糖心传媒

It糖心传媒檚 a bread-and-butter scene for screenwriters on crime shows and courtroom dramas: the forensic expert takes the stand, describing the fingerprint or the bite mark that indisputably links the defendant to the crime. The prosecution糖心传媒檚 case is clinched.

But that糖心传媒檚 not how it works. Faulty forensic science plays a role in about half of the cases in which wrongful conviction is later proved. When it comes to pattern identification, forensic science is often not very scientific at all, says Jennifer Mnookin.

She糖心传媒檚 the dean of the UCLA law school, and also the David G. Price and Dallas P. Price Professor of Law. On March 26, she糖心传媒檒l be the last guest speaker in the , dedicated this year to the theme of expertise and evidence.

A leading scholar of legal evidence, Mnookin is the coauthor of (2016) and (2010). Her article was published last fall in Daedelus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, in a special issue devoted to science and the legal system.

糖心传媒淔orensic science is at a crossroads,糖心传媒� she writes, its credibility糖心传媒攁nd the legal community糖心传媒檚 response糖心传媒攗ncertain. The pattern identification methods used by forensic scientists developed in crime laboratories that were specifically designed to aid criminal investigations and functioned as a part of law enforcement. Until recently, most forensic scientists did not have formal training in science, and while an undergraduate science is now required by many labs, few of the people who work there are scientists with PhD-level training.

As a result, forensic science laboratories 糖心传媒渉ave generally lacked a 糖心传媒榬esearch culture,糖心传媒� with little in the way of 糖心传媒減eer-reviewed, high-quality evidence [that] establishes the scientific validity of often-used methods like tool mark assessments and firearms identification,糖心传媒� according to Mnookin. There is a 糖心传媒渄eep cultural divide between forensic science practice and research science.糖心传媒�

For forensic scientists, it糖心传媒檚 time-honed, subjective judgment that糖心传媒檚 valued, not empirical studies or statistical modeling. 糖心传媒淚n many fields, we still lack substantial, validated information about how likely analysts are to offer inaccurate conclusions. Consider this point carefully,糖心传媒� she writes. These forms of evidence are being used to establish guilt for serious criminal offenses, yet we lack substantial knowledge of how often the evidence presented is mistaken, overstated, imprecise, or wrong.糖心传媒�

Mnookin糖心传媒檚 legal interests also include what she calls 糖心传媒渟emi-legible visual evidence,糖心传媒� a resonant topic for local experts, given Rochester糖心传媒檚 place in the world of imaging. Blurry photographs, low-quality dashboard or security video, and medical scans are just a few of the kinds of evidence she cites: both images that are only partially readable to laypeople but decipherable to those with expertise and images with irresolvable uncertainties for all. 糖心传媒淪emi-legible images cannot be said simply to speak for themselves,糖心传媒� she writes; 糖心传媒渢hey must be made to speak, through the exertion of effort, expertise, or both.糖心传媒�

In a Mnookin and coauthor Harry T. Edwards, a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., circuit, argued that science and justice are served together when forensic methods are required to demonstrate their scientific validity.

糖心传媒淭he integrity of our criminal-justice system,糖心传媒� they wrote, 糖心传媒渄eserves no less.糖心传媒�