130 likes | 279 Views
The Evolving Forensic Sciences. Joseph L. Peterson Sam Houston State University College of Criminal Justice Huntsville, Texas. Issues to be Addressed. Landmark changes in the past 35 years Key technological improvements Key progress in standards Key rules of admissibility changes
E N D
The Evolving Forensic Sciences Joseph L. Peterson Sam Houston State University College of Criminal Justice Huntsville, Texas
Issues to be Addressed • Landmark changes in the past 35 years • Key technological improvements • Key progress in standards • Key rules of admissibility changes • Cultural changes • Major problems that limit the field • What needs to be done?
Landmarks of past thirty years • 1970s • Growth in violent crime and drug abuse • Federal assistance (LEAA) • Supreme Court decisions limiting police and promoting science • Tripling of laboratories • Growth in state systems
Landmarks (cont) • 1980s • Crime laboratory accreditation begins • Proficiency testing introduced/practiced • Data bases (fingerprints) established • DNA testing introduced in court • Major scientific entities approve of DNA testing • TWGDAM guidelines for DNA testing
Landmarks (cont) • 1990s • Establishment of DNA databases (CODIS) • Convicted offender DNA testing approved • Post-conviction DNA testing/death penalty cases • Associated evidence evaluated (eyewitness) • Supreme Court decisions (Daubert trilogy) • OJ, whistleblowers, and FBI Audit • “Junk science” enters our lexicon
Landmarks (cont) • 2000s • Decade of remarkable changes • Convergence of major forces • Six primary areas
Landmarks (2000s) • Popular culture change • Public learns about forensic science • CSI TV phenomenon • Raised expectations and the “CSI Effect” • Journalists attack forensic examiners and their science • Reliability of science is attacked in press • Chicago Tribune, etc.
Landmarks (2000s) • DNA • The science continues to evolve • Progress in precision and sensitivity • Serves to exonerate as well as convict • Becomes the new scientific “gold standard” against which other scientific evidence is compared
Landmarks (2000s) • Aggressive criminal defense litigation • Law school innocence projects (s) • Capital cases are overturned • DNA is instrumental evidence • Extends to other forensic testing • Other evidence (forensic included) questioned • Fallibility becomes issue and death penalty sentences decline
Landmarks (2000s) • Legislative • Laboratory conditions cause for action • Coverdell et al. • Funds earmarked for DNA testing • Funding tied to meeting standards • NIJ 180 Day Report to Congress (2004)
Landmarks (2000s) • Rules of admissibility continue to evolve • The Daubert Cases • Was a scientific process followed • Frye standard also influenced • Long accepted techniques are questioned
Landmarks (2000) • Laboratory Management Hits Front Page • The Houston crime lab scandal (and others) • Backlogs stifle/cripple the field • Laboratory budgets are often the cause • Context effect is discussed
What Needs to be Done? • Funding • Organizational placement (Independence and Neutrality) • Standards should be mandatory • Scientific research • Technical • Statistical empirical data bases • Continuing legal education • Advisors to the courts • Lawyers and judges