Date: October 2, 2023
Summary:
Forensic science plays a critical role in solving crimes and delivering justice. One crucial aspect of this field involves examining firearms-related evidence, such as shell casings, to determine their source. However, a recent study conducted by researchers at Iowa State University reveals concerning issues in the way forensic experts handle cartridge-case comparisons. The study suggests that mismatches between casings are more likely to be reported as inconclusive, potentially undermining the pursuit of justice.
Introduction:
In the world of forensic science, every piece of evidence can be a crucial puzzle piece in solving crimes. Firearms-related evidence, such as shell casings, often carries unique markings that can help identify the source of a weapon used in a crime. Matching these casings can provide strong evidence against a suspect, while mismatches can potentially exonerate an innocent person.
Research Objectives:
The primary objective of the study conducted by Iowa State University researchers was to investigate the accuracy and integrity of forensic experts in cartridge-case comparisons. Specifically, they aimed to understand how often mismatches between casings were reported as inconclusive and the potential implications of this practice on the pursuit of justice.
Analysis and Findings:
The research involved an extensive dataset comprising 228 firearms examiners and 1,811 cartridge-case comparisons. Overall, the participants demonstrated a high level of accuracy in distinguishing between matching and mismatching casings. However, when a mathematical model was applied to the data, a concerning pattern emerged.
More Read
The findings revealed that 32% of actual mismatch trials were reported as inconclusive, compared to just 1% of actual match trials. This stark disparity raised questions about the motivations behind reporting a result as inconclusive, especially when it was more likely to be a mismatch.
Challenges and Implications:
One of the key challenges highlighted in the study is the response scale used by forensic firearms experts. The current scale asks whether the crime-scene casings and those from the suspect’s gun are from the same source. This binary approach may not account for potential alterations in firearms or degradation of evidence. Consequently, some examiners might default to reporting results as inconclusive rather than making a definitive judgment.
The researchers suggest that a more transparent approach would involve asking examiners if the shell casings from the suspect’s gun match those found at the crime scene. This revised approach would provide a clearer picture of the degree of similarity between casings.
BiasThe difference between the expectation of the test results and an accepted reference value. More in the Lab:
Another critical issue raised in the study is the presence of potential bias among forensic examiners and their laboratories. Prosecution or law enforcement agencies retain many forensic firearm examiners and labs. This affiliation can create a bias toward results that favor the prosecution, potentially leading to inconclusive reports even when a mismatch is evident.
Addressing the Problem:
To address these issues, the researchers emphasize the need to fix the response scale used in forensic examinations. They also recommend that defense lawyers cross-examine forensic firearms experts who claim inconclusive results, ensuring transparency and accountability. Moreover, seeking a second opinion when a cartridge-case comparison report is inconclusive may be advisable.
Conclusion:
Forensic science is an essential pillar of the criminal justice system, serving not only to incriminate the guilty but also to exonerate the innocent. The study underscores the importance of minimizing bias and enhancing transparency in cartridge-case comparisons. By doing so, the field of forensic science can contribute to a fairer and more efficient criminal justice system that upholds the principles of justice for all.
Source of Article: Iowa State University
Journal Reference: Smith, A. M., & Wells, G. L. (2023). Telling us less than what they know: Expert inconclusive reports conceal exculpatory evidence in forensic cartridge-case comparisons. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000138
