EDITORIALS: The Fallibility of Forensic Evidence Argues Against the Death Penalty

A recent editorial in the Lincoln Journal Star of Nebraska concluded that experience with inaccurate evidence from crime labs shows that the death penalty cannot be trusted in the taking of life. The paper called for the repeal of the death penalty based on a case in which the state’s CSI director tampered with evidence in a murder case. Recently, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the conviction of former CSI chief David Kofoed for planting evidence in a double murder. Kofoed placed a speck of blood in a car belonging to a suspect, which resulted in two innocent men being held in jail for several months. The editorial said such crime-lab error has also been found elsewhere: “You will be - or should be - appalled at the number of times that crime labs turn out to be providing inaccurate and phony evidence. The problems crop up in New York, San Francisco, Houston and many points in between. Sometimes the problem is sloppiness. Sometimes technicians are manufacturing evidence deliberately. Sometimes the science itself turns out to be untrustworthy.” The editorial cited a 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences that criticized some of the science behind crime lab testimony. The report found that, other than DNA technology, “no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source,” and that, “Substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people.” The editorial concluded, “The fallibility of the criminal justice system has been demonstrated again and again. Innocent people have been executed in the past and will be in the future,” and thus people should “support repeal of the death penalty.” Read full editorial below.

Editorial: Too fallible for death penalty

The case of the crooked crime scene investigator in Douglas County provides another glaring example of why the criminal justice system cannot be trusted to apply the death penalty.

Humans not only make honest mistakes, sometimes they plant evidence and lie.

The conviction of former CSI chief David Kofoed for tampering with the evidence in a double murder case was upheld earlier this month by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Kofoed was convicted for planting a speck of blood in a car belonging to a suspect in the case. His bogus evidence resulted in two innocent men being held in jail for several months. Police even wrung a false confession out of one of them.

Fortunately for the two men, the case against them unraveled before they were tried. DNA evidence found on a ring and marijuana pipe found in the home belonged to a pair of Wisconsin teens. They later pleaded guilty to killing a Murdock couple while looking for money during a road trip.

If you think the Kofoed case is one of a kind, think again.

Just do an Internet search for “crime lab scandal.”

You will be — or should be — appalled at the number of times that crime labs turn out to be providing inaccurate and phony evidence.

The problems crop up in New York, San Francisco, Houston and many points in between. Sometimes the problem is sloppiness. Sometimes technicians are manufacturing evidence deliberately. Sometimes the science itself turns out to be untrustworthy.

Even the vaunted crime lab operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has come under criticism on more than one occasion. In 2004 FBI lab technician Jacqueline Blake admitted to submitting false DNA evidence in 100 cases. FBI metallurgist Kathleen Lundy admitted to lying on the witness stand. To her credit, she admitted her testimony was false before the murder trial was over.

A 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences was harshly critical of some of the science behind crime lab testimony, such as using marks on a bullet to determine whether a bullet came from a certain gun. Other than DNA technology, “no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source,” the report stated.

The report concluded: “Substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people.”

The fallibility of the criminal justice system has been demonstrated again and again. Innocent people have been executed in the past and will be in the future. If you don’t want blood on your hands, support repeal of the death penalty.

(Editorial Board, “Too Fallible for Death Penalty,” Lincoln Journal Star, May 12, 2012). Read more editorials on the death penalty; see Innocence.