In forensics and the criminal justice system, the DNA system plays a larger role, both in convicting criminals and exonerating the wrongly accused. This is partly due to the contribution of the FBI Laboratory, located in Quantico, Virginia. However, the greatest contribution to forensic science DNA testing has had is not in separating criminals from innocents. Instead, it is the forensic standardization tests. No two people share the same DNA type, except identical twins. However, in the landmark case Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the ruling made it possible for trial judges to test expert testimonies' reliability. These reliability tests are modeled from the scientific method. Any result is valid if and only if it is testable (and consistent) and generally accepted by the community (peer-review; Giannelli, 2011 ).
The first forensic testing method to fall was handwriting analysis in 1995 with the US v. Starzecpyzel. In the case, the court ruled that handwriting analysis could not validate Daubert and, therefore, failed to be a scientific forensic tool. The courts soon followed suit where many handwriting analysts were restricted to testify on similarities (or lack thereof) but prohibited from concluding common authorship ( Giannelli, 2011 ). Daubert , therefore, opened the gates to reexamine the accepted and venerated technical fields. Another case that impacted the admissibility of handwriting analysis was the US v. Llera Plaza , where the presiding judge prohibited fingerprint experts from testifying that different sets of fingerprints matched, implying identification and exclusion of every other suspect and persons of interest. Though the judge later lifted the restriction, returning the admissibility of fingerprint evidence, the damage was done.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Note that apart from DNA forensics, none of the other methods satisfied Daubert and quickly became inadmissible, if not of little value to the criminal justice system. For instance, in the case of the US v. Green, the court recognized the fallibility of ballistics analysis because the expert testified that a match could not be made to the exclusion of every other firearm in the world. Though the court allowed the testimony on precedent, it was limited, like in previous cases with handwriting cases ( Giannelli, 2011 ). In the fall out of DNA profiling and Daubert provisions, the field of forensic evidence applied to the criminal justice system has had to transform and follow a scientific method-like approach to testifying.
References
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). Oyez . Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/92-102
Giannelli, P. C. (2011). Daubert and forensic science: The pitfalls of law enforcement control of scientific research. U. Ill. L. Rev. , 53.
US v. Green , 405 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Mass. 2005).
US v. Llera Plaza , 188 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
US v. Starzecpyzel , 880 F. Supp. 1027 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
