Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Forensic Science: Why No Research?, Paul C. Giannelli
Forensic Science: Why No Research?, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
The National Academy of Sciences ground-breaking report on forensic science – Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward – raised numerous issues. One dominant theme that runs throughout the Report is the failure of some forensic science disciplines to comport with fundamental scientific principles – in particular, to support claims with empirical research. The Report observed that “some forensic science disciplines are supported by little rigorous systematic research to validate the discipline’s basic premises and techniques. There is no evident reason why such research cannot be conducted.”
The Report went on to identify fingerprint examinations, firearms (ballistics) …
Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis: A Retrospective, Paul C. Giannelli
Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis: A Retrospective, Paul C. Giannelli
Faculty Publications
For over thirty years, FBI experts testified about comparative bullet lead analysis (CBLA), a technique that was first used in the investigation into President Kennedy’s assassination. CBLA compares trace chemicals found in bullets at crime scenes with ammunition found in the possession of a suspect. This technique was used by the FBI when firearms (“ballistics”) identification could not be employed – for example, if the weapon was not recovered or the bullet was too mutilated to compare striations. Although the FBI eventually ceased using CBLA, the Bureau’s conduct in first employing the technique and then defending it after it was …
Will History Be Servitude?: The Nas Report On Forensic Science And The Rule Of The Judiciary, Jane Moriarty
Will History Be Servitude?: The Nas Report On Forensic Science And The Rule Of The Judiciary, Jane Moriarty
Jane Campbell Moriarty
For several decades, the prosecution and its witnesses have maintained that despite little research and virtually no standards, they can match a fingerprint, handwriting, bullet and bullet cartridge, hair, dental imprint, footprint, tire track, or even a lip print to its unique source (collectively, “individualization evidence”). Not only can they match it, they claim, they can do so often without any error rate. In the last few decades, with the help of lawyers and academics, litigants have challenged the underlying reliability of individualization evidence. Scholars in various disciplines have written about the startling state of individualization evidence, including its lack …