In this Essay, I describe how despite decades of missed opportunities to adequately regulate forensics, in recent rulings the Supreme Court and lower courts increasingly focus on sound litigation of forensics. In an era of plea bargaining, the accuracy of forensic analysis depends far less on cross-examination at trial, and far more on sound lab techniques, full disclosure of strengths and limitations of forensic evidence to prosecutors and the defense, and careful litigation. The Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clauses are emerging as promising constitutional sources for improved regulation of forensics, including through ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady v. Maryland rulings focusing on investigations and plea bargains, as well as the general due process guarantee of a fair trial.
Constitutional Regulation of Forensic Evidence
Journal: Washington and Lee Law Review
Published: 2018
Primary Author: Brandon Garrett
Type: Publication
Research Area: Implementation and Practice
Related Resources
How do Labs Ensure Quality? A Nationwide Review of SOPs for Latent Print Examination
This presentation is from the 108th International Association for Identification (IAI) Annual Educational Conference, Reno, Nevada, August 11-17, 2024. Posted with permission of CSAFE.
Statistics and its Applications in Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System
This presentation is from the 2024 Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM), Portland, Oregon, August 3-8, 2024.
Silencing the Defense Expert
In the wake of the 2009 NRC and 2016 PCAST Reports, the Firearms and Toolmark (FATM) discipline has come under increasing scrutiny. Validation studies like AMES I, Keisler, AMES II,…
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…