“Failed Evidence” Discussions in Cincinnati, April 4 and 5

On Thursday April 4, and Friday April 5, I’ll be in Cincinnati for two discussions of Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science (2012).  Both are free and open to the public.

On April 4, I’ll be discussing the book at 7:00 p.m. at the Clifton Cultural Arts Center, 3711 Clifton Avenue, Cincinnati OH 43220.  The event is sponsored by the ACLU of Ohio.

On April 5, I’ll present at talk at the University of Cincinnati College of Law at noon.  The address is  2540 Clifton Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45221.  The event is in Room 114.  The event is sponsored by the Lois and Richard Rosenthal Institute for Justice/Ohio Innocence Project.  The event has been approved for CLE credit for attorneys.

Another Call for Recording Interrogations: South Carolina

In another sign that resistance to better, science-based practices will eventually have to yield, a news report indicates that a member of the South Carolina has  introduced a bill that would require police to record interrogations of suspects.

The bill, proposed by Rep. Todd Rutherford of Columbia, “would require judges to instruct jurors that they could ‘draw an adverse inference’ if a law enforcement officer failed to record the questioning of a suspect unless there was an equipment failure.”  That required instruction would effectively require that the police record interrogations, because jurors would hear from the court that the interrogation might be suspicious.

Even if the bill does not pass, the significance of the proposal is hard to miss.  An increasing number of states and jurisdictions require recording of interrogations under various circumstances (see the Innocence Project’s map here), and the research shows that the recording requirement does not harm the investigation process.  In fact, recording turns out to be a great help to the police overall.  The research of Thomas Sullivan on the practical effects of recording has been particularly insightful and helpful on this issue, and academics such as Richard Leo, Saul Kassin, and Richard Ofshe have made tremendous contributions in the area of false confessions and why recording can help.

More to the point, South Carolina would not be viewed by anyone as a jurisdiction that has been particularly favorable to defendants on criminal justice issues.  The fact that the legislature in South Carolina now has a proposal to consider on recording interrogations means that, little by little, we are nearing a tipping point, which will bring us closer to what the scientific research shows us.

 

Science Magazine’s Review of Failed Evidence

The current issue of Science magazine contains a review of Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science (NYU Press, 2012).  Here is a brief excerpt from the review:

Although science has long been recognized as our most reliable pathway to truth, people are sometimes reluctant to accept scientific evidence, particularly when it challenges established practices or cherished beliefs. In Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science, David A. Harris accuses police and prosecutors of unwarranted skepticism toward science and tries to explain their perspective. His provocative book will interest those concerned broadly with rejection of science as well as those interested in the U.S. criminal justice system.

Science is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Oregon Supreme Court: On Eyewitness IDs, Law Enforcement Must Follow the Science

A decision by Oregon’s Supreme Court on eyewitness identification procedures has re-set the way that juries and courts in that state will think about eyewitness identification.

According to the New York Times editorial on the case, the ruling shifts the burden of proof to prosecutors to prove that eyewitness identifications are reliable before they can be admitted in court.  Before last week’s decision, the rule had been that identifications were generally admitted; it was up to the defense in individual cases to prove that an identification was not reliable.

But at least as important as the new rule itself was the reason that the Oregon court abandoned its old precedent:  the court had concluded that the old rule was based on assumptions about eyewitness testimony no longer supported by the science.  Thus the new case represents a textbook case of a court forcing law enforcement away from the failed evidence of discredited methods, and toward methods that accord with what science teaches us now.

Under the old rule, Oregon judges looked at five factors when evaluating an eyewitness identification: opportunity to view the alleged perpetrator, attention to identifying features, timing and completeness of description given after the event, certainty of description and identification by witness, and lapse of time between original observation and the subsequent identification.  Looking at these factors from the vantage point of the present day, the Oregon court found them “incomplete and, at times, inconsistent with modern scientific findings.”  Given the science on eyewitness identification that is by now well established, the court prescribed a new approach, including the change in the burden of proof.

That’s what the Oregon Supreme Court did, but here is why they did it:

…[W]e believe that it is imperative that law enforcement, the bench, and the bar be informed of the existence of current scientific research and literature regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification because, as an evidentiary matter, the reliability of eyewitness identification is central to a criminal justice system dedicated to the dual principles of accountability and fairness.

It’s hard to imagine a better summing up of the ideas behind Failed Evidence, and why the fight to overcome law enforcement’s general resistance to science is so important.

Failed Evidence Is Featured on Jurist

This week, Jurist, a national and international legal reporting website, is featuring my commentary on Failed Evidence.   Here’s a quick sample:

[The] image of a deep alliance between police work and modern science is misleading at best. With the exception of DNA work and certain kinds of classic chemical analysis, law enforcement generally does not embrace existing scientific work. In fact, police and prosecutors in the US resist science. The scientific work I am referring to involves the testing of the more traditional techniques of law enforcement investigation and prosecution: not the high-tech sheen of the DNA lab, but scientific testing of eyewitness identification, the interrogation of suspects and the more traditional forensic methods such as fingerprint identification. This is the daily bread and butter of law enforcement, and scientists have found it wanting. The science on these basic police investigation methods has existed for years — some of it for decades. It is rigorous, and has undergone peer review, publication and replication. It tells us what the problems with traditional police work are, and also gives us some straightforward ways of solving these problems. Yet, most — not all, to be sure, but most — of American law enforcement continues to resist this science and refuses to change its basic tactics to reflect the best of what science has to offer.

Jurist mixes straight reporting and commentary from the U.S. and around the world; it’s a great source for anyone interested in issues of justice and how it plays out in domestic and international situations around the world.  (Full disclosure: Jurist is supported by my own institution, the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and has been guided and run since the beginning by my esteemed colleague, Professor Bernard Hibbitts.)  Check it out.

Where is Minnesota on Failed Evidence? Part 2 — Today’s Star Tribune

In connection with my talk on Failed Evidence at U. Minnesota Law School Thursday, Nov. 8, take a look at my Commentary piece in today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune, “In Some Areas, Law Enforcement Still Resists Science.”  Here’s a sample:

Everywhere you look, law enforcement and science seem to have formed a partnership. Look at the headlines on any given day, and there’s something like “DNA convicts killer in 1992 cold case.” Turn on the television, and there are the police in “CSI” and its innumerable clones solving cases with high-tech gadgets and test tubes and computers. The message is clear: The bad guys don’t stand a chance against the police officer and the scientists working together.

There is some truth to this: DNA has become an identification tool of unequaled power. But look beyond DNA, and you’ll see something different: When the science concerns eyewitness identification, suspect interrogations, or more traditional, non-DNA forensic testing, law enforcement doesn’t embrace science. Most police agencies and prosecutor’s offices in the United States actively resist the scientific findings on these common types of police investigation.

Failed Evidence: Chapter 1 Posted by Utne Reader

For those who would like a chance to read a bit of Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science, the Utne Reader has posted an online version of the first chapter of the book.  You can get to it by clicking here.

“Failed Evidence” Discussed in D.C. (Wed., Oct. 3) and Baltimore (Thur., Oct. 4)

Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science will be the subject of two public forums this week, one in Washington, D.C., and the other in Baltimore.  Both events are free and open to the public.

On Wednesday, October 3, I’ll discuss the book at noon at American University’s Washington College of Law, 4801 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. (6th floor).  My talk will be followed by a panel discussion featuring former Assistant U.S. Attorney Dan Zachem and Professor Paul Butler of Georgetown University.  Full details are here.

On Thursday, October 4, I’ll lead a discussion of the book at 5:30 p.m. at the University of Baltimore School of Law, 1401 Charles Street.  The panel to follow will include Gregg Bernstein, the elected State’s Attorney for Baltimore.  Full details are here.

Why Does DC Law Enforcement Resist an Independent Forensics Lab Staffed by Trained Professionals?

From a story in the Washington Post, we learn that police and prosecutors in Washington, D.C. oppose staffing the District’s new independent forensic laboratory with trained professionals, and instead want to keep the sworn police officers who now serve as forensic staff in those jobs.  T1he reasons for this go back to a fundamental question: why does law enforcement resist science?

As the article explains, there are of course issues of jobs and efficiency.  The District government wants the officers now staffing the lab out on the street, fighting crime, and says that using civilians trained in forensic disciplines will be less expensive.  The police union denies that the change will result in savings, and also says that the changes being made renege on an earlier agreement to preserve the lab jobs for sworn officers.

But the real argument here is over who whether those who do the job of forensic analysis will or will not be part of the police department.  The 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States”, pointed out that forensic labs needed to be independent of the police departments and prosecutor’s offices that often “owned” the labs in the past.  They also needed professional staff who would not share the “we’re part of the law enforcement team” ethos.  All of this is essential to avoiding cognitive biases in laboratory procedures, communication, and protocol.

That’s what makes the law enforcement response interesting: they want to retain the law enforcement personnel and connection in order to have people on their side who can get the job done as they need it.  According to the Post, “officers in the District’s forensics division said their experience is invaluable, and they think their training and time as a sworn officer helps them understand investigations” — a coded way of saying that sworn officers in the lab will “get it,” but civilian analysts in an independent lab won’t.

The District appears to have done the right thing for the right reasons: the government there: “authorized the lab and removed administrative authority from police and prosecutors, in part to try and avoid problems involving faulty and contaminated test results that have beset other labs across the country.”  They deserve support for this, and should not be shoved back toward the “bad old days” in forensic labs.

“Failed Evidence” New York Roll Out Event at John Jay College, Thursday, Sept. 20

The official roll out event for Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science, will take place at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York on Sept. 20, 2012 at 5:30 p.m.  The event is free and open to the public; see the details here.

For those looking to get a sense of what Failed Evidence is about, here’s a brief video clip prepared by NYU Press, called “The Emperor of Forensic Science Has No Clothes.”  Most of us tend to think that forensic science is what makes cases these days.  But aside from DNA and chemical analysis, much of forensic science is open to question.

For members of the media seeking more information, see the Media Info page of this blog.  I will be available in New York from Tuesday evening, Sept. 18, through the event on Sept. 20.