Microscopic Hair Analysis

Another source discussing hair analysis, emphasizes the problem with the presentation stage in expert witness testimony in court (3). Not only has contamination been a reason for false convictions (1), but also the ways in which the testimony from the hair analysts is worded (3). Investigations of how the phrasing and wording of expert witness testimony impacts the final court decision have been done, revealing the misuse of words in court have contributed to wrongful convictions, which have created the view of unreliability to the science of hair analysis (3). Forensic scientists undergo much stress when entering the courtroom (3), leading to forensic scientists exaggerating the worth of the hair evidence in testimony the hair evidence in
Instead, many have suggested future recommendations as to make improvements in the discipline. One recommendation is that microscopic hair analysis should almost always precede DNA testing, as to utilized hair analysis and comparison as an efficient screening device (1). There have also been efforts towards establishing a more objective value for hair evidence by developing an atlas that would be used as a basis in different areas when investigating hair characteristics (1). The future of this science seems open to many possibilities. Improvements and new technologies for DNA will increase chances for successful DNA retrieval from hair evidence in the future (1) and the basic principles of the science will still be relevant (3). Clearly, the efforts being shown to make improvements of the science shows its potential and importance as evidence. It cannot just be dismissed; every piece of evidence is essential in a crime scene. The perceptions and opinions of multiple forensic scientists should be involved when it comes to hair evidence being admissible in court (5). Forensic hair analysts should also be questioned on what led them to form an opinion, as to ensure valid findings (5). Additionally, hair analysts should also be very experienced in hair examinations (5), and have completed proper training (2). The high levels of scrutiny and criticism is a good thing when it comes to evidence such as hair, it will improve the science and decrease the chances of error for the future. This is why the questioning of admissibility is imperative and should be a repeating tactic for not only hair evidence but other disciplines that analyze bite marks or handwriting, which all have some chances for error. Future studies have also been focused on how to create better