Junk Science Is Jailing Innocents: Our Courts’ Deadly DNA Delusion – OpEd

“Contrary to the perception on TV dramas, forensic science disciplines are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty and misinterpretation.” – Former President Barack Obama in Harvard Law Review

The integrity of scientific evidence in the courtroom is a cornerstone of justice—a principle that transcends local jurisdictions and affects the entire nation. As we recently marked the 30-year anniversary of the Daubert Standard, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 to ensure only proven evidence informs legal decisions, recent events underscore the persistent challenges in upholding scientific standards in legal proceedings. In July 2024, hundreds of cases in Harris County, Texas, including the high-profile A.J. Armstrong murder case, were flagged due to technical issues in a DNA testing software program. This incident, affecting a convicted man serving a life sentence, starkly illustrates the critical need for rigorous scientific scrutiny in our justice system. The stakes couldn’t be higher: over 50% of exonerations are due to false or misleading forensic evidence, highlighting the profound impact of unreliable scientific testimony on justice outcomes.

A 2020 survey by the National Courts and Sciences Institute indicates that judges across the country predict an increase in cases involving new scientific evidence in the coming decade. This forecast underscores the evolving nature of the judicial landscape and the urgent need for courts to adeptly navigate the complexities of modern science. As technological advancements accelerate, courts are increasingly confronted with novel scientific methodologies and complex data analysis techniques. From artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms to advanced genetic testing and digital forensics, the breadth and depth of scientific evidence are expanding rapidly. This trend not only challenges judges and legal professionals to stay current with scientific developments but also raises critical questions about the reliability and interpretation of evidence in legal proceedings. The judiciary’s ability to effectively evaluate and utilize this new scientific evidence will be necessary for ensuring fair and accurate outcomes in future cases.

Empirical studies have attempted to gauge the impact of the Daubert standard, revealing a nuanced landscape. A comprehensive analysis of over 2,000 Daubert rulings in federal courts  showed that the exclusion of plaintiff’s expert evidence under this standard correlates with a lower likelihood of case settlement, with each additional month of deliberation on Daubert motions reducing settlement probability by 3-7%. These findings suggest that the Daubert standard not only influences the admissibility of evidence but also the broader dynamics of legal proceedings.

In the end, the empirical evidence on the standard’s overall effectiveness is far from conclusive. Issues such as judges’ scientific literacy, the interpretation of key admissibility criteria, and the actual influence of general acceptance on judicial decisions point to a gap between the theoretical aspirations of Daubert and its practical application. This gulf is not just a systemic challenge but also an opportunity for evidence-based reform.

To address these issues, we propose several recommendations:

1. Support Extensive Research: Allocate funding for research examining case outcomes before and after the Daubert standard, focusing on its impact on different racial and ethnic groups.
2. Mandate Comprehensive Data Collection: Implement a federal statute requiring state court systems to gather and disclose comprehensive data on rulings related to expert evidence.
3. Enhance Judicial Education: Establish educational programs to improve judges’ ability to evaluate complex scientific testimony.
4. Legislate Annual Scientific Reviews: Direct the federal funding agencies  to issue annual reports reviewing the state of foundational scientific disciplines frequently relied upon in legal proceedings.
5. Mandate Judicial Training: Require judicial training on evaluating scientific evidence to enhance decision-making.
6. Ensure Lab Transparency: Mandate forensic laboratories to publicly report their accreditation status and any changes to it.
7. Specialized Training for Emerging Science: Create a training and advisory program for judges and legal practitioners focused on emerging scientific methods and technologies.

As the legal community reflects on the Daubert standard’s legacy, it is imperative that they  renew their commitment to ensuring that justice is informed by evidence. The stakes for getting this right have never been higher for every courtroom. The Daubert standard’s 30-year milestone is an opportunity for national reflection and action, ensuring that the scales of justice are tempered by the weight of truth.

About the authors:

• Jennifer Wyatt Bourgeois, PhD is a Center for Justice Research Postdoctoral Fellow at Texas Southern University.
• Howard Henderson, PhD is Professor of Justice Administration and  the founding director of the Center for Justice Research at Texas Southern University.