I just finished Autopsy of a Crime Lab Brandon Garrett. This is a wide-ranging expose of the problems in forensic science. What resonated with me the most was the chapter on Qualifications. “If we allow forensic experts to provide evidence in court, then we should require them to provide evidence that they are in fact experts.”

The lack of qualifications is a major problem in my field of fire investigation. This was brought home to me once again in an arson/homicide case I am consulting on where the fire burned in a fully involved state for more than 30 minutes. Nevertheless, the fire investigator (who has since left the profession) insists that he was able to narrow the area of origin to a very small area, and because the defendant stated that he discovered the fire burning elsewhere, the defendant must be lying. The same fire investigator was unable to explain the basic units of energy or power or the difference between energy and power. In his deposition, he insisted that he used to know all of those things, but since he has not been working as a fire investigator for the last two years, he has forgotten them. With any luck, the judge will do his duty and exclude this guy’s unreliable testimony.

Autopsy of a Crime Lab also discusses is the NAS 2009 report, Strengthening Forensic Science in The United States: A Path Forward, and the forensic science community's response to it. He laments the disbanding of the National Commission on Forensic Science and proposes a multi-prong solution for fixing the problems we have. Of course, most of those solutions were proposed back in 2009, and only some of them have happened. Judges still allow discredited forensic science testimony because it has been allowed previously by other judges.

Anyone interested in the criminal justice system would be well advised to read this book, especially if you ever plan to be a juror in a criminal case.

[www.amazon.com]