Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2013 | Page 64

FORENSICS JOURNAL

states as well as the state’s desire to maintain control of their own
forensic policies. North Carolina reformed its state’s forensic system
by creating the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission
(NCIIC) in response to a scandal in 2006 involving one of the state’s
largest crime labs (Giannelli, 2012). The state grants authority to the
Commission to hear claims of innocence brought by convicted felons.
The first exoneration made by the NCIIC occurred in 2010 when it
was discovered that exculpatory test results had been suppressed by
the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) Laboratory. This exoneration
triggered a review that revealed 230 cases of improper forensic analysis, forcing the North Carolina General Assembly to legislate reform
for its crime labs. The NCIIC is a form of oversight that has ushered
in forensic science reform while providing an extra safeguard against
wrongful conviction (Goldstein, p. 249).

compromise of the justice system and provides more than enough
justification to permanently remedy the situation by adopting reforms
necessary to ensure the integrity of the justice system.
REFERENCES
Alvarez, L. (2011, July 18). Software Designer Reports Error In Casey
Anthony Trial. (The New York Times Company) Retrieved October
4, 2012, from newyorktimes.com: www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/
us/19casey.html
Balko, Radley. “Forensics Fraud?” reason.com. Reason Foundation, Apr. 2009. Web. 16 Jan. 2013. http://reason.com/
archives/2009/03/24/forensics-fraud.
Barry, S., & Ytuarte’, L. P. (2009, Spring). The Elephant In The
Crime Lab. The Forensic Examiner, 14, 1-7.

Finally, George Castelle who represented the interests of West Virginia
prisoners in the special investigation of Fred Zain endorses a different
type of reform to guard against forensic error and fraud:

Burns, S. (2012, September 20). Executive Director, National District
Attorneys Association. Personal Interview. (B. Brvenik, Interviewer)

The surest safeguard against fraud and bias in criminal prosecutions
is the knowledge among police lab technicians that there is a public
defender who will not accept their assertions at face value, who will
obtain independent review and retesting of their work (Castelle, p. 3).

Castelle, G. (1997). Fake Data, Wrongful Convictions: Learning
from A Crime Lab Fiasco. National Legal Aid & Defender Association
Cornerstone, 4, 3.

CONCLUSION

Clevenger, A. (2010, October 22). The Charleston Gazette. Retrieved
10 3, 2012, from The West Virginia Gazette: www.wvgazette.com/
news/policeblotter/201010220534

In a recent interview, Scott Burns, Executive Director of the National
District Attorneys Association who represents prosecutors directly
involved in over 97 percent of criminal trials in this country, summarized his position on the increased scrutiny of forensic fraud and
error, “The sky is not falling” (Burns). As he explained his position,
he deferred to statistics to formulate an estimated wrongful conviction
rate of less than 0.0001 percent or one ten-thousandth of 1 percent.
Stipulating that wrongful convictions are the scourge of any justice
system, Mr. Burns fully supports efforts to mitigate forensic fraud and
error but he cautions against fixing what isn’t broken (Burns).

DiFonzo, J. H., & Stern, R. C. (2007). Devil In A White Coat: The
Temptation of Forensic Evidence in the Age of C.S.I. New England
Law Review, 41(503), 515-532.
Duff, A. (1994, October). Trial and Error. Texas Monthy, 22(10), 32.
Fisher, J. (2008). Forensics Under Fire -Are Bad Science and Dueling
Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? (D. Valentine, Ed.) New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Rutgers University Press.

The only way to definitively know the pervasiveness of forensic fraud
and error would require reviewing every case, in every court, in every
jurisdiction for at least a decade to ascertain the scope of the problem. Currently, this approach is logistically impossible. However,
it is apparent that forensic evidence is vulnerable to insidious forms
of fraud and error. More disturbing is the fact that most fraud and
error goes undetected, and only by rare circumstances is the discovery
made that alerts the justice system of foul play (Castelle, p. 3). The
sobering truth of the matter is that if not for the capability of DNA
technology, many wrongfully convicted people either would still be
in prison or would have been executed for crimes they did not commit. The forensic fraud and error that corrupted their trials would
perhaps never