The NAS Report: Changing the Forensic Science Landscape

2. Jay A. Siegel, Ph.D. Director – Forensic and Investigative Sciences Program Chair – Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis Texas Forensic Science Seminar October 7-8, 2010 The NAS Report: Changing the Forensic Science Landscape

3. 7 score and 6 years from now the National Academy of Sciences will come forth with a significant report on forensic science (whatever that is)

4. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward February 18, 2009 National academy of sciencescommittee on science and technology

5. 17 members: judge, forensic scientists, other scientists, attorneys, government policy experts, academics 2 years of meetings; testimony by 80+ witnesses Report issued 18 February 2009 NAS Committee on Forensic Science

6. 1. New oversight agency – National Institute of Forensic Sciences • 2. Standard terminology and lab reports • 3. Research in accuracy, reliability, validity • 4. Remove crime labs from administrative control of law enforcement and prosecutors • 5. Research in forensic science and bias • 6. Standard, validated methods of analysis 13 recommendations

7. 7. Mandatory accreditation and certification • 8. Routine quality assurance and control • 9. National code of ethics tied to certification • 10. Improve forensic science education; more fellowships, research grants • 11. Medical examiner systems rather than coroners. Incentivize forensic pathology • 12. Interoperability of fingerprint databases • 13. Maximize value of evidence to Homeland Security 13 Recommendations

8. Oversight/coordination • President appoints FSC after reviewing recommendations from NAS and AAFS. Majority of commission members must have comprehensive science backgrounds • Standards/Best practices • FSC with subcommittees and NIST shall establish standard protocols, methods, practices, QA standards and reporting terminology Proposed legislation from Senate judiciary committee

9. FSC operates out of office of Deputy Attorney General and staffed by Office of Forensic Science (OFS) • OFS implements FSC recommendations • FSC determines what subcommittees are needed • Subcommittees made up of scientists from variety of disciplines. Need not be specialists in area of subcommittee expertise. Members of subcommittee appointed by FSC Deputy Director in consultation with FSC Proposed legislation

10. Accreditation • All labs that receive federal funding must be accredited • FSC will determine accreditation standards • Certification • All practitioners in federally funded and/or accredited labs must be certified • FSC will consider linkage of certification to court testimony Proposed legislation

11. Research • FSC will develop strategy and priorities for research in accuracy, reliability and validity • NIST will administer this research program • NIJ will administer research program in applicability of forensic science to civil and criminal legal systems Proposed Legislation

12. What science can and cannot do:pattern evidence

13. Identify objects (drugs, fibers, explosives, etc) Compare objects from a crime scene to those of known origin and determine common physical and chemical characteristics Opine about the relationships between evidence and knowns based on the comparison Opine about the prevalence of objects in our world What can forenic science do?

14. Determine the provenance (source) of a piece of evidence from a crime scene with scientific certainty By extension, cannot individualize evidence to a particular source to the exclusion of every other possible source; e.g. a fingerprint, bullet, document What can forensic science not do?

15. Uniqueness • Randomness Characteristics of Pattern Evidence

16. Markings transferred from an object or person to another surface • These markings arise from a random process • Stria on inside surface of barrel of rifled weapons, • Shoe print and tire tread imperfections or • Human development • Fingerprints • Handwriting Pattern Evidence

17. Some may change with time in unpredictable ways • Markings on bullets, cartridges and toolmarks • Handwriting • Shoe prints and tire treads • May be constant • Fingerprints (except for growth) Pattern Evidence

18. Considered to be unique to that person or object and thus capable of being individualized. But………………….. Underlying principle of uniqueness has not been rigorously, scientifically established by empirical research. So…... This triggers questions of reliability, thus invoking Daubert Pattern Evidence

19. Putting object or material in class of one • DNA • Based on reliable probabilities • Pattern evidence • Based on unproven notion of unique characteristics Individualization

20. Is it important to know error rates? • Are error rates known? - Daubert • “Zero error rate” in fingerprint analysis • Can they be determined? – IAI study and others • Role of proper proficiency testing • Realistic – simulates case work • Closed – scientist not aware of test Error Rates

21. Many labels: confirmational, observer, situational • Example: Madrid bombing case • Example: fingerprint examiners changed opinions when given information about the case • Blind testing: give as little information as possible to examiner • Blind verification: 2nd examiner does not know conclusion of 1st examiner Bias

22. Solutions? • Show up v. line up • Case agent • Blind testing • Blind verification • Sequential unmasking Bias

23. Individuality of pattern evidence is not proven and cannot be. It is not a scientific concept Examiners should use probabilistic conclusions Error rates need to be determined for pattern evidence Bias must be recognized and minimized as it is throughout science Summary

24. Thank you for your attentionQuestions?