Skip to content

“Brief of Amici Curiae Brandon L. Garrett and 35 Scientists, Statisticians, Law and Science Scholars, and Practitioners, People v. Genrich, No. 2016CA651”

Published: 2017
Primary Author: Brandon Garrett
Secondary Authors: 35 Scientists, Statisticians, Law and Science Scholars, and Practitioners

In this case, a toolmark “expert” testified against James Genrich by assuring the jury that several of Genrich’s tools made purportedly unique marks on fragments of the bombs recovered from the crime scene, “to the exclusion of any other tool” in the world. That testimony all but assured Genrich’s conviction. But as this brief describes, the scientific community has now recognized that it is not appropriate to express such a conclusion in the area of toolmarks, or in any forensic discipline. “The reality is that uniqueness is impossible to prove, and is not anywhere near as relevant as some may claim[.]”2 Part I.A of this brief describes how the relevant field of toolmark comparisons lacks scientific research support. While firearms comparisons, which are far more commonly conducted, have been the subject of some studies, toolmarks research is nearly nonexistent. Part I.B describes the “theory” used to advance toolmark identifications in court and explains why scientists have found it unsupported. The section also describes criticism of toolmark comparisons in influential scientific reports that have highlighted problems of overstated testimony, error rates, and lack of research. Part I.C describes toolmark identifications in the courts and how, in recent years, courts have excluded or limited testimony like that presented in the Genrich case. Finally, Part II describes how the flaws inherent in toolmark evidence were borne out in this particular case. In light of the unreliable nature of toolmark evidence, Amici respectfully urge this Court to grant a full evidentiary hearing to review the faulty and wholly unscientific forensic testimony that led to Genrich’s conviction.

Related Resources

Blind Testing in Firearms Examination: Preliminary Results, Benefits, Limitations, and Future Directions

Blind Testing in Firearms Examination: Preliminary Results, Benefits, Limitations, and Future Directions

This CSAFE webinar was held on June 23, 2022. Presenters: Maddisen Neuman Quality / Research Associate, Houston Forensic Science Center   Presentation Description: Open proficiency tests created by external vendors…
Surveying Practicing Firearm Examiners

Surveying Practicing Firearm Examiners

A sample (n = 79) of practicing firearm and toolmark examiners was queried about casework as well as their views about the potential role that statistics might play in future…
Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program

Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program

Open proficiency tests meet accreditation requirements and measure examiner competence but may not represent actual casework. In December 2015, the Houston Forensic Science Center began a blind quality control program…
Extracting Case-Specific Data from Validation Studies

Extracting Case-Specific Data from Validation Studies

This CSAFE webinar was held on May 10, 2022. Presenters: Steve Lund Statistical Engineering Division, NIST Hari Iyer Statistical Engineering Division, NIST Presentation Description: The legal and scientific communities agree…