Editing Forensic science (section)

==Controversies==
Questions about certain areas of forensic science, such as fingerprint evidence and the assumptions behind these disciplines have been brought to light in some publications<ref>{{cite web| date=18 February 2009| title='Badly Fragmented' Forensic Science System Needs Overhaul| publisher=The National Academies| url=http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12589| access-date=2009-03-09| url-status=dead| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090826234749/http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12589| archive-date=26 August 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| date=18 February 2009| title=National Academy of Sciences Finds 'Serious Deficiencies' in Nation's Crime Labs| publisher=National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers| url=http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsreleases/2009mn06?OpenDocument| access-date=2009-03-07| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100305013129/http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsreleases/2009mn06?OpenDocument| archive-date=5 March 2010| url-status=dead}}</ref> including the ''[[New York Post]]''.<ref name=ForensicChallenge>{{cite web| date=6 March 2009| title=CSI: Without a clue; A new report forces Police and Judges to rethink forensic science| author=Katherine Ramsland| work=[[New York Post]], PostScript| url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03072009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/csi__without_a_clue_158464.htm| access-date=2009-03-07| url-status=dead| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090310062628/http://www.nypost.com/seven/03072009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/csi__without_a_clue_158464.htm| archive-date=10 March 2009}}</ref> The article stated that "No one has proved even the basic assumption: That everyone's fingerprint is unique."<ref name=ForensicChallenge /> The article also stated that "Now such assumptions are being questioned—and with it may come a radical change in how forensic science is used by police departments and prosecutors."<ref name=ForensicChallenge /> Law professor Jessica Gabel said on NOVA that forensic science "lacks the rigors, the standards, the quality controls and procedures that we find, usually, in science".<ref>Jessica Gabel, lawyer and lecturer from NOVA [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html "Forensics on Trial"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170627214550/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html |date=27 June 2017 }}</ref>

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has reviewed the scientific foundations of bite-mark analysis used in forensic science. Bite mark analysis is a forensic science technique that analyzes the marks on the victim's skin compared to the suspects teeth.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Bite Mark Analysis {{!}} NC PRO |url=https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/624-1#:~:text=Overview,or%20impression%20after%20a%20bite. |access-date=2023-12-05 |website=ncpro.sog.unc.edu}}</ref>  NIST reviewed the findings of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2009 study. The National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted research to address the issues of reliability, accuracy, and reliability of bitemark analysis, where they concluded that there is a lack of sufficient scientific foundation to support the data.<ref name="nist.gov">{{Cite journal |date=2022-10-11 |title=Forensic Bitemark Analysis Not Supported by Sufficient Data, NIST Draft Review Finds |url=https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/10/forensic-bitemark-analysis-not-supported-sufficient-data-nist-draft-review |journal=NIST |language=en}}</ref> Yet the technique is still legal to use in court as evidence. NIST funded a 2019 meeting that consisted of dentists, lawyers, researchers and others to address the gaps in this field.<ref name="nist.gov"/>

In the US, on 25 June 2009, the Supreme Court issued a 5-to-4 decision in ''[[Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts]]'' stating that crime laboratory reports may not be used against criminal defendants at trial unless the analysts responsible for creating them give testimony and subject themselves to cross-examination.<ref>''Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts'', [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 557|557]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]]305 (2009).  ''This article incorporates [[Copyright status of work by the U.S. government|public domain material from this U.S government document]].''</ref>  The Supreme Court cited the National Academies of Sciences report ''Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States''<ref name="Nap.edu-2009">{{cite book |url=http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589 |title=Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward |publisher=Nap.edu |access-date=2010-06-08 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100527111020/http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589 |archive-date=27 May 2010 |doi=10.17226/12589 |year=2009 |isbn=978-0309131308 }}</ref> in their decision. Writing for the majority, Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the [[United States National Research Council|National Research Council]] report in his assertion that "Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation."

In the US, another area of forensic science that has come under question in recent years is the lack of laws requiring the accreditation of forensic labs.  Some states require accreditation, but some states do not.  Because of this,<ref>{{cite web |title=The Impact of False or Misleading Forensic Evidence on Wrongful Convictions |url=https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/impact-false-or-misleading-forensic-evidence-wrongful-convictions |website=National Institute of Justice |publisher=Office of Justice Programs |access-date=30 November 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Justice Department Announces New Accreditation Policies to Advance Forensic Science |url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-new-accreditation-policies-advance-forensic-science |website=Office of Public Affairs |date=7 December 2015 |publisher=U.S Department of Justice |access-date=30 November 2023}}</ref> many labs have been caught performing very poor work resulting in false convictions or acquittals.  For example, it was discovered after an audit of the Houston Police Department in 2002 that the lab had fabricated evidence which led George Rodriguez being convicted of raping a fourteen-year-old girl.<ref name="nytimes.com">{{Cite news|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/us/new-doubt-cast-on-testing-in-houston-police-crime-lab.html|title = New Doubt Cast on Testing in Houston Police Crime Lab|date = 5 August 2004|access-date = 24 October 2014|url-status = live|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141031000519/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/us/new-doubt-cast-on-testing-in-houston-police-crime-lab.html|archive-date = 31 October 2014|newspaper = The New York Times|last1 = Liptak|first1 = Adam|last2 = Blumenthal|first2 = Ralph}}</ref>  The former director of the lab, when asked, said that the total number of cases that could have been contaminated by improper work could be in the range of 5,000 to 10,000.<ref name="nytimes.com"/>

The Innocence Project<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://innocenceproject.org/|title=Innocence Project – Help us put an end to wrongful convictions!|website=Innocence Project}}</ref> database of DNA exonerations shows that many wrongful convictions contained forensic science errors. According to the Innocence project and the US Department of Justice, forensic science has contributed to about 39 percent to 46 percent of wrongful convictions.<ref>{{Cite web |title=When forensic science isn't so scientific (Rebroadcast) |url=https://the1a.org/segments/when-forensic-science-isnt-so-scientific-2/ |access-date=2023-12-05 |website=1A |language=en}}</ref> As indicated by the National Academy of Sciences report ''Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States'',<ref name="Nap.edu-2009" /> part of the problem is that many traditional forensic sciences have never been empirically validated; and part of the problem is that all examiners are subject to forensic confirmation biases and should be shielded from contextual information not relevant to the judgment they make.

Many studies have discovered a difference in rape-related injuries reporting based on race, with white victims reporting a higher frequency of injuries than black victims.<ref name="ReferenceA">Baker RB, Fargo JD, Shambley-Ebron D, Sommers MS. "A source of healthcare disparity: Race, skin color, and injuries after rape among adolescents and young adults". ''Journal of Forensic Nursing'', 2010; 6: 144–150</ref> However, since current forensic examination techniques may not be sensitive to all injuries across a range of skin colors, more research needs to be conducted to understand if this trend is due to skin confounding healthcare providers when examining injuries or if darker skin extends a protective element.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> In clinical practice, for patients with darker skin, one study recommends that attention must be paid to the thighs, labia majora, posterior fourchette and [[Fossa of vestibule of vagina|fossa navicularis]], so that no rape-related injuries are missed upon close examination.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>