Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

Abstract

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.

Postmortem Gone Astray—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Perhaps the persistence of discrepancy rates throughout history has resulted in the practice of forensic pathologists having inappropriate confidence in experience and individual customary practice [60][61][62]. Such a feature might be a potential source of error in formulating conclusions [4].…”

Rethinking scientific communication in courts: A question of credibility

“…Research has identified a significant subset of cases where unvalidated methodologies have been associated with cases of wrongful conviction [ 10 ] and there is acknowledgement that methodologies lacking the underpinnings of analytical validity have led to the discrediting of methods used in evidence under the banner of forensic science (e.g. bite marks) [ 11 , 12 ].…”

“…Unawareness of these may lead an expert witness to unknowingly omit disclosures of information to the court that are required of an expert. Whilst there is benefit in legal practitioners themselves having training to understand scientific evidence and engage with the forensic science community, it is ultimately the responsibility of the expert witness to meet their role in assisting the court [ 10 ]. Material omissions in reports or testimony have the potential to open judgements to appeal and leave the expert, and their agency, open to questions as to the strength of their expertise, quality of work and the validity of the forensic information [ 16 ].…”

“…Central to many criticisms of the forensic sciences is the lack of clear communication of limitations within disciplines or sub-disciplines along with the perceived reluctance of certain areas within the field to calibrate their findings appropriately when faced with evidence in support of those limitations [ 8 , 10 , 15 ]. This stems, in part, from forensic science operating within the criminal justice system and, thus, any science it produces being mediated through that lens.…”

Beyond Discrimination: Generative AI Applications and Ethical Challenges in Forensic Psychiatry

“…In forensic psychiatry, where research suggests that juries and judges tend to misinterpret scientific evidence in court, for instance overestimating the reliability of neuroscientific evidence (126), leading to miscarriages of justice (127), the potential introduction of genAI-fabricated evidence introduces the risk of wrongful convictions grounded in maliciously AI-generated scientific evidence.…”