Presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February 20–26, 2011, in Chicago, IL. The research presented in this manuscript was not conducted under the auspices of the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (NYC-OCME) or the Department of Forensic Sciences (DFS). The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the NYC-OCME or the DFS.

Read the full text

About

PDF

Tools

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

The discussion of “error” has gained momentum in forensic science in the wake of the Daubert guidelines and has intensified with the National Academy of Sciences' Report. Error has many different meanings, and too often, forensic practitioners themselves as well as the courts misunderstand scientific error and statistical error rates, often confusing them with practitioner error (or mistakes). Here, we present an overview of these concepts as they pertain to forensic science applications, discussing the difference between practitioner error (including mistakes), instrument error, statistical error, and method error. We urge forensic practitioners to ensure that potential sources of error and method limitations are understood and clearly communicated and advocate that the legal community be informed regarding the differences between interobserver errors, uncertainty, variation, and mistakes.

References

1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Google Scholar
2 Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council. 2009. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009.
Google Scholar
3Bird SJ. Scientific certainty: research versus forensic perspectives. J Forensic Sci 2001; 46(4): 978–81.
10.1520/JFS15081J
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Federal Rules of Evidence (1975; 2000).
Google Scholar
5 Frye v. Unites States 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).
Google Scholar
6Hand DJ. Measurement theory and practice: the world through quantification. London, U.K.: Arnold, 2004.
Google Scholar
7Page M, Taylor J, Blenkin M. Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part I – a quantitative analysis of the exclusion of forensic identification science evidence. J Forensic Sci 2011; 56(5): 1180–4.
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01777.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Christensen AM, Crowder CM, Houck MM, Ousley SD. Error, error rates and their meanings in forensic science. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2011 Feb 21–26; Chicago, IL. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2011.
Google Scholar
9Dror IE, Charlton D. Why experts make errors. J Forensic Ident 2006; 56(4): 600–16.
Google Scholar
10Saks MJ, Koehler JJ. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification sciences. Science 2005; 309: 892–5.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 United States v Mitchell 145 F.3d 572 3d Cir. (1998).
Google Scholar
12 People v Gomez, 99CF 0391 (2002).
Google Scholar
13Page M, Taylor J, Blenkin M. Uniqueness in the forensic identification sciences – Fact or fiction? Forensic Sci Int 2011; 206: 12–8.
10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.08.004
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO). Position paper on bitemark workshop 4. ASFO News 2003; 22(2): 5.
Google Scholar
15 Brewer v. State 819 So.2d 1169 (2002).
Google Scholar
16Houck MM, Budowle B. Correlation of microscopic and mitochondrial characteristics in human hairs. J Forensic Sci 2002; 47(5): 964–7.
10.1520/JFS15515J
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Saks M, Koehler J. Response Sci 2006; 311(5761): 606.
Google Scholar
18Cole S. More than zero: accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification. J Crim Law 2005; 95(3): 985–1078.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Lander ES. Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Space. The Science and Standards of Forensics, March 28, 2012.
Google Scholar
20Christensen AM. Testing the reliability of frontal sinus outlines in personal identification. J Forensic Sci 2005; 50(1): 18–22.
10.1520/JFS2004145
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Neumann C, Champod C, Puch-Solis R, Egli N, Anthonioz A, Bromage-Griffiths A. Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint identification for configurations of any number of minutiae. J Forensic Sci 2007; 52(1): 54–64.
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00327.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Brooks E, Comber B, McNaught I, Robertson J. Digital imaging and image analysis applied to numerical applications in forensic hair examination. Sci Justice 2011; 51(1): 28–37.
10.1016/j.scijus.2010.06.008
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Crowder C, Ingvoldstad M. Observer error trends in forensic anthropology. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2009 Feb 16–21; Denver, CO. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2009.
Google Scholar
24 National Institute of Justice. Scientific Working Groups; http://www.nij.gov/topics/forensics/lab-operations/standards/scientific-working-groups.htm (accessed September 14, 2012).
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume59, Issue1

January 2014

Pages 123-126

This article also appears in:

The Path Forward – Forensic Sciences Response to the National Academies of Sciences Report 2009

Error and its Meaning in Forensic Science^†

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Error and its Meaning in Forensic Science†

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information

Error and its Meaning in Forensic Science^†