While multiple-source DNA, fingerprinting, and other forensic methods may be useful, they require further testing to establish both foundational and applied validity. It found that only single-source DNA had both of the requisite types of scientific validity: foundational (i.e., accurate in a controlled lab environment) and applied (i.e., applicable in a real world context). The PCAST publication cast doubt on common forensics methods due to insufficient testing. In recent interviews with three prominent professors, explored the impact of a recent bombshell in the community: a September 2016 report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Overstating the utility of common forensic methods has serious consequences. Among those convicted on fraudulent evidence are 32 defendants sentenced to death, 14 of whom have either died in prison or already been executed. In 2015, the FBI admitted to decades of relying on faulty hair analysis in trials, a grave error in criminal proceedings.

Of course, the evidence is available for experts with trained eyes and the proper equipment, but the science isn’t without fault.Įven those at the upper echelons of criminal justice have been found guilty of fraud in forensics.

Whether it’s DNA testing, tool mark identification, bite mark measuring, or blood spatter analysis, it’s assumed that these methods are reliable, consistent, and valid measures of criminal activity. There’s no shortage of crime-fighting TV shows where protagonists brandish the latest forensic science techniques.

Sample forensic report