One of the first lessons you learn as a criminal defense attorney, particularly an attorney working on innocence cases, is that nothing is as it seems. Those stories you thought were too crazy to be true? Totally happened. And all that stuff you thought was fact? It’s not. This is particularly true for pretty much everything you think you know about forensic “science,” where the truth is, with the exception of DNA testing, there is very little actual “science” involved.
In fact,most forensic sciences– e.g., handwriting, bitemark, fire pattern, blood spatter, bullet and tool marking analysis–are open to subjective interpretations. Which means when we allow testimony about these “sciences” at trial, what we’re really doing is allowing juries to pit an expert’s credibility (and unreliable testimony) against that of the defendant’s. Considering the supposed “expert” is typically some combination of educated, middle- or upper- class, white and male, and that most defendants come from disadvantaged backgrounds, you can guess how the jury (which is also typically made up of white folks) will decide the case.
But it’s not just the expert’s testimony that is skewed against the defendant. Often, the very request for testing will skew the results themselves. Although state crime labs technically work for both the prosecution and the defense, requests for testing are typically submitted by the District Attorney. Included on the tests is information about the crime necessary to perform the testing. For example, if you have clothing that you want tested for trace DNA, it would be helpful to know that the victim had been strangled, and so they should look for DNA near the collar of the shirt. But along with this necessary information comes prejudicial information about the defendant, what the police suspect happened, and what they expect to find. Thus, by the time the lab technician even begins to analyze evidence, they are already looking for a particular outcome.
This isn’t to say that all lab technicians are shady, vindictive people. It just means they are human. When the same people come to you day after day, you start to treat them better. Just like a barista might be nicer to her regulars. In this same way, technicians at crime labs come to favor the prosecution–it’s most often the State that’s requesting the testing. Similarly, lab technicians and forensic experts may just be trying to help. They genuinely believe their work is necessary to catch the “bad guy.” It’s not that they are maliciously motivated.
But all of these motivations aside, what results is a system that favors fraudulent science and hinders the defense. And you don’t just have to take my word for it. The situation has become so dire that last year, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report asking for regulation and oversight in the forensic fields. And just this last month, the News & Observer ran a four-part series detailing the corrupt and fault practices of the SBI crime lab in North Carolina. According to the investigative report, SBI agents distorted the rules to yield the desired test results of the prosecution more than a dozen times when the truth threatened to undermine their cases.
When most people hear science has exonerated an incarcerated person, they tend to think of DNA evidence. But the truth is, a lot of exonerations occur after scientists testify that the forensic science presented at trial wasn’t actually science. Take for example, the two men exonerated in Mississippi after scientists explained that marks on the bodies that had previously been identified as bite marks had actually created by crawfish. Or the case of Audrey Edmunds, which highlights the problems with the very notion of Shaken Baby Syndrome. (N.B. No one has yet proven this phenomenon exists.)
Critics have called for reformation of the system to reflect these biases. And clearly something needs to be done. But until it is, it’s hard to imagine that justice can be reached when our “objective” facts are really just subjective interpretations.
********UPDATE**********
Three convictions based upon faulty SBI work in the NC labs ultimately resulted in executions.
Cross-posted at Feministe.
Wow! Thanks so much for posting these! I’ve often come to these conclusions about how the criminal justice system works but I have no practical experience, so it’s nice to hear it from someone who has seen it first hand. The idea of juries being biased in favor of the opinion of an ‘expert’ really seems to be one of the major issues facing defendants.
I’d be interested to know what you think about the way the system is set up for prosecutors to try and ‘win’ cases and maintain their victories at any cost. I fail to see how this contributes anything but the pursuit of locking up as many people for as many years as possible.