This brief is signed by scholars representing a variety of disciplines, including law, ethics, forensic science, medicine, and statistics. The scholars have an interest in the quality and improvement of forensic science. Amici believe that forensic analyses should be disclosed, not matter whether the results are inculpatory, exculpatory, or non-probative, as a matter of professional ethics, sound science, and law. Amici are also interested in improving the administration of justice in general and the quality of evidence presented at criminal trials in particular. Amici are concerned that failure to disclose forensic conclusions can contribute to wrongful convictions.
Brief of Amici Curiae, Long v. Hooks, No. 18-6980 (4th Cir.)
Published: 2018
Primary Author: Brandon Garrett
Type: Publication
Research Area: Implementation and Practice
Related Resources
Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials
We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. The use of…
Interpretable algorithmic forensics
One of the most troubling trends in criminal investigations is the growing use of “black box” technology, in which law enforcement rely on artificial intelligence (AI) models or algorithms that…
What’s in a Name? Consistency in Latent Print Examiners’ Naming Conventions and Perceptions of Minutiae Frequency
Fingerprint minutia types influence LPEs’ decision-making processes during analysis and evaluation, with features perceived to be rarer generally given more weight. However, no large-scale studies comparing examiner perceptions of minutiae…
Shifting decision thresholds can undermine the probative value and legal utility of forensic pattern-matching evidence
Forensic pattern analysis requires examiners to compare the patterns of items such as fingerprints or tool marks to assess whether they have a common source. This article uses signal detection…