Injustice by Forensics
An interview with Prof. Brandon Garrett and Dr. Peter Stout
CLE Credit — Approved in 5 States
Forensic science, when applied rigorously, has the power to catch and convict criminals, but when mishandled, can lead to tragic miscarriages of justice. In this eye-opening interview with Prof. Brandon Garrett (Duke Law School) and Dr. Peter Stout (Houston Forensic Science Center), explore high-profile exoneration cases like those of Josiah Sutton and George Rodriguez to the systemic issues plaguing crime labs across the country. They explore the impact of quality control, timely analysis, and proper funding on reducing biases and errors in criminal convictions. Every strand of hair, every DNA sample, and every crime lab decision can mean the difference between justice served and justice denied, and yet labs across the country are broadly left to set their own standards. Garrett and Stout share crucial insights into the standards of reliability that should govern forensic evidence, the profound influence that bad forensics has on lives and legal outcomes, and the urgent need for reform.
"Forensic science often does not live up to the current standards of scientific research. And when forensic science fails, injustice follows."
Additional Resources
Inaccurate and inconsistent forensic findings, especially DNA evidence, have directly impacted the trials and convictions in an innumerable amount of court cases. Many do not get the opportunity for retrial, and those who do are exonerated after spending years in prison for a crime they did not commit.
-
Josiah Sutton v. The State of Texas, convicted and sentenced to 25 years for rape and abuction, despite several inconsistencies in the forensic evidence. Only after an independent investigation was the DNA reexamined, excluding Sutton. This led to his exoneration after serving 4 and a half years.
-
George Rodriguez v. The City of Houston, Rodriguez was sentenced to 60 years for a rape he did not commit. The ruling hinged on a ‘similar’ strand of hair, later found to be false evidence. Rodriguez served 17 years before being exonerated.
The Importance of Timeliness of Good Forensics
Having the right answer too late can result in injustice. The momentum of criminal prosecutions can result in pressure to settle or accept a plea deal even where the defendant is wrongfully accused. Timely and accurate exclusionary evidence can avoid such mistakes before they snowball.
-
Lydell Grant v. The State of Texas, Grant’s conviction for muder in the first degree relied heavily on eyewitness testimony and inconclusive fingernail scrapings. He was sentenced to life in prison, after serving nine years and maintaining his innocence, probabilistic genotyping excluded his profile.
Expert Testimony
-
Experts testimony, regardless of its accuracy, is highly persuasive to juries.
-
Keith Harward v. the Commonwealth of Virginia, spent 33 years in prison for captital murder, rape, robbery, and burglary after a crime lab analyst gave inacurrate testimony that Harward could not be excluded.
-
-
Standard for expert testimony
-
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., sets the standard for expert scientific testimony, and whether or not it is admissible.
-
Federal Rule of Evidence (Rule 702), amended in 2000, states that scientific methods must be ‘generally accepted’, peer reviewed, and tested with a known rate of error
-
Crime Lab Funding
According to Dr. Stout of the Houston Forensics Science Center, crime labs across the country are significantly underfunded, both at the state and the federal level. The DOJ, for example, allocates $200 million to publicly funded crime labs, which according to Dr. Stout falls short on the demands required to run effective forensics labs.
-
-
Forensic analysts in MA were convicted of using drugs that were submitted for evidence instead of testing them.
-
This cost to the city from overturned convictions and settlements is valued at over $30million, with over 30,000 cases dismissed or overturned as a result.
-
Quality Control
-
Accreditation and licensing standards vary across states
-
Independent investigators should be conducting random audits of crime labs nationally
-
There is not enough personnel to conduct frequent blind testing, where controlled samples are put into the workflow.
-
Safeguard sensitive data.
How to Approach Forensics Failures
The failure of forensics labs to review evidence in a timely and accurate manner, result in systemic injustices and wrongful convictions. Essential methods towards reducing these faults include:
-
Quality control
-
Expert reliability
-
Higher standards in the field
-
Adequate crime lab funding
-
Timeliness to ensure the right to a speedy and fair trial
About Prof. Brandon Garrett and Dr. Peter Stout
“Forensic science often does not live up to the current standards of scientific research. And when forensic science fails, injustice follows.”
Brandon L. Garrett is the inaugural L. Neil Williams, Jr. Professor of Law and director of the Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law. He is a leading scholar of criminal justice outcomes, evidence, and constitutional rights. Garrett’s research and teaching interests focus on evidence, forensic science, constitutional rights, habeas corpus, corporate crime, and criminal law. He is the author of six books, including his latest, Autopsy of a Crime Lab: Exposing the Flaws in Forensics (University of California Press, March 2021). In addition to numerous articles published in leading law reviews and scientific journals, Garrett's work has been widely cited by courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, lower federal courts, state supreme courts, and courts in other countries. Before joining Duke Law in 2018, Garrett was the White Burkett Miller Professor of Law and Public Affairs and Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. Garrett received his BA from Yale University and his JD in 2001 from Columbia Law School. He is admitted to practice law in New York.
Dr. Peter Stout is Houston Forensic Science Center’s CEO and president. He joined the agency in 2015 as its chief operating officer and vice president. The Houston Forensic Science Center (HFSC) examines and provides scientific analysis of evidence for the Houston Police Department. Dr. Stout has more than 20 years of experience in forensic science and forensic toxicology. Prior to joining HFSC, Dr. Stout worked as a senior research forensic scientist and director of operations in the Center for Forensic Sciences at RTI International. Dr. Stout also has served as president of the Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT). He represented SOFT in the Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations and has participated in national policy debates on the future of forensic sciences in the United States.
