Whereas the need for and application of scientific evidence has become a ubiquitous practice in most criminal justice systems, not so much attention has been paid to the potential limitations and problems associated with this type of evidence. Aspects of forensic technology such as DNA analysis have been used in the identification of the guilty and exoneration of the innocent globally for decades now. However, as the Innocence Project (n.d) notes, whereas some of these forensic technology procedures such as bite mark and shoe print comparisons were developed through thorough scientific research, many of these techniques are yet to be subjected to enough evaluation scientifically. Besides, some have resulted in errors, raising fears that their continued use in criminal trials without evaluating their efficiency, may lead to more innocent people being sent to the hangman or behind bars.
The aspect of the reading from the Innocence Project website that I find most interesting is the revelation that most wrongful convictions are to be blamed on the use of improper or invalidated forensic science methods and techniques. Moreover, also interesting is the fact that there is lack of scientific standards on the use of these techniques in most forensic science fields or disciplines. This is interesting because it reveals just how vulnerable we or our colleagues who have had to undergo such processes such as DNA analysis are. The Innocence Project also identifies misconduct among forensic experts and improper testimony by them which cast serious aspersions as to the validity of using such evidence within our justice system without proper standards. Based on this source’s claims, I don’t believe that DNA evidence is being properly used in our system today. This is also so because there are certain fundamental flaws in the manner in which scientific evidence is produced and presented in courts which makes it susceptible to manipulation to defendants’ prejudice. Further, as a study by Garrett and Neufeld (2009) shows, the use of forensic evidence within our justice system has resulted in more wrongful convictions due to invalid expert testimonies and lack of scientific oversight mechanisms for review of such evidence by judges before admission during trial.
In as far as the Justice for All Act (2004) contains provisions addressing evidence preservation and availing post-conviction testing to defendants, I think it is worthwhile legislation. By making it possible for defendants who have reason to believe that they have been wrongly convicted to be eligible for post-conviction testing, this law ensures that justice would be served to them. I also think this is a worthwhile piece of legislation because it has tried to fix the loopholes that hitherto existed with regards to the admissibility of forensic and other expert scientific evidence in courts. The law is also important because it contains provisions that seek to expand and improve the DNA testing capacity of crime labs at the federal and local state levels. Moreover, the Justice for All Act as an omnibus legislation seeks to increase the number of new DNA testing technologies through research and development. It also aims at the development of new training programs on the DNA evidence use and collection among law enforcement officers and scientists.
More importantly, the fact that the Act provides for the preservation of biological or any scientific evidence used against an accused at trial makes it a valuable tool for revisiting previous conviction evidence. Under section 14133(c) (2), the Justice for All Act has enhanced penalties for any person who misuses Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) data and also improves the lab quality standards for forensic evidence under section 14132. Moreover, with the establishment of the National Forensic Science Commission under the Act, the issue of lack of standards and evaluation of forensic scientific evidence is solved thus making the Act a valuable tool against use of substandard and unverified scientific technology within the criminal justice system.
References
Brandon L. Garrett & Peter J. Neufeld, Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions, 95 Va. L. J.1, 1-97 (2009).
Innocent Project, Invalidated or improper forensic science, (n.d), available at http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/unvalidated-or-improper-forensic-science/
Justice for All Act H.R. 5107 (2004)
