Report calls for overhaul of U.S. crime-lab system

Sweeping claims made about fingerprints, ballistics, bite marks and other forensic evidence often have little or no basis in science, according to a landmark report Wednesday by the nation's leading science body.

The report by the National Academy of Sciences called for an overhaul of the crime-lab system that has become increasingly important to U.S. jurisprudence.

Many experts said the report could usher in changes at least as significant as those generated by the advent of DNA evidence two decades ago. But the changes proposed by the academy would take years of planning and major federal funding to enact.

In the meantime, the findings are expected to unleash a flood of legal challenges by defense attorneys.

"This is a major turning point in the history of forensic science in America," said Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to exonerating the wrongfully convicted.

The academy, the pre-eminent science adviser to the federal government, found a system in disarray, with labs that are underfunded and beholden to law enforcement, lacking independent oversight and without consistent standards.

The report concluded that the deficiencies pose "a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic-science practice," imperiling efforts to protect society from criminals and shield people from wrongful convictions.

With the notable exception of DNA evidence, the report said many forensic methods haven't consistently and reliably connected crime-scene evidence to a specific individual or source.

"The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity," the report said.

For example, the frequent claims that fingerprint analysis had a zero error rate are "not scientifically plausible," the report said. The scientific basis for bite-mark evidence is called "insufficient to conclude that bite-mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match."

Recent cases have underscored the report's urgency. Of the 232 people exonerated by DNA evidence, more than 50 percent of the cases involved faulty or invalidated forensic science, according to the Innocence Project.

Margaret Berger, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School and a member of the panel, explained, "We're not saying all these disciplines are useless. We're saying there is a lot of work needs to be done."

Although the panel's recommendations are not binding, they are considered influential. They include:

• Create the National Institute of Forensic Science, a federal agency that would pay for scientific research and disseminate basic standards.

• Make crime labs independent of law enforcement. Currently, most crime labs are run by police agencies, and a growing body of research shows that can lead to bias.

• Require that expert witnesses and forensic analysts be certified by the new agency and that labs be accredited. These standards are optional.

• Pay for research into the scientific basis for claims routinely made in court and for studies of the accuracy and reliability of forensic techniques.

Those recommendations have been cautiously embraced by leading associations of forensic scientists, who in 2005 helped convince Congress the study was necessary.

Eric Holder, the new attorney general, signaled he would take the report's concerns seriously: "I think we need to devote a lot of attention and a lot of resources to that problem."