This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/justice-department-frames-expanded-review-of-fbi-forensic-testimony/2016/03/20/ed536702-eed9-11e5-85a6-2132cf446d0a_story.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Justice Department frames expanded review of FBI forensic testimony Justice Department frames expanded review of FBI forensic testimony
(35 minutes later)
The Justice Department on Monday will propose expanding its review of forensic testimony by the FBI Laboratory beyond hair matching to widely used techniques including fingerprint examinations and bullet-tracing — and also is considering reviewing expert testimony from other department laboratories, agency officials said. The Justice Department on Monday will propose expanding its review of forensic testimony by the FBI Laboratory beyond hair matching to widely used techniques such as fingerprint examinations and bullet-tracing — and if problems are found, it could review expert testimony from other department laboratories, agency officials said.
“The authority afforded to scientific experts is second to none, and we must make sure that our statements are clearly supported by sound science,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said in remarks prepared for delivery Monday.“The authority afforded to scientific experts is second to none, and we must make sure that our statements are clearly supported by sound science,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said in remarks prepared for delivery Monday.
Yates and Jonathan Wroblewski, head of the department’s office of legal policy, are scheduled to lay out a framework for reviewing a sample of closed criminal cases nationwide at Monday’s scheduled start of a two-day meeting of the National Commission on Forensic Science appointed by the White House. Yates and Jonathan Wroblewski, head of the Justice Department’s office of legal policy, are scheduled to lay out a framework for reviewing a sample of closed criminal cases nationwide at Monday’s scheduled start of a two-day meeting of the National Commission on Forensic Science appointed by the attorney general.
[U.S. to commit scientists and new commission to fix forensic science][U.S. to commit scientists and new commission to fix forensic science]
Yates last month announced plans to audit samples of testimony that came from FBI units handling pattern-based evidence, without saying which disciplines. Such techniques include tracing the impressions that guns leave on bullets, shoe treads, fibers, soil and other crime-scene evidence. The FBI and other crime labs nationwide conduct more than 100,000 such examinations each year. Yates announced plans last month to audit samples of testimony that came from FBI units handling pattern-based evidence, without saying which disciplines. Such techniques include tracing the impressions that guns leave on bullets, shoe treads, fibers, soil and other crime-scene evidence. The FBI and other crime labs nationwide conduct more than 100,000 such examinations each year.
Yates linked the expanded review to an FBI and department finding last year that nearly all FBI hair examiners overstated testimony about hair matches incriminating defendants during the two decades before 2000.Yates linked the expanded review to an FBI and department finding last year that nearly all FBI hair examiners overstated testimony about hair matches incriminating defendants during the two decades before 2000.
Yates’s prepared statement reiterates her comments that a quality-assurance review would determine whether “the same kind of ‘testimonial overstatement’. . . could have crept into other disciplines.” Yates’s prepared statement reiterates her comments that a quality-assurance review would determine whether “the same kind of ‘testimonial overstatement’ . . . could have crept into other disciplines.”
[FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades][FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades]
Wroblewski’s office will present a more detailed plan at the commission’s June 20-21 meeting after giving the public 30 days to comment on the general framework, Yates said. Wroblewski’s office will present a more detailed plan at the commission’s June 20 and 21 meeting after giving the public 30 days to comment on the general framework, Yates said.
Justice Department officials last month left open questions of which techniques and how many cases would be reviewed, what standards would be used and over what time period, and whether convicted defendants would be notified if any errors are found.Justice Department officials last month left open questions of which techniques and how many cases would be reviewed, what standards would be used and over what time period, and whether convicted defendants would be notified if any errors are found.
Senior Justice Department officials said Wroblewski is expected lay out some specifics Monday, including a suggested review of fingerprints, ballistics, tire and shoe treads, and fibers. Senior Justice Department officials said Wroblewski is expected to lay out some specifics Monday, including the suggested review of fingerprints, ballistics, tire and shoe treads, and fibers.
Wroblewski is expected to seek input on who will review sample cases and “whether to sample cases just from the FBI Lab or all labs,” said one senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plan in advance of the agency’s public announcement. Wroblewski is expected to seek input on who will review sample cases and “whether to sample cases just from the FBI Lab or all labs,” said one senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plan before the agency’s public announcement.
Regarding the fate of a review in a new administration, the senior official said, “Our goal is to stand this thing up, to get it going, and to do it well so it will withstand scrutiny from the commission, the public, members of Congress and the inspector general’s office. . . . I think if we do that well, it will move forward and ultimately will be completed.”Regarding the fate of a review in a new administration, the senior official said, “Our goal is to stand this thing up, to get it going, and to do it well so it will withstand scrutiny from the commission, the public, members of Congress and the inspector general’s office. . . . I think if we do that well, it will move forward and ultimately will be completed.”
To assist the effort, Yates’s office has recruited Victor W. Weedn, outgoing president of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and chairman of the George Washington University Department of Forensic Sciences, officials said.To assist the effort, Yates’s office has recruited Victor W. Weedn, outgoing president of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and chairman of the George Washington University Department of Forensic Sciences, officials said.
Officials said the review does not necessarily mean there were problems with the science of the underlying techniques, but that the department is committed to establishing best practices to identify and address problems — possibly through periodic tests of various disciplines and labs. Officials said the review does not necessarily mean that there were problems with the science of the underlying techniques, but they said it indicates that the department is committed to establishing best practices to identify and address problems — possibly through periodic tests of various disciplines and labs.
[Forensic techniques not as reliable as you may think][Forensic techniques not as reliable as you may think]
Yates’s proposal is among the broadest responses to a National Academy of Sciences panel report in February 2009 that questioned subjective comparisons of evidence by experts. The panel concluded that although examiners had long claimed to be able to match pattern evidence to a source with “absolute” or “scientific” certainty, only DNA analysis had been validated through statistical research.Yates’s proposal is among the broadest responses to a National Academy of Sciences panel report in February 2009 that questioned subjective comparisons of evidence by experts. The panel concluded that although examiners had long claimed to be able to match pattern evidence to a source with “absolute” or “scientific” certainty, only DNA analysis had been validated through statistical research.