In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

>> 197 Notes Chapter 1 1. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, official website, accessed March 12, 2010, at http://www.cbs.com/primetime/csi/about/. 2. For example, the video introduction to the original CSI for its tenth season shows almost all video of lab work, test simulations, and the like; a policeman with a gun shows up only at the end. See CSI 10: Season Introduction Video, YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRZZlnKBrVk, accessed March 12, 2010. 3. Paul Rincon, CSI Shows Give “Unrealistic View,” BBC News, Feb. 21, 2005, accessed March 12, 2010, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/ nature/4284335.stm (CSI portrays forensic science as infallible, forensic testing as impossibly fast, and every mystery as susceptible to solution through forensic science.); Richard Willing, “CSI Effect” Has Juries Wanting More Evidence, USA Today, Aug. 5, 2004 (“[T[he programs also foster what analysts say is the mistaken notion that criminal science is fast and infallible and always gets its man.”). For a scholarly treatment of this point, see N. J. Schweitzer and Michael J. Saks, The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction about Forensic Science Affects Public Expectations about Real Forensic Science, 47 Jurimetrics 357 (2007) (“Compared to non-CSI viewers, CSI viewers were more critical of the forensic evidence presented at the trial, finding it less believable.”). 4. Justin Fenton, State, City Police Laud Increase in Arrests Using DNA, Baltimore Sun, Jan. 22, 2010. 5. Mehan Mattteucci, Georgia DNA Solves 1,500 Cases, Atlanta Journal-Constitution , July 30, 2009. 6. Chris Conley, DNA Databanks Allow Police to Solve at Least Four Murders, Memphis Commercial Appeal, July 19, 2009. 7. Ryan Haggerty, With Added Lab Staff, DNA Tests Resolve String of Old Killings , Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 29, 2009. 8. Application for Material Witness Order and Warrant Regarding Witness: Brandon Bieri Mayfield, In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings, 03-01, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Or. 2004) (No. 04-MC-9071). 198 > 199 to Make It Right (2003, updated edition), chapter 2, “The Invention,” describing the advent of DNA testing on very small samples due to the use of polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, which made it possible to replicate tiny amounts of DNA many times for testing purposes. 20. The Innocence Project, Know the Cases: Innocence Project Case Files (“There have been 251 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history.”), accessed March 17, 2010, at http://www.innocenceproject.org/ know/. 21. The Innocence Project, Understand the Causes: Eyewitness Identification (“Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.”), accessed March 17, 2010, at http://www. innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php. 22. The Innocence Project, Understand the Causes: Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science (Unvalidated or improper forensic science constitutes “the second-greatest contributor to wrongful convictions that have been overturned with DNA testing.”), accessed March 17, 2010, at http://www. innocenceproject.org/understand/Unreliable-Limited-Science.php. 23. The Innocence Project, Understand the Cause: False Confession (“In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.”), accessed March 17, 2010, at http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php. 24. National Research Council, supra note 18, at 41. 25. National Research Council, supra note 18. 26. Id. at 42–43 (“The fact is that many forensic tests . . . have never been exposed to scientific scrutiny. . . . [C]omparisons of their results with DNA testing in some cases has revealed that some of these analyses, as currently performed, produce erroneous results. . . . Some non-DNA forensic tests do not meet the fundamental requirements of science, in terms of reproducibility , validity, and falsifiability.”). 27. Saul M. Kassin et al., Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendations , Law & Human Behavior (2009). 28. E.g., Jennifer Mnookin, The Validity of Latent Fingerprint Identification: Confessions of a Fingerprinting Moderate, 7 Law, Probability & Risk 127 (2008) (advocating that “the fingerprint identification community” move strongly toward implementing “carefully-designed, appropriately challenging proficiency tests. There are not insurmountable technical obstacles to proficiency tests that accurately mirror the degrees of difficulty encountered in actual casework.”). 200 > 201 20. Id. at 23. 21. Id. 22. Id. at 24. 23. Id. at 24-25. 24. Simon A. Cole, More Than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 985, 987 (“Latent print examiners have long claimed that fingerprint identification is ‘infallible.’ The claim is widely believed by the general public” and...

Share