Ivanova1

Juliana Ivanova
Professor Eric Heiser
Criminal Justice 1010
8 October 2016
Inaccurate Forensic Science
Every year, thousands of people end up in prison for crimes they didnt commit. Between
2.3% to 5% of innocent individuals are locked up for inaccurate forensic evidence caused by
human error. With modern technology, scientists are able to find evidence from about any trace
left behind at the crime scene. Things like hairs, fibers, blood, fingerprints, footprints, and
broken glass all qualify as trace evidence, yet it makes you wonder where the testing goes wrong
when innocent individuals get locked up.
DNA fingerprinting, one of the most reliable sources of criminal identification is used by
analyzing your DNA structure from either a skin cell, hair root, or saliva. Since DNA is unique to
each individual (unless you have an identical twin), scientists are able to trace the DNA back to
your cells and see if you are a match for the crime (DNA). Even though DNA fingerprinting is
considered the most reliable, only 5-10% of all wrongful convictions are cases that involve DNA
testing. The other 90-95%, DNA testing isnt an option due to the lack of trace evidence,
therefore scientists rely on other forensics that may not have sufficient research before being
applied (Unvalidated).
Recent errors have fueled a debate in the reliability of fingerprint forensic evidence. In
March of 2004, a terrorist bombing in Madrid killed almost 200 people. A partial fingerprint was
found on the bag of the bomb and sent to the FBI. The print was examined by four different
companies and each of them matched Brandon Mayfield. Except there was a big problem, the
print wasnt Mayfields. Spanish officials match the print to a different individual and Mayfield

Ivanova2
later sued the government, winning $2 million for the accusations of a false positive
(Forensic).
Forensic experts are able to uncover crucial facts such as cause of death, time, the type of
weapon used, identity of the victim, and the identity of the offender (Gaines). However, many
experts are also willing to testify without proper scientific basis for their findings. Reports come
to show hair microscopy, drug testing, bite mark comparisons, fingerprint analysis, firearms, tool
marks and footprint analysis have never been subjected to any rigorous scientific evaluation
(Jones).
Bite mark similarities can alter as time goes on due to swelling and healing. Scientific
studies havent adequately stated dental characteristics are unique to each individual; this
assumption has played a role in the wrongful convictions over the years (Jones).
Forensic experts who specialize in the study of firearm identification may testify in court
what kind of weapon was used and which direction the bullet came from. The issue with proving
someone guilty with this approach is the accountability of the firearm (Jones). You would need a
significant amount of research to determine the degree of the firearm bullets and castings.
Microscopic hair analysis isnt a precise science yet. A study from the FBI in comparison
of hair found 12.5 percent came from a different source as the hair was retested through DNA
analysis (Jones).
Footprints are also a difficult and inaccurate form of testing. Unless there are other forms
of evidence on the shoe or tire impression, all you have is a wild guess. For example, in a Florida
case, a bloody shoe print was found and examiners were able to trace both the shoe and DNA,
but without biological evidence you are limited (Footwear).
A toxicology report analyzes samples of the toxins present in an individual to determine
whether the amount is above a harmful level. Its used as a background to determine the

Ivanova3
individuals mental or physical state. Again, analysts cant depend on this singular idea when it
comes to determining the state of mind (Jones).
With a background in anthropology, Ive learned a lot about forensic anthropologists;
anthropologists who work with legal teams to help analyze and identify human remains. The
large difference between the anthropologist approach and the forensic scientist is,
anthropologists help uncover the bodies to provide families with a sense of closure, helping the
government issue death certificates, burials, and making sure others arent using the unidentified
body as a way to get social security funding. Forensic scientists on the other hand are there to
solve crime and find the perpetrator. Both jobs deal with the identification of bodies, even though
anthropologists are usually identifying skeletons and are looking at pelvic bone size, skull size,
tooth shape/size, bone wear, geography, etc. to get a better idea of who the individual could
possibly be and what time period they could have come from.
From what I have learned in my criminal justice class thus far, I was aware biological
testing wasnt infallible, however what I didnt realize was how many of the mistakes are human
related errors. We have a list of different ways to capture a criminal and with all the
technological advances I assumed there was be a decrease in the percentage of innocent
individuals in prison or on death row. Its scary to think you could be guilty for a crime you
never committed. Your life is completely in the hands of the forensic scientists and analysts
I conclude scientists, researchers, and analysts all need to head back to the lab and
conduct accurate tests that can be scientifically evaluated. Experts should also be getting the
longest amount of training since their choices could impact us. The biggest issue with forensic
evidence is we have been testing DNA since the 1980s, yet all the other alternatives havent
been touched. With modern technology in our hands we should constantly be retesting samples
to further our knowledge and prevent innocent civilians ending up in prison because for each

Ivanova4
innocent civilian, the perpetrator is walking the streets free of any punishment.

Ivanova5
Works Cited
Gaines, Larry K. and Roger L. Miller. CJ 1010 Criminal Justice. Cengage Learning. 2013. Print.
Jones, Jonathan. Forensic Tools: Whats Reliable and Whats Not-So-Scientific. Frontline.
PBS. 17 April 2012. Web. 8 October 2016.
n.p. DNA Fingerprinting is everywhere. Genetics, the Tech. The Tech Museum of Innovation.
n.d. Web. 1 October 2016.
n.p. Footwear and Tire Track Examination. Forensic Science Simplified. n.d. Web. 1 October
2016.
n.p. Forensic Reform is Needed Now. The Crime Report. The Crime Report. 23 February
2009. Web. 8 October 2016.
n.p. Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science. Innocence Project. Innocence Project. 2016.
Web. 8 October 2016.