Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions
Flawed testimony by forensic experts contributed to the
conviction of innocent defendants, according to a new study co-
written by University of Virginia Law School professor Brandon
Garrett. The findings are featured in an article, "Invalid
Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions," published
in the March, 2009 issue of the Virginia Law Review. Read the
article in Garrett and Peter Neufeld, co-director of the
Innocence Project, studied the transcripts of 137 trials in
which prosecution forensic analysts testified, and the
defendants were exonerated years later by post-conviction DNA
testing. The pair found that in 60 percent of those wrongful
conviction cases, forensic analysts gave "invalid testimony that
overstated the evidence," Garrett said. "What we mean by
'invalid' is simply that the testimony was unscientific or
contrary to empirical data," he said. "Just because a wrong
statistic was offered, does not mean that the testimony neces