CLEVELAND FORENSIC EVIDENCE ATTORNEY

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States,” which noted that most forensic science disciplines that attempt to match crime scene evidence to suspects rely on subjective judgments by crime lab analysts, without adequate research as to the limits and measures of performance or the effects of potential bias and errors shown to exist in all human observers. The NAS recommended each forensic science field develop rigorous protocols to guide these subjective interpretations and that they also develop research and evaluation programs. Nearly ten years after the NAS report, little progress has been made, due to lack of funding or resistance in the law enforcement and crime laboratory communities. 

Crime laboratory analysts are presented in court as neutral scientists, though experience has shown that is not always true. Their job performance should be evaluated based on their accuracy and consistent fidelity to scientific testing principles and protocols, and measures should be taken to ensure neutrality and fidelity to objective scientific principles. Yet studies have shown that some crime laboratories are beholden for funding from law enforcement sources that may demand analysts produce results to help secure convictions. Even subtle pressures may affect the objectivity of analysts when they are supervised by members of the police, the district attorney’s office, or the attorney general’s office. Indeed, studies reveal that merely being organizationally aligned with a party creates unintentional cognitive biases that lead experts to skew their analyses and opinions in ways that favor the perceived interests of their organizational partners.