The FBI Does Some Soul Searching on Potentially Exaggerated Expert Testimony

Your News Companion by Ben Mathis-Lilley
July 18 2013 4:23 PM

The FBI Does Some Much-Needed Soul Searching About Just How "Expert" Its Expert Testimony Is

168254009
The FBI is instigating a massive review of its forensic science practices.

Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images

The Washington Post brings us a look at the preliminary findings of a sweeping federal review into thousands of old criminal cases in which FBI forensic experts may have overstated their scientific testimony to help secure a conviction. The early takeaway is difficult to ignore: Exaggerated testimony may have played a role in landing at least 27 people on death row.

It's too early to say how many of those cases resulted in wrongful convictions, but the news has already led to an 11th-hour stay of execution for a Mississippi man who was facing death by lethal injection. WaPo explains what it is exactly that the FBI experts may have done wrong while on the stand:

At issue is a once-widespread practice by which some FBI experts exaggerated the significance of “matches” drawn from microscopic analysis of hair found at crime scenes.
Since at least the 1970s, written FBI Laboratory reports typically stated that a hair association could not be used as positive identification. However, on the witness stand, several agents for years went beyond the science and testified that their hair analysis was a near-certain match.
The new review listed examples of scientifically invalid testimony, including claiming to associate a hair with a single person “to the exclusion of all others,” or to state or suggest a probability for such a match from past casework.
Advertisement

The Justice Department and FBI, along with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, are expected to go public with more detailed findings sometime later this summer. For cases where the groups decide that the FBI examiners "exceeded the limit of science," the DoJ will notify both the prosecution and the defense. They'll also assist the convicted defendants in variety of ways, most notably by waiving statues of limitations and other rules that often restrict appeals.

While the scope of the probe is massive—it involves the examination of at least 21,700 FBI Laboratory files—the Post suggests it may only be the "tip of the iceberg." That's because between 1979 and 2009, around 500 state and local forensic lab specialists attended hair analysis classes at the FBI. Considering that the vast majority of capital cases are considered on the state and local levels, this review may have to get a lot more extensive if federal malpractice is confirmed. Head on over to the Post to read all the nitty gritty.

TODAY IN SLATE

Politics

Don’t Worry, Obama Isn’t Sending U.S. Troops to Fight ISIS

But the next president might. 

IOS 8 Comes Out Today. Do Not Put It on Your iPhone 4S.

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

How Much Should You Loathe NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell?

Here are the facts.

Three Talented Actresses in Three Terrible New Shows

Science

The Human Need to Find Connections in Everything

It’s the source of creativity and delusions. It can harm us more than it helps us.

Foreigners

More Than Scottish Pride

Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself. 

The Ungodly Horror of Having a Bug Crawl Into Your Ear and Scratch Away at Your Eardrum

We Could Fix Climate Change for Free. What Exactly Is Holding Us Back?

  News & Politics
Politics
Sept. 17 2014 5:21 PM Don’t Worry, Obama Isn’t Sending U.S. Troops to Fight ISIS But the next president might. 
  Business
Business Insider
Sept. 17 2014 1:36 PM Nate Silver Versus Princeton Professor: Who Has the Right Models?
  Life
Gentleman Scholar
Sept. 17 2014 5:10 PM Should Men Still Open Doors for Women? Or is it ungentlemanly to do so at all?  
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 17 2014 4:36 PM Is Nonfiction the Patriarch of Literary Genres?
  Slate Plus
Slate Fare
Sept. 17 2014 9:37 AM Is Slate Too Liberal?  A members-only open thread.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 17 2014 5:56 PM Watch Louis C.K., Dave Chappelle, Bill Hicks, Mitch Hedberg, and More on New YouTube Channel
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 17 2014 5:26 PM If Fixing Global Warming Is Free, What’s the Holdup?
  Health & Science
Jurisprudence
Sept. 17 2014 4:49 PM Schooling the Supreme Court on Rap Music Is it art or a true threat of violence?
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 17 2014 3:51 PM NFL Jerk Watch: Roger Goodell How much should you loathe the pro football commissioner?