Misuse of forensic science has contributed to more than half of false accusations since 1989 and nearly a quarter of false accusations.
Over the years, advances in DNA testing and forensic science have revealed weaknesses in the scientific underpinnings of some methods once widely accepted in the criminal justice system and used to secure early convictions. It became clear. These methods include:
- bite mark analysis
- hair comparison
- Evidence of tool marks
- arson investigation
- fingerprint analysis
- Evidence of dog odor
- Comparative warhead analysis
- Diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome
- Bloodstain pattern analysis
In these cases, forensic experts provide misleading testimony that exaggerates the relationship between crime scene evidence and the person of interest, or misinterpret the acquittal outcome as inconclusive. In other cases, practitioners made mistakes when performing well-supported forensic methods in the laboratory. , fabricated results to support the prosecution’s claims against the individual, or concealed evidence of innocence.
To strengthen forensicswe educate judges, attorneys, forensic experts, and other system stakeholders about the limitations of particular forensic methods and encourage them to examine scientific evidence for accuracy and reliability.
Read more about our efforts to address wrongful convictions.
