EVIDENCE ISN’T ALWAYS RIGHT
Forensic science is the application of science to the law. On television, it appears the two work together quickly and with great accuracy to solve a crime. However, the practical application of science in a criminal matter is much different. Many people do not understand this until they find themselves in a courtroom watching a real trial unfold. Lawyers often refer to this phenomenon as the “CSI effect” after the popular TV shows. The unfortunate reality is most forensic sciences are not that advanced, and the law moves too slowly to keep up when there is a scientific change.
This happens because, in the legal field, we look at past decisions for guidance on how to pursue justice in the present. Only in compelling situations, usually guided by the Legislature or voters, are we able to change the law and break away from stale precedent.
Don’t believe ‘CSI.’ Many forensic sciences are fundamentally flawed.
The law is drastically different from science which, in theory, is constantly challenging itself and moving forward. But even with an eye toward advancement, forensic sciences that analyze fingerprints, bite marks, firearms and more continue to be fundamentally flawed. The only exception would be the forensic discipline of DNA science, which, unlike the other forensic sciences, started in a lab before moving to the courtroom.
Starting in 2009, a variety of organizations sounded the alarm on issues within the forensic fields, criticizing each discipline for lacking a truly scientific foundation. Organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Sciences have warned everyone from judges and jurors to forensic experts within 15-plus forensic disciplines of the devastating limitations in each field.
Despite the warnings about the limitations, forensic science is appearing unchecked in courtrooms across the country. This setup has, unfortunately, resulted in serious consequences, including many wrongful conviction cases and many years of wrongful incarceration, and, in the most serious of cases, the wrongful use of the death penalty. A study from 2014 reports that about 4 percent of people serving time on death row in the United States are actually innocent.
In fact, about 25 percent of the 3,315 recorded exonerations in the United States since 1989 were wrongfully convicted using some sort of flawed forensic science. This number does not include the innocent people who remain incarcerated even though scientific advancements can prove their innocence. While some of these individuals may gain their freedom and join the growing group of exonerees, too many will remain incarcerated because the law simply does not provide a path to correct such egregious errors.
Currently, only seven states, including California, have laws that provide wrongfully convicted people a path to freedom when their case relied on faulty forensic evidence. In 2015, California enacted a “false scientific evidence” law that paved the way for courts to reevaluate a case when a person could demonstrate a significant change in the forensic field that was once used to convict them. However, that law has been met with much confusion and resistance in the courts. The innocent cries for help were stunted by both the law’s reliance on precedent and the forensic sciences’ slow progression.
Although the initial attempt at correcting the problem failed, California passed a law last year that should move the state in the right direction again, with support from Jasmin Harris, associate director for development and policy at the California Innocence Project, and the California Innocence Coalition. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in late 2022, which means it is hard at work as you read this essay. The law will give incarcerated people the chance to demonstrate their innocence in court if they can demonstrate the science once used to convict them has significantly changed in their favor.
Hopefully, it will help correct the dark past of forensic sciences, move the legal field forward, and limit devastating outcomes in the courtroom. If so, it could model a future for the 43 states that do not have a similar law for their wrongfully convicted populations.
As has been said before, the law cannot “shut its eyes to scientific change without compromising the integrity of justice.” And as Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson once said, “as our understanding of scientific truth grows and changes, the law must follow the truth in order to secure justice.”