90 likes | 190 Views
implementing the NAS recommendations: Improving forensic reporting. Peter Moreno Wisconsin Innocence Project. The need for better forensic reporting. In academics, the scientific paper is what allows reviewers to determine whether a scientist’s work is valid.
E N D
implementing the NAS recommendations:Improving forensic reporting Peter Moreno Wisconsin Innocence Project
The need for better forensic reporting • In academics, the scientific paper is what allows reviewers to determine whether a scientist’s work is valid. • “[In forensic reporting], the norm is to have no description of the methods or procedures used, and most reports do not discuss measurement uncertainties or confidence limits.” NAS at 186.
Two possible solutions • Change state law • Most forensic science is done in State Crime Labs, governed by state statute • Convince appellate courts to question forensic evidence and hold analysts accountable for their reports
State legislative reform in WI • Make forensic science more open and equitable • Change the administrative structure and procedures at the State Crime Labs to make labs more neutral • Improve forensic reporting • Make forensic testing more available and transparent to defendants
Legislative proposal regarding forensic reporting • Require full reports with standardized, detailed content, including methods used, raw data collected, potential sources of error, and quantified levels of certainty
Legislative proposal regarding forensic reporting • Require defined terminology in reports • Anthony Hicks and Ralph Armstrong: “consistent” hairs led to wrongful convictions
Legislative proposal regarding forensic reporting • Allow state-based forensic body to determine contents of reports by discipline
Innocence Network Amicus Briefs • Require confrontation of the analyst at trial to explore content of the analyst’s report (and to encourage better reporting) • Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (cited NAS report) (cannot introduce drug-analysis report without analyst) • Bullcoming v. New Mexico (cannot introduce BAC report through surrogate analyst who has no personalknowledge of test performed) • Williams v. Illinois (can State introduce substance of report through the opinion of another analyst?)