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.