Forensic identification: From a faith-based "Science" to a scientific science

Forensic Science International

Volumn 201, Issue 1-3, 2010, Pages 14-17

  Saks, Michael J ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Candor; Empirical research; Forensic identification; Probability theory; Research strategies

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; DNA FINGERPRINTING; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; FORENSIC MEDICINE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; ODONTOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SCIENTIST;

EID: 77955282700     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.03.014     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. National Research Council, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
2. Osborn A. Questioned Documents 1929, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD. second ed.
3. Goddard C. Scientific identification of firearms and bullets. J. Am. Inst. Crim. Law Criminol. 1926, 17:254-263.
4. May L. The identification of knives, tools and instruments a positive science. Am. J. Police Sci. 1930, 1:246-259.
5. McFarlane T.W., MacDonald D.G., Sutherland D.A. Statistical problems in dental identification. J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 1974, 14:247-252.
6. Cummins H., Midlo C. Finger Prints, Palms and Soles: An Introduction to Dermatoglyphics 1943, Blakiston Co., Philadelphia.
7. Stoney D.A. What made us ever think we could individualize using statistics?. J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 1991, 31:197-204.
8. Stoney D.A. Fingerprint identification. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony 2010, vol. 4:337-449. Thomson-West, St. Paul, MN.
9. Bunch S.G. Consecutive matching striation criteria: a general critique. J. Forensic Sci. 2000, 45:955-962.
10. Saks M.J. Merlin and Solomon: lessons from the law's formative encounters with forensic identification science. Hastings Law J. 1998, 49:1069-1141.
11. Cole S.A. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification 2001, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
12. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. The individualization fallacy in forensic science. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 2009, 61:199-219.
13. Pretty I., Sweet D. The scientific basis for human bitemark analyses-a critical review. Sci. Just. 2001, 41:85-92.
14. Risinger D.M., Denbeaux M.P., Saks M.J. Exorcism of ignorance as a proxy for rational knowledge: the case of handwriting identification " expertise" Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 1989, 137:731-792.
15. Galbraith O., Galbraith C.S., Galbraith N.G. The " principle of the drunkard's search" as a proxy for scientific analysis. Int. J. Forensic Document Examiners 1995, 1:7-17.
16. Kam M., Fielding G., Conn R. Writer identification by professional document examiners. J. Forensic Sci. 1997, 42:778-786.
17. United States v. Llera-Plaza, 2002 WL 27305 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
18. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 2005, 309:892-895.
19. Garrett B.L., Neufeld P.J. Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Va. Law Rev. 2009, 95:1-97.
20. Bowers C.M. Identification from bitemarks. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony 2010, vol. 5:1-96. Thomson-West, St. Paul, MN.
21. Cole S.A. More than zero: accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 2005, 95:985-1078.
22. State v. Krone, 182 Ariz. 319, 1995.
23. Giannelli P., Imwinkelried E. Scientific evidence: the fallout from the Supreme Court's decision in Kumho Tire. Crim. Just. 2000, 14(Winter):12-19.
24. Kennedy D. Forensic science: oxymoron?. Science 2003, 302:1625.
25. Thompson W., Cole S. Psychological aspects of forensic identification evidence. Expert Psychological Testimony for the Courts 2007, 31-68. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. M. Costanzo, D.A. Krauss, K. Pezdek (Eds.).
26. Saks M.J., Risinger D.M., Rosenthal R., Thompson W.C. Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Sci. Just. 2003, 43:77-90.
27. Stacey R. A report on the erroneous fingerprint individualization in the Madrid train bombing case. J. Forensic Ident. 2004, 54:706-718.
28. Dror I.E., Charlton D., Péron A.E. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci. Int. 2006, 156:74-78.
29. Krane D.E., Ford S., Gilder J.R., Inman K., Jamieson A., Koppl R., Kornfield I.L., Risinger D.M., Rudin N., Taylor M.S., Thompson W.C. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 53:1006-1007.
30. Giannelli P.C. The abuse of scientific evidence in criminal cases: the need for independent crime laboratories. Va. J. Soc. Pol'y Law 1997, 14:439-478.
31. Blackwell S.A., Taylor R.V., Gordon I., Ogleby C.L., Tanijiri T., Yoshino M., Donald M.R., Clement J.G. 3-D imaging and quantitative comparison of human dentitions and simulated bite marks. Int. J. Legal Med. 2006, 121:9-17.
32. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. What DNA " fingerprinting" can teach the law about the rest of forensic science. Cardozo L. Rev. 1991, 13:361-372.
33. Biasotti A., Murdock J., Moran B. Firearms and toolmark identification. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony 2010, Vol. 4:645-723. Thomson-West, St. Paul, MN.