1. THE FUTURE of the FORENSIC SCIENCES
George W. Clarke
Superior Court
San Diego County

2. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT
NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT
(“NRC I”)

3. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT
NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT
(“NRC II”)

5. (“Could Originate From”)
MITOCHONDRIAL DNA
MICROSCOPIC COMPARISON
(“Consistent”) v.
MITOCHONDRIAL DNA
(“Could Originate From”)
10-15% “ERROR”

6. RECOMMENDATIONS “National Institute of Forensic Science”
Terminology/Reports/Testimony
Mandatory Accreditation/Certification
National “Code of Ethics”
Medical Examiner System

7. RECOMMENDATIONS
Study Validity of Disciplines
Remove Labs from Law Enforcement
Study “Contextual Bias”

8. RECOMMENDATIONS
“In a number of forensic science disciplines, forensic science professionals have yet to establish either the validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions, and the courts have been utterly ineffective in addressing this problem.”

9. RECOMMENDATIONS
“. . . there are serious issues regarding the capacity and quality of the current forensic science system; yet, the courts continue to rely on forensic evidence without fully understanding and addressing the limitations of different forensic science disciplines.”

10. DAUBERT v. MERRELL DOW U.S. Supreme Court (1993) 509 U.S. 579
“PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT”
Testing of theory or technique
Peer review publication
Error rate
Standardization
“GENERAL ACCEPTANCE”

12. SAN DIEGO COUNTY JAIL
All Booking = Fingerprints
Automated Scan/Search
ID or AKA Discovery
Resolve by Examiner
92,000/YEAR (250/DAY)

13. FINGERPRINTS Client Denial Re-examination Trial Testimony
Battle of Experts?
VALIDATION?

14. EVIDENCE RETESTING
“THE BEST PROTECTION AN INNOCENT SUSPECT HAS FROM A FALSE MATCH IS AN INDEPENDENT TEST.”

15. DAUBERT v. MERRELL DOW U.S. Supreme Court (1993) 509 U.S. 579
“PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT”
Vigorous Cross-Examination
Presentation of Contrary Evidence
Careful Instruction

17. IMPACT of REPORT

18. TRIAL by JURY “COURTROOM v. CLASSROOM” Wrongful Convictions
Government Steps to Exclude
“Hard” v. “Soft” Science
Deliberations Process

19. “MEAN” v. “MEDIAN”