Misconduct In Forensic Analysis

Furthermore, testifying about a technique, as seen in the previous argument is problematic. For example, testifying about CBLA and including these in trials poses a significant threat. This could have a huge impact on the jurors since, Cole (2012) reports that 185 out of 250 cases used had forensic evidence, and 169 of these presented forensic testimony, and of these 169 trials, and that in sixty-one percent of these trials, forensic scientist's delivered invalid testimonies. Therefore, we have forensic evidence that is inculpatory, exculpatory, and inconclusive, which further feeds into the testimonies presented by these scientists.
It is important to point out that many forensic examiners are ethical in their practices and accountable. They
These practices of misconduct in result in dire consequences where an action of a single individual can destroy innocent individuals and further diminish public confidence in the justice system. For example, Collins & Jarvis (2009) found that the Innocence Project cited many cases where forensic scientist misconduct was a key player to the wrongful conviction. In the case of James Ochoa, even though DNA and fingerprint analysis exonerated Ochoa from the lists of suspects, the prosecutors were so convinced that he was guilty of armed robbery, that they had a forensic expert falsely testify in court on this case. Due to this, the testimony of the scientist was based solely on the interpretation and influence of the prosecutor. This argument relates to the idea of forensic testimony and the practice of fabricating or misreporting evide is a key issue that is posing a significant problem to our criminal justice system. These can include "withholding laboratory reports, analysis, or the existence of evidence. Other cases involved fabrication, including falsifying or altering lab reports and concealment of exculpatory information regarding hair comparison" (Garrett & Neufeld, 2009). For example, in William Gregory's case, a forensic analyst did not report crucial information of how at least one piece of hair did not match Gregory's. Additionally, it was determined that many cases
A judicial report on Zain's long period of misconducts, revealed the appalling and horrendous violations that were carried out by him. The report commented Zain's malpractice which was extreme and some included the overstating of the reliability of the results; reporting vague results as conclusive; continuously changing laboratory results; falsely implicating evidence to match the suspect (Giannelli, 2009). Due to this misconduct, many innocent individuals were wrongfully convicted based on Zain's testimony. Also, another systemic issue is that the prosecutors relied heavily upon Zain and his testimony because in their opinion, the other forensic examiners were incapable finding the proper results, meaning the results that would lead in their favour and would feed on their tunnel