I recently tried a murder case. Forensics were not a huge issue, but they were important. While I shouldn't be surprised, I was reminded about just how qualified (or unqualified) most of the people are who testify for the state.
The worst was the supervisor of the crime scene, who also claimed to be an expert in bloodstain pattern interpretation. His qualifications were similar to most such experts - he had attended a 40 hour bloodstain school. Most of those are conducted by, or in conjunction with law enforcement agencies. Since his training years ago he had never attended a training program directly solely at bloodstain interpretation. He had brought in others to train his people - and participated in the training.
What absolutely floored me was when he was asked what SWIGSTAIN was. For those who don't know, there are scientific working groups in a number of disciplines, made up from experts from across the country - and the world. Their goal is to develop standards that will be applied everywhere - including terminology. The idea is that when an expert mentions a term, it will have a certain meaning that all experts will understand. In other words, they will talk the same language. SWIGSTAIN came up with their guidelines in 2005 - 2006; He had never heard of it! So much for training and continuing education.
The other expert was a DNA analyst. She had the standard university degree, and worked at a county Crime Lab. When asked what professional organizations she was a member of she replied none. Seriously - how can you be a scientist and not be a member of any professional organization. Most experts are members of numerous organizations - the most common being the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. How can anyone stay current and know what is going on with your field without keeping in touch with other?
With the training possessed by many of the people at State crime labs its no wonder mistakes are made. We should expect more - they are providing testimony that can take away someone's freedom - and even their life. Instead of being the least qualified, they should be the most qualified experts in their fields.
The sad fact is that the most qualified experts are often consultants, who defendants may hire to assist in the defense. When they do, their testimony is discounted and discredited because they are being paid to come testify - as if the State experts are doing it for free. If they question what was being done they are attacked and discredited. I understand that's the function of a trial, but jurors too often are willing to blindly accept the testimony offered by the State.
We've made a lot of progress over the last few years - especially in educating lawyers about forensics. It's obvious we still have a lot more to do.![]()
↧