The Complexity of Forensic Science Investigations: Is there a Gold Standard? Athaliah Biju, Kate Hambly, Avani Joshi - Voices of Forensic Science
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Chapter 1
The Complexity of Forensic Science in Criminal
Investigations: Is there a Gold Standard?
Athaliah Biju, Kate Hambly, Avani Joshi
"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, it is the Illusion of
Knowledge” (Stephen Hawking, 2001)
The evolution of forensic science means that the gold standard in forensic science
is always changing. The problem that ensues is that the general public, jury, lawyers
and judges are unaware of such evolution and they often misunderstand error rates,
or the frequency of errors, in forensic sciences (Innocence Canada, 2021). Media
is considered the primary source of information for depicting criminal
investigations, and often misinforms the public about the fundamentals of forensic
science, thus distorting the perceptions of the general public. This lack of
knowledge and awareness leads to misconceptions that cause miscarriages of
justice, unfair trials and an over-reliance on forensic evidence in criminal
proceedings. The first crime lab in the United States of America was made in 1923,
when forensic evidence was first used to aid in criminal investigations (Saferstein,
2018). Through technological advances in science there has been an increase in
dependency on forensic evidence (Garrett et al., 2021). The demand for standards
and regulations have also increased due to an improved understanding by the
forensic community in error rates and potential biases (Garrett et al., 2021).
Research indicates that the majority of current court cases introduce forensic
science as evidence (Garrett et al., 2021). Due to the fact that the majority of current
court cases are publicly available and often dramatized in entertainment media, the
public perception of forensic science can be misunderstood further causing the ‘CSI
effect’. The ‘CSI effect’ occurs when forensic evidence is embellished in television
7Are We There Yet? The Golden Standards of Forensic Science
shows and various forms of media that causes an unrealistic expectation, such that
forensic evidence is needed for every criminal case (Saferstein, 2018). This further
indicates the need to understand the impact of the ‘CSI effect’ and media on public
perceptions, the consequences for misunderstanding forensic evidence by the jury
and the lack of knowledge by legal professionals in forensic science.
The Making a Murderer / Serial Effect
The ‘CSI effect’ is a topic that has been extensively explored in the field of forensic
science. There are legitimate concerns over the impact of fictionalized media on
the perception of forensic evidence and techniques. It has been found that television
shows in the crime genre have resulted in distorted perceptions of criminal
investigations, thereby affecting the juries’ behaviour (Hayes & Levett, 2013). The
‘CSI effect’ is based on the cultivation theory, which proposes that “the more one
sees certain ideas, images or values, the more they become incorporated on one’s
reality” (Vicary & Zaikman, 2017, p. 52).
The first installment of the CSI franchise, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,
completed its 15-season run on September 27, 2015, with 12.2 million viewers
tuning in for the series finale (Collins, 2015). Just four months later, the true-crime
world catapulted to mainstream popularity in the form of Netflix’s Making a
Murderer. The case of Steven Avery, depicted in Making a Murderer, saw a
renewed interest in true-crime and highlighted the misuse of forensic evidence.
Rather than an “old-style crime coverage”, viewers are presented with an in-depth
exploration of the Steven Avery case with the intention of exposing the flaws of
the criminal justice system such as the tunnel-vision exhibited by law enforcement
(Banks-Anderson, 2016; Golob, 2018). Old-style crime coverage would include
shows like Forensic Files, Dateline and 20/20, which focus on a new case every
week. Jeremy Gans, a law professor at the University of Melbourne, “believes that
the monopoly that courts have on information is being lost due to the transformative
effect of new media” (Banks-Anderson, 2016).
True crime’s resurgence cannot be fully attributed to Making a Murderer.
In 2014, the 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee was covered by the podcast Serial,
captivating millions of people and has since been cited as the most popular podcast
of all time (Gross, 2014; Sherrill, 2020). The show follows the arrest, conviction
and sentencing of Lee’s ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed. The show’s host and creator,
8The Complexity of Forensic Science: Is There a Gold Standard?
Sarah Koenig, conducted her own investigation and raised doubts regarding the
handling of Syed’s case. Koenig stated that her intention with Serial was to “report,
not exonerate” (Gross, 2014). Mainstream coverage of this case, however, has been
sympathetic towards Syed. There is no doubt that Serial sparked a widespread
debate “about whether or not the state had met the burden of proof for a conviction”
(Krieger, 2019). While certain points were raised in the podcast that warranted a
retrial, it was not enough to prove his innocence and his conviction was restored
(Fenton & Prudente, 2019). The HBO documentary series The Case Against Adnan
Syed promised new DNA test results that could help Syed’s case but ultimately it
was not enough to exonerate him (Considine, 2019; Romano, 2019).
The Impact of True Crime Media on the Criminal Justice System
True crime podcasts have been described as a mix of journalism and entertainment
(Boling, 2019). Streaming services and the binge-era are also huge reasons for the
explosion in popularity of the genre. Netflix’s formula of releasing all the episodes
at once as opposed to a weekly release has been integral to its success. This is
attributed to the human nature of craving instant gratification (Statarosa &
Izydorczyk, 2020). Original series such as Tiger King, The Staircase, Don’t F*ck
with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer, Night Stalker, The Trials of Gabriel
Fernandez, The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and Murder to Mercy: The
Cyntoia Brown Story are all examples of shows that generated social media buzz.
The popularity of these shows can be attributed to the binging culture as well as the
desire to fix a broken criminal justice system (Chan, 2020).
Since podcasts and documentaries usually tend to have an agenda, viewers
often do not have their own objective opinions about the case (Golob, 2018). In the
case of Making a Murderer, even the title insinuates that the documentary is about
an individual who is framed by law enforcement for a murder. The same can be
seen with Serial and The Case Against Adnan Syed. Raising public awareness can
often work in favour of the incarcerated. For example, after the release of Making
a Murderer, Brendan Dassey’s conviction was overturned based on points raised
in the documentary (Dassey v. Dittmann, 2016). Boling (2019) also points out that
new media has made other positive impacts, such as an uptick in donations for
organizations like the Innocence Project, outpouring support for defendants at
courthouses, and the willingness from podcast listeners and docuseries viewers to
9Are We There Yet? The Golden Standards of Forensic Science
contribute to investigations of the cases covered. This increase in awareness,
however, can also affect the right to a fair trial, especially in cold cases and
wrongful convictions. Their popularity can make it difficult to find objective jurors
who have no prior knowledge about the case. As Bruzzi (2016, p. 280) points out,
“the [true crime] genre raises significant issues about the representation of the law
in the digital era, perceptions of justice, narrative and evidence, the increased
‘jurification’ of audiences and the instability of truth”.
The Rise of Internet Sleuthing
The new format of true crime documentaries often entices people to research cases
themselves. Internet sleuthing can be explained as “crowdsourcing for justice
where justice-seeking civilians collectively pool their expertise in response to real
and perceived societal wrongs” (Yardley, 2016, p. 3). One of the most popular
social media platforms for discussion is Reddit, which houses various “subreddits”.
Subreddits are forums dedicated to facilitating discussions on a certain topic of
interest. As aforementioned, there is no longer an information barrier for people
who are interested in seeking out primary sources pertaining to a case they are
invested in. Serial, for example, went so far as to uploading documents such as
police reports, interrogation transcripts, court transcripts and photographs on their
website (Serial, 2014). The armchair detectives featured in Don’t F*ck with Cats
followed suit, successfully using the tools at their disposal such as Facebook groups
and YouTube, to determine the identity of the “cat killer”.
As public interest in high-profile criminal cases continues to grow, the
trauma experienced by the families of the victims is often ignored. Those close to
the victim are forced to relive the trauma of losing their loved ones through constant
exposure. Hae Min Lee’s brother, Young Lee, made a post (brother_of_hae, 2014)
on the subreddit for Serial to address the renewed interest in his sister’s murder,
writing:
TO ME ITS [sic] REAL LIFE. To you listeners, its [sic] another
murder mystery, crime drama, another episode of CSI. You weren't
there to see your mom crying every night, having a heartattck [sic]
when she got the new [sic] that the body was found, and going to court
almost everyday for a year seeing your mom weeping,crying [sic] and
10The Complexity of Forensic Science: Is There a Gold Standard?
fainting. You don't know what we went through. Especially to those
who are demanding our family response and having a meetup... you
guys are disgusting. SHame [sic] on you. I pray that you don't have to
go through what we went through and have your story blasted to 5mil
[sic] listeners.
Young Lee’s post demonstrates the profound impact that rehashing Hae’s
murder has had on their family.
Both Serial and Making a Murderer were made to expose the flaws of the
justice system. Documentaries like Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Hotel Cecil,
on the other hand, seemingly had the goal to raise awareness on the issue of
sensationalism and outrageous narratives. Crime Scene follows the mysterious
death of 21-year-old Elisa Lam. A video showing her last moments in the elevator
of the hotel went viral online in February of 2013 (Hartmann, 2021). Internet
sleuths all around the world immediately scrutinized and analyzed every single
frame of this video. It formed the basis of arguably one of the most viral missing
persons’ cases. The documentary explores the consequences of internet sleuthing
and the cost of spreading conspiracy theories. For example, the sleuths suspected
Pablo Vergara aka “Morbid” to be Lam’s murderer after unearthing a video he
made during his stay at the Hotel Cecil the year prior to Lam’s death along with his
“dark” music videos and lyrics (Hartmann, 2021). Vergara reported that he received
death threats, despite having an alibi (Hartmann, 2021). This shows how far the
internet sleuths were willing to go to solve a case.
The ‘CSI Effect’ on Juries
The ‘CSI effect’ has recently become an issue within the court system. The Vice
President of the National District Attorney Association mentioned that “jurors now
expect us to have DNA tests for just about every case, the most advanced
technology, and they expect it to look like how it is on television” (Hayes & Levett,
2012, p. 218). In today’s society, the jury expects the forensic science aspect of
criminal cases to be the determining factor for the verdict of a case.
The ‘CSI effect’ can be described in many ways, and it can appear in many
forms such as television shows and news broadcasting platforms. Essentially, the
‘CSI effect’ shapes the jurors into believing that it is appropriate to convict
11Are We There Yet? The Golden Standards of Forensic Science
someone because procedures and techniques they observed from fictional
television shows were not applied in the case (Clements, 2015). This is especially
observed in cases involving DNA evidence because forensic-related television
shows portray DNA evidence as infallible. The weight of forensic evidence in
criminal cases is now being emphasized by unrealistic projections in the media
(Baskin & Sommers, 2010).
The ‘CSI Effect’ on Juries: A Case Analysis
A study mentioned by Alldredge (2015) presents how much the ‘CSI effect’
correlates with forensic television shows and the decisions for convictions in
criminal cases. The study selects previous jury members as the participants and
focuses on each of the participant’s television viewing habits of forensic-related
and non-forensic-related television shows. Each participant was given a written
scenario of a criminal case with varying levels of forensic evidence and was asked
to decide whether to convict the accused as guilty or not guilty.
The results concluded that participants who watched less television had a
higher likelihood of convicting the accused with low amounts of forensic evidence
(Alldredge, 2015). The results further conclude that those who watched forensic
science-related shows were not confident in deciding to convict if there was little
or no forensic evidence (Alldredge, 2015). Ultimately, this study showed that jury
members are more likely to base their decision on the amount of forensic evidence
presented.
The Disadvantages of the ‘CSI Effect’ in Juries
The ‘CSI effect’ has a detrimental impact on the way a jury may decide their verdict
in a criminal case. This influence can include multiple forms of media like
television shows such as the Law-and-Order series and high-profile cases such as
the O.J Simpson case (Lieberman et al., 2008). Digital news platforms broadcast
the recent advancements in forensic technology, which can make an impact on the
way jury members understand and consider cases based on the new technological
developments.
As much as the jury members denies the reliability of forensic evidence due
to the ‘CSI effect’, the criminal court in the United States and Canada, has set an
12The Complexity of Forensic Science: Is There a Gold Standard?
admissibility test for forensic evidence that they uphold for every case. For
example, the Daubert and Mohan precedents set out a list of requirements that need
to be fulfilled for the admissibility of evidence into the court (Lieberman et al.,
2008). In criminal cases, the forensic evidence is not necessarily the issue that the
jury factors into their decision. Rather, it is the way that the jury members perceive
the evidence that affects the overall verdict in a case. As such, the juries’ perception
of forensic evidence is tainted by the ‘CSI effect’ despite the courts strict
admissibility criteria in place related to forensic evidence.
The ‘CSI effect’ has influenced how forensic evidence can be perceived in
the courtroom due to the way the jury understands the relevance of the evidence, in
their own opinion. Due to the popularity of forensic-related television shows and
how frequently they are broadcasted, the general public has a distorted
understanding of how forensic science works in criminal cases (Baskin & Sommer,
2010). It is known that shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and Law-and-
Order are on every night, in the majority of households in North America (Baskin
& Sommer, 2010). With the addition of social media and public news platforms,
high-profile cases and local cases in Ontario, such as Renee Sweeney have also
helped shape the way jurors think about forensic evidence. So, the ‘CSI effect’ is
present in criminal cases, and it affects the jury’s perception of forensic evidence
as it is valued highly, and is therefore highly incriminating, in any criminal case.
13Are We There Yet? The Golden Standards of Forensic Science
THE CASE OF RENEE SWEENEY
Figure 1.1: Renee Sweeney (Photo by Pickard, 2020).
Renee Sweeney was a 23-year-old university student in Sudbury, who was
stabbed to death while at work on July 27, 1998. Her attacker stabbed her
multiple times. The investigators on her case commented that “Renee fought
her murderer and managed to scratch her attacker - they found DNA under her
fingernails...and a jacket he discarded after the murder which contained DNA
and white cotton gloves” (Pickard, 2020).
The police arrested John Fetterly based on the DNA they obtained from
the crime scene. However, it was a mistake. About 20 years later, the police
still did not identify Renee’s killer even with the preserved DNA evidence. In
2017, after retesting the DNA using a new technological device called
Snapshot DNA Phenotyping Service to “predict appearance and ancestry from
information learned from DNA samples, a new image of the suspect was
released, new tips, eliminating 200 persons of interest as a result” (Pickard,
2020). A couple of months later, Robert Steven Wright was in police custody.
The judge was concerned about the jury being biased as the case was in the
media every year that they did not find her murderer. Similarly, the defence
was concerned that the jury would have tunnel vision and convict Wright due
to the duration of this case and DNA evidence (White, 2020).
14The Complexity of Forensic Science: Is There a Gold Standard?
The Jury Perception in the Renee Sweeney Case
The jury in the Renee Sweeney case was influenced by the ‘CSI effect’, as the
jurors held high expectations for the forensic evidence and expert witnesses. This
case was highly publicized due to its length and the fact that the police never found
the suspect due to the lack of forensic technological advancements at the time of
this case, despite having DNA evidence. This affected the way the case continued
because between media coverage and theories released over the past 20 years, it
was difficult to obtain an impartial jury (Pickard, 2020). The media influence
surrounding this case became increasingly problematic that the defence counsel had
to make a statement regarding the circumstances of the murder as the media
influence could have tainted the potential jurors (White, 2020). The way a case can
be publicized by the media can affect the jury significantly due to the way the media
frames the facts of the case in their own opinion. Jurors are more likely to question
the facts of the case, the forensic evidence and the circumstances of the case when
there have been many media opinions and fictional forensic-related television
shows broadcasted (Clements, 2015).
The jury perception in this case, was also distorted by the ‘CSI effect’ on
DNA evidence. The justice who was appointed to this case factored in the amount
of media coverage but also the rise of the ‘CSI effect’ regarding DNA evidence
since the year the murder took place. The jury selected for this case believed that
DNA evidence was the gold standard which resulted in a guilty verdict (White,
2020). Due to the DNA evidence in this case and the amount of time it took for the
suspect to be caught, the jury believed that this was enough to decide despite other
facts in the case (Pickard, 2020). The ‘CSI effect’ has created the perception that
DNA evidence is the gold standard of evidence that can be used in any case. To
this point, the justice appointed for the Sweeney case mentioned that “it's wrong to
assume the DNA evidence proves all, especially in a case in which the DNA used
to compare to that of Mr. Wright was seized 20 years before Mr. Wright was
charged” (White, 2020). Ultimately, the jury maintains the perception of forensic
evidence to always be the deciding factor in criminal cases. This has become a
problem in the court system due to the increase in media platforms and high
expectations of forensic science evidence.
15Are We There Yet? The Golden Standards of Forensic Science
Evolution of Forensic Science in Criminal Proceedings
Forensic science is understood as the impartial component of criminal proceedings
that are otherwise charged with emotions and the failings of human recollection
(Kafadar, 2019). Despite this view, the proposed gold standard for forensic
evidence has constantly evolved, indicating that the interpretation of forensic
evidence can be subjective to the analyst (Adam, 2016). This further substantiates
that forensic evidence should act as a support for criminal cases as opposed to being
considered the objective and deciding factor of guilt or innocence.
The evolution of forensic sciences has created multiple standards and
regulations to guide scientists, legal professionals, juries and expert witnesses to
ensure a fair justice system. The existing issue in the legal field today is
understanding when prosecutors and defense attorneys overtly rely on forensic
evidence as opposed to using it as a tool to support their case. The lack of education
on the evolution of forensic science in the legal community along with the extensive
use of media platforms explains why this issue persists today. Currently, expert
witnesses are instructed to stay away from terms such as “match” and “consistent
with” (National Research Council, 2009). Despite this, when DNA evidence was
first introduced, expert witnesses proudly used such terms in court (Adam, 2016).
Similarly, prior to DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence was seen as the gold
standard in criminal investigations, a practice which has now been questioned due
to its subjectivity (Adam, 2016). It is imperative to understand that the limitations
of science are regularly evolving as scientists continue to push the boundaries of
their work (Robertson, 2012), thus, demonstrating a need for continuous public
education and awareness of such evolution. This is essential because when legal
professionals, the jury, and the public lack knowledge and awareness of such
limitations heinous miscarriages of justice and unfair trials are imminent.
Evolution of Forensic Science in Criminal Proceedings: A Case Analysis
The highly publicized case of Ted Bundy relied primarily on bitemark analysis
which was credited as a reliable science during the 1980s. Since then, bitemark
analysis has been considered an unreliable and highly subjective science
(President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016; National
Research Council, 2009). Similarly, DNA evidence has been successfully used for
16The Complexity of Forensic Science: Is There a Gold Standard?
years to convict and exonerate individuals. As previously mentioned, the public,
juries and legal professionals consider DNA as the gold standard in forensic science
(Stabile, 2019). DNA has earned its reputation as the gold standard over the years
since it accounts for 358 of 2,236 exonerations in the United States (Stabile, 2019),
thus, explaining why 90% of the general population believes DNA is the most
convincing evidence of guilt or innocence in criminal proceedings (Stabile, 2019).
As a result of this unwavering belief, innocent people are wrongfully convicted.
Similar to the previously discussed Renee Sweeney case, Lukis Anderson
had DNA evidence used against him for the murder of Raveesh Kumar in 2012
(Chinn, 2013). Anderson was a homeless man who lived in California. His DNA,
which was in the police’s DNA database due to a previous felony, ultimately was
consistent with DNA found under Kumar’s fingernails (Chinn, 2013). Anderson
had a drinking problem and told his lawyer that he did not know if he committed
the murder (Chinn, 2013). The prosecution thought it was an open and shut case in
light of the DNA evidence and his history with alcohol (Chinn, 2013).
Nevertheless, his lawyer gathered medical records and found that he was admitted
in the hospital at the time of the murder thus providing a strong alibi (Chinn, 2013).
The DNA evidence was transferred because Kumar and Anderson were in the same
paramedic vehicle just hours apart (Chinn, 2013). It is important to note that
without the alibi, Anderson could have been wrongfully convicted due to the highly
valued DNA evidence (Chinn, 2013). Both the Renee Sweeney and Lukis
Anderson cases highlight the potential for errors in DNA evidence despite its ‘gold
standard’ status and emphasizes that legal professionals should use forensic
evidence as a support instead of as the determining factor in a case.
Legal Perception of Forensic Evidence
Historically, forensic scientists argued that their respective fields are 100% reliable
and adamantly denied that there were any errors in their field (Murrie et al., 2019).
Since then, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) report (2016) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report (2009)
have noted that such statements of 100% certainty cannot be scientifically proven.
The NAS report further scrutinized 14 forensic disciplines including biological
evidence (National Research Council, 2009). For example, research indicates that
forensic science testing errors partially causes false guilty verdicts in 63% of DNA
17Are We There Yet? The Golden Standards of Forensic Science
exoneration cases (Murrie et al., 2019). In light of such statistics, the well-known
Daubert admissibility test, the Mohan test, and the Science Manual for Canadian
Judges by the National Judicial Institute are just some examples of guidelines that
were created to prevent miscarriages of justice. To further educate forensic
scientists and the public, a myriad of reports have highlighted the errors in forensic
sciences including the PCAST report and the NAS report (Bell et al., 2017).
As the understanding of the reliability of forensic evidence increased,
forensic scientists became progressively aware of potential errors in their field
(Murrie et al., 2019). Forensic scientists estimate that false positive errors in
forensic biology occur at a rate of 1 in 10,000 and false negative errors occur at a
rate of 1 in 100 (Murrie et al., 2019). Conversely, judges estimate that DNA
evidence has an error rate of 1 in 1,000,000 (Garett et al., 2021). Evidently, judges
underestimate the potential error in DNA evidence due to its gold standard status.
As previously emphasized, such misunderstandings of the reliability and validity
of forensic science create misconceptions in the courtroom and among members of
the public. The Science Manual for Canadian Judges states that judges should
always instruct the jury on the fallibility and validity of the presented forensic
evidence in court (Chalifour et al., 2013). Such guidelines are important to ensure
a fair trial, however, the aforementioned research emphasizes the disconnect
between judges and forensic scientists on the perceived error rates of forensic
evidence. This questions whether judges are able to aptly instruct the jury on the
fallibility and validity of the presented forensic science.
The appeal of R. v. Truscott (1976) accentuates the misinformation of error
rates in criminal proceedings. The appeal judges in the R. v. Truscott (1976) case
stated that there was an absence of definitive evidence akin to DNA. The judge’s
use of the word “definitive” when describing DNA evidence underscores the
problem that legal professionals do not understand the potential errors of forensic
evidence and continue to underestimate these errors (Garrett et al., 2021;
Robertson, 2012).
While judges fail to understand the error rates in forensic science, jurors
also neglect in understanding the weight of forensic evidence (Kaplan et al., 2020).
Kaplan and colleagues (2020) found that 30% of respondents assumed forensic
evidence is of such importance that the absence of it is sufficient for a prosecutor
to drop the case. The study further found that 40% of respondents claimed that the
presence of forensic evidence is enough to convict an individual despite evidence
18The Complexity of Forensic Science: Is There a Gold Standard?
that may suggest that the defendant is innocent (Kaplan et al., 2020). Jurors
acknowledge the error rates of forensic evidence yet continue to weigh it as
increasingly important as opposed to taking an objective approach to the evidence.
The Illusion of Knowledge
Legal professionals spend thousands of dollars on their schooling to become a
certified lawyer. The average law school in Canada costs $12,388 per year for the
common three-year JD program (Statistics Canada, 2021). Therefore, the North
American legal system requires lawyers and judges to engage in rigorous training
and education to become certified to practice law (Garrett et al., 2021). Harvard
Law School is considered one of the most prestigious law schools in North America
with 538 different courses offered to their students (Harvard Law School, 2021).
Despite such a variety of courses, there are no classes that discuss the evolution of
different fields in forensic science or the potential biases in forensic science
(Harvard Law School, 2021). Legal professionals are extensively taught about the
fundamentals of jurisprudence, however, the legal education system fails to teach
them about the fundamentals of forensic science (Garrett et al., 2021). This leads
to a disconnect between forensic scientists and legal professionals resulting in
miscarriages of justices and an over-reliance on forensic evidence in criminal
proceedings (Julian & Kelty, 2015; R. v. Truscott, 1976; State v. Avery, 1997; State
v. Bundy, 1984).
Recommendations
With the science and terminology used in forensic science, it can become confusing
and unclear for jury members, legal professionals, and the public to fully
understand a scientific case. It is important to rely on the actors in the courtroom to
help the jury and public understand the forensic evidence. There have been some
recommendations that have been studied and proved to help the jury understand
forensic evidence better and to make more informed, accurate verdicts. Studies
have indicated that promoting awareness and education on the potential biases and
error rates helps legal professionals make sound arguments for their case without
an overreliance on forensic evidence.
19Are We There Yet? The Golden Standards of Forensic Science
A proposed solution to reduce the misunderstanding of the value of forensic
evidence is studied by Hewson and Goodman-Delahunty (2008), the study found
that juries who were able to visually see the evidence sample could understand why
it was admitted in a criminal case better than if the expert witness or lawyer were
to verbally speak about the evidence or read the evidence. It was concluded that
with visual content to explain forensic evidence “increased comprehension
regarding forensic evidence when compared to traditional jury instructions”
(Alldredge, 2015, p.121). Another solution that could help with identifying the
jurors who display the ‘CSI effect’ was researched to help the courtroom actors
with jury selection. A technique created by Smith and Bull (2012), was to use a
scale that determined the amount of forensic science bias or if certain potential jury
members were pro-defence or pro-prosecution. This research was proved by using
a mock jury that the scale helped the courtroom actors during jury selection and
established how to approach the case when presenting forensic evidence.
Another proposed solution would be for other courtroom actors to use
language and explain terminology as if the jury members did not know scientific
terms or concepts. In the research conducted by Dysart (2012), courtroom actors
were being asked to simplify the language and explain the terminology they plan
on using as the jury is selected from different knowledge backgrounds. Lawyers
are asked to avoid the saying “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Rather, it is suggested
to use “beyond any doubt” (Dysart, 2012). Expert witnesses are asked to avoid
using the word “match” due to the possibility of false positives and negatives
(Dysart, 2012). This recommendation can help juries understand complex
terminology to reduce the chance of confusion that may lead to a misinformed
verdict.
A study by Garrett and colleagues (2021) emphasizes that the current
training in place for legal professionals including seminars and events hosted by
the National Justice Institute and other organizations are inadequate. The lack of
knowledge in forensic science makes room for injustices to occur because both the
prosecution and defence are required to fight their case to the best of their ability
(Julian & Kelty, 2015). Judges with more extensive training in forensic science
have been shown to embrace a gatekeeper role and to critically evaluate forensic
evidence in courts (Garrett et al., 2021), therefore evidencing that prosecutors,
defence attorneys and judges would benefit from more knowledge in forensic
science. To bridge this gap, Garrett and Colleagues (2021) proposed the
20The Complexity of Forensic Science: Is There a Gold Standard?
incorporation of the basics of forensic science into law schools thus allowing law
students to obtain knowledge on potential biases and errors. As aforementioned, it
is apparent that the prestigious Harvard Law School fails to incorporate such
courses into their curriculum. This knowledge will aid legal professionals to make
sound arguments for their cases and adequately instructing the jury and public on
the fallibility and reliability of forensic science.
So, Is There a Gold Standard?
There is a need for awareness and education on the fundamentals of forensic
science and there are potential biases and errors that may arise when testing. In
answering the question as to whether there is a ‘gold standard’ in forensic science,
it has been determined that there is no field of forensic science that can provide
100% certainty and objectivity in criminal proceedings (Murrie et al., 2019). As a
result, the evidence proves that the field of forensic science has advanced to account
for the increasing comprehension of the potential errors in various forensic fields
(National Research Council, 2009; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology, 2016). Despite such evolution, there continues to be misconceptions
that are held by the public, the jury, and legal professionals, all of which contribute
to miscarriages of justice, unfair trials and over-reliance on forensic evidence in the
courtroom. To bridge this gap there is a need for more education and awareness in
the legal education system to ensure juror comprehension as well as further
education in mainstream media to elicit reasonable public expectations for forensic
science. As a solution to this lack of education, the authors of this chapter propose
a digital solution that is described in the lightbox on the next page.
21Are We There Yet? The Golden Standards of Forensic Science
OUR PROPOSED SOLUTION
As undergraduate students taking FSC430 at the University of Toronto
Mississauga, we propose a solution to prevent misconceptions of forensic
science by the public, the jury, and legal professionals. This digital solution has
not been created nor has its efficiency or effectiveness been studied.
As noted in this chapter, there is a lack of education on the error rates
and potential biases in forensic science. The ‘CSI effect’ contributes to such
biases because it creates an illusion of knowledge. While researchers have
proposed that law schools should implement forensic science courses in the
legal education, we propose a digital solution. The proposed digital solution will
provide more immediate and comprehensive access to information about any
field of forensic science. Educating law students on the fundamentals of forensic
science is important, however, the constant evolution of forensic science and the
law creates a need for information that can be easily updated.
Our proposed digital solution includes an online platform that will allow
legal professionals, jury members and members of the public to gain knowledge
on any field of forensics. The information included will be the potential error
rates, cases where there have been wrongful convictions due to errors in testing
and cases where it was successfully implemented, as well as the basics of the
science and the history of the science. The information will be continuously
updated to ensure that the latest scientific advances in the field are accounted
for. The authors of this chapter envision this digital solution to be an app or
website that is available to the public in which information regarding each field
of forensic science is included, and the information is easily accessible.
22The Complexity of Forensic Science: Is There a Gold Standard?
References
Adam, C. (2016). Forensic evidence in court: Bruzzi, S. (2016). Making a genre: The case of
Evaluation and scientific opinion. Wiley. the contemporary true crime documentary.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119054443 Law and Humanities, 10(2),249-280
https://doi.org/10.1080/17521483.2016.1233
Alldredge, J. (2015). The “CSI Effect” and its 741
potential impact on juror’s Decisions.
Research Journal of Justice, 3(1), 114- Chalifour, N., Findlay. S. & McLeod-Kilmurray
126.https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/themis/vol3 (2013). Science manual for Canadian judges.
/iss1/6 National Judicial Institute. https://www.nji-
inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/science-
Banks-Anderson, L. (2016, March 16). The manual-for-canadian-judges/?langSwitch=en
‘Making a Murderer’ effect. Pursuit.
Retrieved February 14, 2021, from Chan, M. (2020, April 24). 'Real People Keep
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/editing Getting Re-traumatized.' The human cost of
-the-making-a-murderer-effect our true crime obsession. Time. Retrieved
March 7, 2021, from
Baskin, D. R., & Sommers, I. B. (2010). Crime- https://time.com/5825475/true-crime-victim-
show-viewing habits and public attitude families/
toward forensic evidence: The “CSI Effect”
revisited. The Justice System Journal, 31(1), Chinn, J. (2013). How an innocent man’s DNA
97-113. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27977480 was found at a crime scene. California
Innocence Project.
Bell, S., Sah, S., Albright, T. D., James Gates, S., https://californiainnocenceproject.org/2013/0
Bonner Denton, M., & Casadevall, A. (2018). 6/how-an-innocent-mans-dna- was-found-at-
A call for more science in forensic science. In a-crime-scene/
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, Clements, P. (2015, November 24). The “CSI”
115(18), 4541-4544. effect: The impact of ‘television educated’
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712161115 Jurors. DrexelNow.
https://drexel.edu/now/archive/2015/Novemb
Boling, K. S. (2019). True crime podcasting: er/CSI_Effect/
Journalism, justice or entertainment? Radio
Journal: International Studies in Broadcast Collins, S. (2015, September 28). ’CSI’s
& Audio Media, 17(2), 161–178. “Immortality” finale draws highest ratings in
https://doi.org/10.1386/rjao_00003_1 nearly 4 years. Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/sh
brother_of_hae. (2014). I am Hae’s brother – Do owtracker/la-et-st-csi-finale- immortality-
not AMA [Online forum post]. Reddit. ratings-nielsen-20150928-story.html
Retrieved March 4, 2021, from
https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/com Considine, A. (2019, March 31). ‘The Case
ments/2mmldf/i_am_haes_ Against Adnan Syed’: finale reveals new
brother_do_not_ama/ DNA test results. The New York Times.
23Are We There Yet? The Golden Standards of Forensic Science
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/31/arts/tel 2021, from
evision/case-against-adnan-syed-dna-hbo- https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/
finale.html vol54/iss1/5
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Hartmann, G. (2021, February 12). Morbid: The
Forensic Sciences Community, National metal musician falsely blamed for Elisa
Research Council. (2009). In Strengthening Lam’s death. Loudwire. Retrieved March 17,
Forensic Science in the United States: A Path 2021, from https://loudwire.com/morbid-
Forward. https://doi.org/10.17226/12589 metal-musician-falsely-blamed-elisa-lam-
death/
Dassey v. Dittman. 201 F.Supp.3d 963 (2016).
https://casetext.com/case/dassey-v-dittmann- Harvard Law School. (2021). Harvard Law
7 School Course Catalog 2020-2021.
https://hls.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/
Dysart, K. L. (2012, May 12). Managing the CSI catalog/index.html
effect in jurors. American Bar Association.
https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/commi Hayes, R. M. and Levett, L. M. (2013).
ttees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012- Community member perception of the CSI
0512-csi-effect-jurors.html effect. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
36, 216-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-
Fenton, J., and T. Prudente. (2019, March 8). 012-9166-2
Adnan Syed case: Maryland high court
reinstates “Serial” subject’s conviction. The Hewson, L. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2008).
Baltimore Sun. Using multimedia to support jury
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/b understanding of DNA profiling evidence.
s-md-ci-syed-appeal-20190222- story.html Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences,
40(1), 55-64.
Garrett, B. L., Gardner, B. O., Murphy, E., & https://doi.org/10.1080/00450610802050782
Grimes, P. (2021). Judges and forensic
science education: A national survey. Innocence Canada. (2021, February 14). Causes
Forensic Science International, 321, 110714. of wrongful convictions. Innocence Canada.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.11071 Retrieved March 12, 2021 from
4 https://www.innocencecanada.com/causes-
of-wrongful- convictions/
Gross, T. (Host) (2014, December 23). Serial
host Sarah Koenig says she set out to report, Julian, R., & Kelty, S. F. (2015). Forensic
not exonerate. [Audio podcast episode] In science as “Risky Business”: Identifying key
Fresh Air. National Public Radio. risk factors in the forensic process from
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/372577482 crime scene to court. Journal of
Criminological Research, Policy and
Golob, B. (2018) Un-making a murderer: New Practice, 1(4), 195-206.
media’s impact on (potential) wrongful https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-09-2015-0044
conviction cases, California Western Law
Review, 54(1), 137-150. Retrieved March 28,
24The Complexity of Forensic Science: Is There a Gold Standard?
Kafadar, K. (2019). The need for objective President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
measures in forensic evidence. Significance, Technology. (2016). Forensic Science in
16(2), 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740- Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity
9713.2019.01249.x of Feature Comparison Methods.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/d
Kaplan, J., Ling, S., & Cuellar, M. (2020). Public efault/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_for
beliefs about the accuracy and importance of ensic_science_report_final.pdf
forensic evidence in the United States.
Science and Justice, 60(3), 263-272. R. v. Truscott [1967] S.C.R 309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.001 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1967/19
67canlii66/1967canlii66.html
Krieger, M. (2019). Unmasking a murderer:
Technological affordances and the Robertson, J. (2012). Forensic science, an enabler
emergence of virtual audience investigative or dis-enabler for criminal investigation?
communities. Democratic Communique, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences,
28(2), 96-121. Retrieved March 7, 2021, 43(1), 83-91.
from https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2011.5957
https://journals.flvc.org/demcom/article/view 36
/118986
Romano, A. (2019, March 11). HBO’s the case
Lieberman, J. D., Carrel, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & against Adnan Syed has no interest in the
Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum: case against Adnan Syed. Vox.
Do jurors recognize the superiority and Retrieved March 27, 2021,
limitations of DNA evidence compared to from https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/3/11
other types of forensic evidence? American /18259534/serial-hbo-the-case-against-
Psychological Association 14(1), 27-62. adnan-syed-review
https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27
Saferstein, R. (2018). Criminalistics: an
Murrie, D. C., Gardner, B. O., Kelley, S., & introduction to forensic science. 12th edition.
Dror, I. E. (2019). Perceptions and estimates Pearson Education, NY, NY.
of error rates in forensic science: A survey of
forensic analysts. Forensic Science Serial. (2014). Maps, documents, etc. Retrieved
International, 302, 109887. March 7, 2021, from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.10988 https://serialpodcast.org/season-one/maps
7
Sherrill, L. A. (2020). The “Serial Effect” and the
Pickard, A. (2020, January 27). A recap of the true crime podcast ecosystem. Journalism
20-year investigation into Renee Sweeney’s Practice,1–22.
murder and the ongoing court case. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1852
Sudbury.com. 884
https://www.sudbury.com/court/renee-
sweeney-murder-anniversary-a-recap- of-the-
20-year-investigation-and-ongoing-court- Smith, L.L. & Bull, R. (2012). Identifying and
case-2049786 measuring juror pretrial bias for forensic
evidence: Development and validation of the
25Are We There Yet? The Golden Standards of Forensic Science
forensic evidence evaluation bias scale. Statistics Canada. (2021, March 05). Canadian
Psychology, Crime, & Law, 18(9), 797-815. Undergraduate Tuition Fees by Field of
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.5618 Study.
00 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.ac
tion?pid=3710000301
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next big
five inventory (BFI-2): Developing and Vicary, A., & Zaikman, Y. (2017). The CSI
assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets effect: An investigation into the relationship
to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive between watching crime shows and forensic
power. Journal of Personality and Social knowledge. North American Journal of
Psychology, 113(1), 117-143. Psychology, 19(1), 51-6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096 https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/csi-effect-investigation-into-
Stabile, A. (2019). The elasticity of DNA relationship/docview/1874323504/se-
evidence: When prosecutorial storytelling 2?accountid=201395
goes too far. Southern California Review of
Law and Social Justice. Retrieved on March Yardley, E., Lynes, A. G. T., Wilson, D., &
6, 2021, from Kelly, E. (2016). What’s the deal with
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?han “websleuthing”? News media representations
dle=hein.journals/scws28&div=7&id=&page of amateur detectives in networked spaces.
= Crime, Media, Culture: An International
Journal, 14(1), 81–109.
Starosta, J. A., & Izydorczyk, B. (2020). https://doi:10.1177/1741659016674045
Understanding the phenomenon of binge-
watching-A systematic review. International White, E. (2020, November 17). Steven Wright
Journal of Environmental Research and to stand trial for murder of Renee Sweeney
Public Health, 17(12), 4469. starting May 25. CBC.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124469 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/ste
ven-wright-murder-trial-dates-1.5804642
26You can also read
