonetheless, I agree with Geddes (2009) because
there is no telling whether a forensic analysts personal interpretation of the data is
biased or not; therefore hindering a mistrial or improper incarceration of a civilian.
Miscarriages of justice, such as an incorrect identification of the suspect, are
all too common because of heavy forensic science reliability. For example, in 1985 a
man named Steven Barnes was convicted of rape and murder of a 16 year old girl
because forensic evidence showed that the soil on his truck tires matched the ones
at the crime scene, and an imprint on the outside of his truck matched the jean
pattern the victim was wearing the night she was killed. In the year 2009 however,
new test samples showed that Barness DNA did not match the DNA found on the
victims body and clothing and was therefore freed after spending 20 years in jail
(Geddes, 2009, pr.2). Twenty years of Barness life has gone to waste, simply
because of judgments based only on the presented forensic results. Because of
mistakes like these in many cases, people like Barnes (who are wrongly accused)
are stripped away from freedom, happiness, family, jobs, and any other precious
moments of life. But Barnes isnt the only victim of wrongful conviction due to faulty
forensic evidence. As previously mentioned, a total of 116 cases out of 225 were
exonerated, or overturned, by DNA testing; among these cases were Kenneth
Adams, Steven Avery, Michael Blair, Johnny Briscoe, and many more, who were
charged as guilty due to incorrect or invalidated hair analysis (Innocence Project,
ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 6

n.d, p. 3-4). Apart from incorrect hair analysis, there was also incorrect fingerprint,
DNA, and bite mark analysis (along with many other forensic discrepancies) such as
the cases of Roy Brown, Gene Bibbins, Gilbert Alejandro, and Chad Heins (Innocence
Project, n.d, p. 3-9).
Two fragments of evidence the criminal court system relies on are latent
prints and latent print examiners as expert witnesses. Latent prints are
impressions (fingerprints, palm prints, or footprints) left unintentionally on items
such as those found at crime scenes; Latent print examiners compare latents to
exemplars [high quality prints], using their expertise rather than a quantitative
standard to determine if the information content is sufficient to make a decision
(Ulery, 2011, p. 1). In a study conducted by Bradford Ulery (2011), five examiners
out of 169 (83% were certified latent print examiners) made a total of six latent
print errors out of 744 distinct latent-exemplar image pairs. Even though six errors
out of 744 prints is again minimal, what is important about these errors is that they
were committed by five examiners, in which three of them were certified as latent
print examiners, meaning that even an expert in latent print examinationwhich
has had approximate 10 years in experience--makes vital mistakes that taints
evidence. A hundred latent prints out of 744 were given to each examiner, and the
five examiners that committed errors had made false positive errors for an overall
false positive rate of 0.1%. Eighty-five percent of examiners made at least one false
negative error for an overall false negative rate of 7.5% (Ulery, 2011, p. 1). A false
positive error means that there was an incorrect positive match (incorrectly
similar), while a false negative error means that a match that was supposed to be
ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 7

positive was incorrect and presented as a negative instead. This study showed that a
false negative error happens much more frequently than a false positive error,
which means that a true criminal may be freed and released into society, all
because a forensic scientist made an error and made a false negative DNA latent
print match. Even the slightest of errors a forensic examiner makes can potentially
lead to the liberation of a criminal into society, triggering more crime to the streets,
therefore inhabiting citizens, including children, into a dangerous environment and
atmosphere.
To prove that a certified forensic analyst isnt always necessarily an expert
in the field, a study made by S.L. Avon (2010), was conducted in order to show the
error rates in bite mark analysis. In this study, there were three groups consisting of
dentists with no experience in forensics, dentists with a forensic odontology
interest, and dentists certified by the American Board of Forensic Odontology
(ABFO). This study showed that the inexperienced examiners often performed as
well as the board-certified group, and both inexperienced and board-certified
groups performed better than those with an interest in forensic odontology that had
not yet received board certification (Avon, 2010, p. 45). The results in this study
also showed that incorrect suspect attributions (possible false inculpation) were
most common among this intermediate group (Avon, 2010, p.45). In forensic
odontology, acknowledging the wrong dentition of a bite mark makes the critical
error of possibly blaming an innocent individual, so it is outrageous to trust an
expert witness such as an ABFO certified dentist who performs similarly to a
dentist who is completely inexperienced in forensics; therefore, expert forensic
ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 8

odontologists complete bite mark analysis with undependable results, meaning that
their expert opinion should not be validated.
What adds credibility to evidence found by forensic applications, such as
DNA analysis, is when the forensic examiner himself/herself do a site visitation.
According to Mohandie (2013), site visits and crime scene visitation by forensic
psychologists and psychiatrists may enhance the accuracy and credibility of their
forensic work in criminal, civil, and other important contexts (p. 719). This site
visitation technique adds accuracy to forensic results because it allows the examiner
to see first-hand the crime scene and therefore being able to gain much better
perspective on how the crime happened, why it happened, and if there were any
discrepancies (that initial investigators missed) that could maybe hinder collected
evidence. However, a site visitation isnt as reliable as Mohandie (2013) makes it
seem. For example, fire investigators look for evidenceresidues of flammable
liquids at the crime scene. This analyst makes a site visitation and hunt[s] for
evidence and since the evidence comparison is visual it is therefore subjective
(Geddes, 2009, pr. 26). Site visitation makes forensic evidence and results much
more unreliable instead of reliable because now you have to trust a forensic
examiners point of view, and there is no telling whether an examiner will show bias
and unethical behavior at the crime scene or examination of evidence.
As a service to society, the DNA fingerprint and other uncomplicated forensic
applications has given civilians the luxury of knowing what defines an individual
from another through the means of a DNA database of genetic codes. This process is
not a difficult one, for it only requires specific sequence of base pairs that allows us
ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 9

to unambiguously identify a single individual from the residual DNA found at the
crime scenethe DNA fingerprint (Morris, 2013, p. 2). With the use of the DNA
database, it allows forensic examiners to analyze pieces of DNA found at a crime
scene and compare/contrast the newly found genetic information to previous
stored data, making it extremely useful in finding serial criminals and eliminate the
innocent from being sentenced. In fact, the National Research Council (NRC) came to
the conclusion that DNA was the only forensic method [that] has been rigorously
shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty,
demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual source
(Wilson, 2010, p. 459). According to David B. Wilson (2010), in both sexual offenses
and homicides, the presence of DNA evidence increased the probabilities of a
prosecution and a conviction. The problem with this statement, however, is that
there are many key factors that may influence the DNA evidence in both a positive
and negative way. Sure DNA evidence could potentially identify someone, if done
properly. But when not done properly, the negative effects play a major role. For
example, did the forensic analyst make an unbiased site visitation, did the forensic
examiner carefully and thoroughly analyzed the unaltered evidence, and did the
forensic scientist base his investigation solely on what a computer told him/her.
Like Geddes (2009) said, even computers have error rates (pr. 13).
In conclusion, due to the fact that both elite technology and forensic
scientists make errors during examination, it is only rational to stop relying so
heavily upon their presented results, for if we (as a criminal justice court system)
keep depending and be influenced by forensic results, we incorrectly decide a
ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 10

suspects fatewhether truly innocent or guilty. There have been many instances
where an individual is serving his/her time in prison, and it is later found that they
were not guilty of the crime. The problem this poses is that as the necessity for
forensic evidence skyrockets in court trialsand court trials depend on this
evidencethe meaning of justice for all plummets as there are more and more
wrongful convictions and mistrials.

ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 11

References
Adams, D. E., Mabry, J.P., McCoy, M.R., & Lord, W.D. (2013). Challenges for forensic
science: New demands in todays world. Australian Journal of Forensic
Sciences, 45, 347-355. doi:10.1080/00450618.2012.728246
Avon, S. L., Victor, C. C., Mayhall, J. T., & Wood, R. E. (2010). Error rates in bite mark
analysis in an in vivo animal model. Forensic Science International, 201(1-3),
45-55. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.016
Geddes, L. (2009). Forensic evidence goes on trial. New Scientist, 201(2697), 6-7.
Innocence Project. (n.d). Wrongful convictions involving unvalidated or improper
forensic science that were later overturned through DNA testing. Retrieved
from
http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/DNA_Exonerations_Forensic_Scienc
e.pdf
Mohandie, K., & Meloy, J. (2013). The value of crime scene and site visitation by
forensic psychologists and psychiatrists. Journal Of Forensic Sciences (Wiley-
Blackwell), 58(3), 719-723. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.12135
Morris, A.G. (2013). The DNA bill: Forensic science in the service of society.
(2013). South African Journal of Science, 109(11/12), 2.
doi:10.1590/sajs.2013/a0043
Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. (2011). Accuracy and reliability of
forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of
Sciences Of The United States Of America, 108(19), 7733-7738.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1018707108
ENTERING THE DISCOURSE 12

Wilson, D. B., McClure, D., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Does forensic DNA help to solve
crime? The benefit of sophisticated answers to naive questions. Journal Of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(4), 458-469.
doi:10.1177/1043986210377231