Forensic Oversight

Forensic science problems (including limited, unreliable and fraudulent science) are a leading cause of wrongful convictions.

Despite DNA exonerations that have exposed forensic fraud and errors resulting in wrongful convictions, and notwithstanding the important efforts undertaken by some accrediting entities to address this issue, states have historically done little to investigate or remedy these problems and ensure the integrity of forensic evidence. For more information on crime lab negligence and scandals in the U.S., visit our Forensic Science Misconduct section.

Other forensic science problems – such as a reliance on limited or unreliable science – have contributed to scores of convictions that were later overturned with DNA testing. Hair comparison, bite marks, tool marks and other questionable forms of science have been (and still are) used to convict people across the country. Visit our Unreliable and Limited Science section for more information.

Proper safeguards and oversight
The Innocence Project supports the forensic community in its ongoing fight for the funding it deserves as caseloads grow and public demand increases. Crime victims, police, prosecutors and courts all gain from an efficient system that minimizes errors and focuses resources on identifying the guilty. The following recommendations, developed by the Innocence Project during years of research and experience, can substantively address forensic problems and help ensure quality forensic analysis:

• Create an accreditation system: All laboratories testing forensic evidence for use in courtrooms must be reviewed regularly by an external agency. All technicians should be licensed.

• Form oversight commissions or advisory boards: Independent panels should be created in each state to review the forensic methods that are accepted in state courtrooms and to help secure adequate resources for forensic work. These independent panels should include a wide range of experts who understand the needs of the forensic community and the criminal justice system alike. Several states have already created commissions or advisory boards; they vary in many ways, but they are independent, expert panels committed to ensuring quality forensics.

• Enforce requirements that are already in place: Many states receive federal grant money under the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program. The 2004 Justice For All Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, says states must have oversight mechanisms in place if they receive federal money for their crime labs. Specifically, the law requires jurisdictions seeking federal funding for their forensic facilities to identify a government entity with an appropriate process to conduct independent, external investigations into allegations of negligence or misconduct affecting forensic results. Still, a number of states lack the independence and/or process necessary to ensure the integrity of results from forensic crime labs. Many states have accepted the grants but have apparently not complied with this requirement.