San Jose Criminal Law Office

On February 18, 2009, the well-respected National Academy of Sciences and the national academy of Engineering released a report criticizing crime laboratories across the country. This report had been ordered by the U.S. Congress in 2005 and was concluded at a cost of $1.5 million.

Many of the findings are very important to the defense of many criminal cases. Many criminal cases rely on some type of “forensic evidence.” Forensic evidence is scientific evidence as it is used in the courtroom. It may take the form of medical or psychological conclusions, or deal with evidence examined in a laboratory. The NAS was concerned with evidence that is developed in crime laboratories and is then used in courtrooms. This can be as simple as fingerprint evidence, handwriting samples, to comparison of hairs, fiber and debris found at crime scenes and firearms identification. Of course this type of evidence includes DNA.

DNA is often referred to as a person’s “genetic fingerprint”. This description makes many people believe DNA evidence is absolutely reliable, based on comparing all of the genes in the perpetrator’s sample to a crime scene sample. DNA is much more complicated that and uses only 15 genes found in the human genome. The DNA database of probabilities is based upon a group of approximately 200 people. But DNA is beginning to be important not just in serious crimes such as murder and sex crimes, but also crimes such as burglary and car clouts.

The NAS report concluded that too many crime labs show a pro-prosecution bias—that it is more important to “catch a bad guy”, often backing up prosecution ideas, than it is to reach the truth. This type of a bias is quite dangerous in courts and can lead to wrongful convictions.

Many crime labs in the United States and all of the crime labs in the state of California are not independent, but are part of either a law enforcement or prosecution agency. In Santa Clara County, the local crime lab used to process information for court cases is part of the District Attorney’s Office. While this fact does not make all crime lab conclusions wrong, it can contribute to a prosecution bias on the part of some testifying lab experts.

The NAS report found that many of the currently accepted fields or areas of examination in crime labs may be based on outmoded or untested theories. Experts who are permitted to testify on the basis of these theories are often taken at their word by juries, anxious for a “CSI type” conclusion. This can result in wrongful convictions.

The NAS report recommends more uniformity and oversight on all these separate crime labs. If you are facing forensic evidence in your case, you need an attorney who is familiar with the scientific methods used and reports of experts that can review crimelab evidence and attack it when there is a scientific basis. Maureen Baldwin is familiar with the controversy regarding certain types of forensic evidence. With expert assistance, she can guide you through some of the evidence you can expect to encounter in your court case and how to attack this seemingly unshakeable “scientific evidence”

Legal Website Design