See pp. 136-150 for the National Research Council’s assessment of the discipline of fingerprint analysis. The 2009 NAS Report cited “a thorough analysis of the ACE-V method” that concluded: “‘We have reviewed available scientific evidence of the validity of the ACE-V method and found none.’” pp. 142-143 (citation omitted).
by Gary Wells and Deah Quinlivan, Law Hum Behav (2009) 33:1-24.
Testimony from a DRE was improper where the DRE did not personally observe the defendant but instead based his opinion on review of records.
See pp. 133-136 for the National Research Counsel’s assessment of the analysis of controlled substances.
See pp. 150-155 for the National Research Counsel’s assessment of the discipline of Toolmark and Firearms Identification.
by Dennis L. McGuire, M.S., Forensic Magazine – discusses the lack of a uniform standard for GSR analyses based upon validated studies. States that until those studies are completed, “positive determinations of GSR should be seriously scrutinized.”
A California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ) report by John Kelly. The report is largely based on the research of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst who tested field drug test kits and exposed and documented that they render false positives with legal substances. The report focuses on the Duquenois-Levine and KN Reagent tests used to test for …
For crimes committed on or after March 1, 2008, the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act (EIRA) creates procedural guidelines for eyewitness identifications during photo lineups and live lineups. This legislation is codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-284.50 through 15A-284.53 (2007).
by William C. Thompson, for the Council for Responsible Genetics (2008) – discusses how false incriminations can occur in forensic DNA testing, including coincidental DNA profile matches, accidental transfer of DNA, errors in labeling of samples, and misinterpretation of test results.