Synonyms
Overview
The relationship between forensic science and miscarriages of justice is complex and paradoxical. Miscarriages of justice are, in a sense, fundamentally unknowable. Forensic science, in the form of postconviction DNA testing, is the data source of much of the little we do know – and much of what we feel we know most securely – about miscarriages of justice. At the same time, forensic science has emerged from those very data as a significant contributor to miscarriages of justice.
Conceptual Framework
“Forensic science” is a broad term encompassing a variety of different techniques for using physical evidence in the investigation of crime. Forensic techniques include document examination, toxicology, pathology, drug analysis, print analysis, impression evidence, hair, fibers, paint, glass, soil, entomology, arson and explosives, gunshot residue, materials analysis, “jigsaw” physical fit matching, ballistics, blood spatter, crime...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Recommended Reading and References
Aronson JD, Cole SA (2009) Science and the death penalty: DNA, innocence, and the debate over capital punishment in the United States. Law Social Inquiry 34(3):603–633
Borchard E (1942) Convicting the innocent: errors of criminal justice. Archon, Hamden
Collins JM, Jarvis J (2009) The wrongful conviction of forensic science. Forensic Sci Policy Manag 1(1):17–31
Connors E, Lundregan T, Miller N, McEwen T (1996) Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: case in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC
Cooley CM (2004) Reforming the forensic science community to avert the ultimate injustice. Stanford Law Policy Rev 15(2):381–446
Edmond G (2002) Constructing miscarriages of justice: misunderstanding scientific evidence in high profile criminal appeals. Oxf J Legal Stud 22(1):53–89
Findley KA (2011) Defining innocence. Albany Law Rev 74(3):1157–1208
Garrett BL (2008) Judging innocence. Columbia Law Rev 108:55–142
Garrett BL (2011) Convicting the innocent: where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Garrett BL, Neufeld P (2009) Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Rev 95(1):1–97
Giannelli P (2007) Wrongful convictions and forensic science: the need to regulate crime labs. North Carolina Law Rev 86:163–235
Gould JB, Leo RA (2010) One hundred years later: wrongful convictions after a century of research. J Crim Law Criminol 100(3):825–868
Gross SR (2008) Convicting the innocent. Annu Rev Law Social Sci 4:173–192
Gross S, Shaffer M (2012) Exonerations in the United States, 1989–2012. National Registry of Exonerations. http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/exonerations_us_1989_2012_full_report.pdf. Accessed on 16 July 2012
Gross SR, Jacoby K, Matheson DJ, Montgomery N, Patel S (2005) Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. J Crim Law Criminol 95:523–560
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2005) Forensic science on trial. London, TSO
Huff CR, Killias M (eds) (2008) Wrongful conviction: international perspectives on miscarriages of justice. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Kaufman Commission (1998) Report on proceedings involving Guy Paul Morin
Natapoff A (2012) Misdemeanors. South Calif Law Rev 85:101–163
National Research Council (2009) Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Naughton M (2007) Rethinking miscarriages of justice: beyond the tip of iceberg. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstroke
Nobles R, Schiff D (2000) Understanding miscarriages of justice: law, the media, and the inevitability of crisis. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Plummer C, Syed I (2012) ‘Shifted science’ and post-conviction relief. Stanford J Civil Rights Crim Law 8:259–297
Radelet M, Bedau H, Putnam CE (1992) In spite of innocence: erroneous convictions in capital cases. Northeastern University Press, Boston
Risinger DM (2007) Innocents convicted: an empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate. J Crim Law Criminol 97(3):761–806
Roach K (2009) Forensic science and miscarriages of justice: some lessons from comparative experience. Jurimetrics 50:67–92
Roberts P, Willmore C (1993) The role of forensic science evidence in criminal proceedings. HMSO, London
Saks MJ, Koehler JJ (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 309:892–895
Scheck B, Neufeld P, Dwyer J (2000) Actual innocence: five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted, 1st edn. Doubleday, New York
Schiffer B (2009) The relationship between forensic science and judicial error: a study covering error sources, bias, and remedies. PhD, University of Lausanne, Lausanne
Schiffer B, Champod C (2008) Judicial error and forensic science. In: Huff CR, Killias M (eds) Wrongful conviction: international perspectives on miscarriages of justice. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp 33–55
Thompson WC (2008) Beyond bad apples: analyzing the role of forensic science in wrongful convictions. Southwestern Univ Law Rev 37:1027–1050
United States v. Quinones (2002). 313 F.3d 49 (2nd Cir.)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this entry
Cite this entry
Cole, S.A. (2014). Forensic Science and Miscarriages of Justice. In: Bruinsma, G., Weisburd, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_233
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_233
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5689-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5690-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law