“The Federal Rules of Evidence, passed into law in 1975, set forth guidelines for determining if a person may be qualified to testify as an expert witness. Nearly twenty years later, in 1993, the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which reminded judges of their "gatekeeping" role in applying the Federal Rules of Evidence while weighing the potential reliability of expert testimony. When scientists serve as expert witnesses, however, testimony can be highly technical and very compelling. For instance, a forensic DNA scientist that identifies a defendant's blood at a crime scene - or a drug chemist that identifies a white powder as being cocaine - is in a position to exert impressive influence over the court. It makes complete sense, then, that judges take their gatekeeping role very seriously, although it is among the most challenging of all the responsibilities they hold in American jurisprudence.”

“Conventional wisdom suggests that litigants must retain expert witnesses or consultants only for single areas of expertise in which said experts are competent. This is true, in many circumstances, but not all. Some consultants have tremendous experience in conducting overall evaluations of the depth and breadth of scientific evidence in cases and determining their individual and collective relevance based upon the facts of each case.”

“If it had to be done over again, knowing what is known now, how would the ideal forensic science laboratory be constructed, organized, and operated? A project was initiated to answer this question by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation in Houston, Texas, which brought together select, influential, and highly recognized forensic science icons to discuss and document the elements of the model forensic science laboratory—to the extent that such a model could actually exist.”

“It took the unbiased perspective of a business and economics professor to lend credibility to what forensic scientists always knew was the main culprit in the explosion of crime laboratory backlogs across the United States: Consumers have little respect for things they don’t have to pay for. If it’s free, it must be abundant.”

“As a result of this study, forensic science malpractice, whether intentionally or accidentally committed, was shown to be a comparatively small risk to the criminal justice system—accounting statistically for less than 11 percent of all cases studied. As the authors will explain, the true percentage is likely much lower. But just as compelling were the number of wrongful convictions (18 percent) where forensic evidence reportedly favored the defendant.”

“The authors argue, however, that the intense activism surrounding post-conviction litigation introduces a potentially catastrophic form of contamination to post-conviction proceedings. The authors refer to this phenomenon as contextual contamination, which is the misapplication of circumstantial information during the legal and judicial interpretation of scientific findings. Because DNA exonerations, as they are commonly called, often occur so long after the original crimes were committed, newly acquired scientific findings, however accurate or valid they may be, can be improperly applied by litigators and judges who fail to consider the full significance and probative value of the forensic evidence.”