The Bite Mark Dentists and the Counterattack on Forensic Science Reform

Zalman, Marvin; Windell, James

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3585255

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the examiners were working as consultants [18] and possessed a doctoral degree [20]. In the Cristini/ Moldowan case, five examiners played some role over three trials and two decades [100]. Analyst incompetence was associated with 78 examinations, 65 of which were part of the evidence to convict a defendant.…”

Section: Best Practices and Examiner Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

Morgan

2023

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence.” A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system—but not under the purview of any forensic science organization—may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.

show abstract

Section: Best Practices and Examiner Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the examiners were working as consultants [18] and possessed a doctoral degree [20]. In the Cristini/Moldowan case, five examiners played some role over three trials and two decades [100]. Prosecution examiner Alan Warnick testified that Moldowan made a bite on the victim's neck and Cristini made one on the victim's arm.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%