Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2013 | Page 60

FORENSICS JOURNAL

Fallibility Issues In Forensic Evidence
Brooke Brvenik

In 1976, Fred Zain started working for the West Virginia Department
of Public Safety in the serology unit (a lab testing bodily fluids) where
he tested materials from crime scenes to detect any serums that could
be used to identify possible suspects and aid police and prosecutors
in obtaining convictions. Prosecutors quickly identified him as a
valuable witness who could persuade juries of the certainty offered in
his lab findings. He would speak from a position of unimpeachable
authority even if his colleagues disagreed with him, which was often
(Duff, p. 1). Zain was able to find traces of blood, semen or saliva
that other technicians missed; he ran tests and crafted reports expertly
supporting the prosecutor’s case, helping to garner guilty verdicts on
cases with little or no other evidence. Always wearing a full police
uniform at work and in court, Zain proved to be a formidable asset
during hundreds of trials where he appeared as the expert witness on
behalf of the state. When he testified, the prosecution often won the
case (Kurland, p. 275).

role of forensic fraud and error. Looking forward, the value associated with forensic testimony will only increase as technology becomes
more exacting and precise; however, the incidences of fraud and error
could irreversibly damage the credibility of many forensic disciplines,
rendering them obsolete with the possible exception of DNA-based
tests. This paper seeks to define and explore the elements, techniques
and frequency of forensic errors and fraud, as well as examine the
potential impact on the criminal justice system. Additionally, specific
reforms proposed by individuals, organizations and the forensic community to mitigate forensic fraud and error will be considered.
ERRORS
What is a forensic error? For the purposes of this report, forensic
errors include unintentional mistakes caused by human operators i.e.
not the result of criminal or malicious intent. Five common activities prone to errors include: 1) death investigation determinations; 2)
collection, handling, and storage of evidence; 3) sampling mix-ups/
mislabeling of evidence; 4) sample contamination; and 5) operator
bias. Death investigations can provide the critical foundation for a
criminal investigation by revealing detailed information about the
cause, timing and manner of death thus enabling law enforcement
to proceed accordingly. Currently in the U.S., the scope and quality
of death investigations vary significantly based on jurisdiction; practices that are routine and standard in one area of the country may be
vastly different from how deaths are handled in another area. Generally, two distinct systems of death investigations are in place today:
the coroner system and the medical examiner system. The coroner
system currently serves over 1500 counties and in some jurisdictions,
allows elected or appointed laypersons with no medical training to be
coroners (Schmidt, K. K.). Conversely, medical examiners are usually licensed physicians or forensic pathologists who are trained to
examine the circumstances of death and perform autopsies necessary
to document cause of death. Medical examiners are usually appointed
to their position and serve areas with larger populations (Schmidt &
Shaw).

Glen Dale Woodall would mean the beginning of the end for Fred
Zain. Woodall, 29, was a gravedigger who worked at a cemetery
across the street from a shopping mall where two women were raped
in the winter of 1987. Because the rapist’s face was masked, neither
woman was able to identify her attacker during the police investigation. Zain seemed to have an affinity for these types of cases as it
allowed him to provide the critical piece of evidence that unequivocally implicated the suspect when other evidence could not. Zain
testified that semen samples recovered from the victims were consistent with Woodall, who was found guilty and sentenced to life in
prison (Fisher, p. 236). In 1992, DNA testing cleared Woodall of any
guilt and further proved that the initial tests done by Zain actually
excluded Woodall as a possible suspect (Kurland, p. 275). Woodall
sued the State of West Virginia for false imprisonment and received a
$1 million settlement after spending five years in prison (Clevenger).
Ten men have since been exonerated in West Virginia upon discovery
of Fred Zain’s appalling tactics (National Research Council, p. 44).
Fred Zain is often referred to as the rogue forensic scientist who
undermines the credibility of otherwise ethical, hard working forensic
professionals everywhere who are dedicated to uncovering the facts
in service of the criminal justice process. Zain’s corrupt legacy forces
a reexamination of the criminal justice system’s identification of
patterns denoting fraud and error by experts, and the limitations of
DNA technology.

Death investigation errors take many forms and occur in both systems. However, the coroner system is uniquely vulnerable because it
relies on personnel who do not have medical training to assist in making decisions regarding the circumstances and cause of death. In cases
where the cause of death seems straightforward and uncomplicated,
the exact opposite is often true and the complex, thorough procedures
employed by medical examiners uncover injuries that could have gone
undetected by a coroner (Kurland). The frequency of death investigation errors is nearly impossible to gauge given the finality of the
circumstances and the literal burying of e