Search

Advocates and researchers have made many recommendations for forensic science improvement in the United States. These proposals are often motivated by wrongful convictions related to false or misleading forensic evidence. In many cases, the connection between the proposals and the actual experience of wrongful convictions has not been well defined. Further, recommendations may not have been realizable given the structure of the criminal justice system in the United States and the practical realities of forensic science laboratories. Finally, limited attempts have been made to assess recommendations over time to determine the progress of forensic science improvement and elucidate continuing gaps. Reports from the Department of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology are assessed to determine the extent to which their recommendations have been implemented, whether the recommendations align with the actual experience of wrongful convictions, and how the American forensic science community has implemented forensic science improvement. The most successful proposals reflect a broad movement toward quality assurance, improved standards, and organizational improvement in the forensic sciences. Less successful proposals are associated with calls for large federal investments, difficulties in community-wide implementation, or uncertain linkage to foundations in science and practice. Significant progress has been made in the standardization of reporting and testimony, assessment of the foundational reliability of the disciplines, and DNA mixture interpretation. Significant gaps remain to improve medicolegal death investigation, governance, and the implementation of standards. Improved allocation and use of resources will be required to meet continuing challenges in capacity building, training, and proficiency testing, although past experience indicates that both federal and non-federal funding will be required to address these issues. Continued improvement is needed to address the issues associated with wrongful convictions, although forensic science leaders have demonstrated the ability to prioritize improvement initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]