Challenging Forensic Science: How Science Should Speak to Court

Go to Course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/challenging-forensic-science

Introduction

### Course Review: "Challenging Forensic Science: How Science Should Speak to Court" #### Overview In the era of shows like CSI, many individuals are captivated by the allure of forensic science, believing it to be a flawless and infallible means of obtaining justice. However, the reality is far more complex. The Coursera course, "Challenging Forensic Science: How Science Should Speak to Court," aims to unravel these misconceptions and enhance critical thinking regarding the application of forensic science in the judicial system. This course is designed by specialists in the field, emphasizing a clear objective: to educate participants about the limitations and challenges of forensic evidence, promoting an understanding that it is not as foolproof as often portrayed. By weaving together theoretical frameworks with real-world case studies, this course provides invaluable insights into how forensic science interacts with the law. #### Syllabus Breakdown **Week 1: What is the "DNA" of a Good Forensic Report?** This week introduces learners to the course's foundation. Students will meet the instructors and participate in a virtual tour of the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Lausanne. The focus will be on the ENFSI guidelines for evaluative reporting, setting the stage for a discussion on best practices in forensic reporting. **Week 2: Elementary: Source is Not Activity!** Misconceptions about the conclusiveness of forensic evidence are tackled head-on. Through the analysis of notable cases like the Weller case, students will learn how the source of DNA evidence may be less significant than how it was introduced to a crime scene, emphasizing critical frameworks for understanding forensic evidence. **Week 3: DNA is Not the Magic Bullet** In this week, learners will engage with key international cases examining the nuances of DNA analysis. The course dives into the differences between large and small quantities of DNA evidence, discussing contamination risks and the necessary controls to maintain the integrity of forensic analysis. **Week 4: Trials by Numbers or Numbers on Trial** A deep dive into the presentation of statistical evidence is the focus here. By studying historical cases and interviewing experts, students will learn the implications of statistical misuse in court and the critical importance of clear communication by forensic scientists. **Week 5: The Wonderland of Certainty** This final week deals with the intricacies of expert identification and the responsibility of court versus forensic analysts. Through real-life accounts from those affected by flawed identifications, participants will grasp the human and procedural risks involved, highlighting the fallibility of forensic evidence in judicial contexts. #### Recommendations "Challenging Forensic Science: How Science Should Speak to Court" is highly recommended for anyone interested in the intersection of science and law, including legal professionals, forensic scientists, and even those simply intrigued by crime drama fans. 1. **Critical Thinking**: The course sharpens your analytical skills, helping you to scrutinize forensic evidence critically rather than accepting it at face value. 2. **Real-world Application**: By connecting theory with notorious case studies, the course equips you with practical knowledge applicable to real-world scenarios, making it beneficial for both current professionals and students. 3. **Expert Insights**: Access to a range of specialists throughout the course means that learners gain diverse perspectives on important topics, enriching their learning experience. 4. **Understanding Limitations**: In an age where forensic evidence is often viewed as definitive, this course provides a sobering perspective that highlights the importance of context, methodology, and the interplay of various forms of evidence in legal proceedings. ### Conclusion Overall, "Challenging Forensic Science: How Science Should Speak to Court" offers an engaging and informative exploration of forensic evidence and its implications in the legal system. By dispelling myths and fostering informed discussions, this course not only enhances understanding but also encourages an enlightened view of the disciplines of law and science. If you wish to promote justice based on a comprehensive understanding of forensic science, this course is a valuable starting point.

Syllabus

Week 1 - What is the "DNA" of a good forensic report ?

This first week will set the scene for the course. You will meet the instructors; learn about their background, teaching, research and casework activities. The School of Criminal Justice (University of Lausanne) will be shortly presented through a virtual visit, followed by the course objectives. The recent ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting, used throughout the course, will be presented. ENFSI stands for the set of the good principles for writing forensic reports to be used in a court of law. The whole course aims at contrasting the practice as observed in notorious cases with the good practice promoted by the ENFSI guideline. Hence, we will start by setting out some reporting criteria that are essential to bring reliable evidence in court and explain the principles of interpretation (based on the concept of likelihood ratio) that should govern the production of any forensic evidence. The application of these principles leads to a defined way whereby the forensic scientist is entitled to speak to court.

There is a general misconception that a piece of forensic evidence is sufficient to clinch the outcome of a case. This module aims at showing that the reality is more subtle and is intrinsically linked to the concept of hierarchy of propositions. Cases based on DNA and gunshot residue (GSR) evidence will be analysed and discussed. First, through the Weller case we will demonstrate the DNA findings providing information towards the source of the DNA may not be at the core of the issue in the case. More and more the source of the DNA is not challenged, but how the DNA got there is.

Based on international cases (Knox, Jama, Anderson and Scott) we will illustrate the potentials aspects that one needs to consider when assessing the value of DNA found in small quantity. You will be shown how one performs DNA analysis and what type of results can be produced. We will apply the ENFSI and the ISFG guidelines for evaluative reporting in the case at hand and see if the principles advocated allow avoiding misleading evidence. We will compare the situations where large quantities of blood are found to cases where low template DNA is recovered. You will learn to contrast these two situations and discover what type of results can be expected and what methods allow a balanced and robust interpretation. This first part of the course will demonstrate that very sensitive techniques require robust interpretation methods. In the second part of the course, you will understand that with trace quantities, stringent control procedures are needed on the crime scene and in the laboratory. Indeed, pollution (or so-called contamination) is an aspect one needs to take into account. Cases (for example in Australia, the USA and England) have shown that the traces from the crime scene can be polluted at the hospital, by paramedics or in the laboratory. It is thus essential to consider this possibility, especially when DNA is the central (and only) element supporting the allegation of a person’s involvement in a crime. How to take into consideration the possibility of error/contamination when assessing the results will be presented.

This week will be dedicated to how forensic scientists should convey the value of their results. From our white room dedicated to photography, we will study famous cases - including the Dreyfus case- and see how statistics can be misused. It will allow us to discuss how statistical values ought to be presented in court. A statistician (Phil Dawid) and a legal scholar (David Kaye) will be interviewed. The second essential topic we will present will be on fallacious reasoning, and in particular on what has been coined, more than thirty years ago, the prosecutors fallacy. Bill Thompson, the first to have described this fallacious argument used in court will be another of our guest interviewees.

This week will be present the Dallagher case involving earprints, the Mayfield and the McKie cases involving fingerprints. We want to make you understand what is at stake when an expert decides to conclude to an identification. You will understand through this week that identification is not the duty of the forensic scientist and that it is a decision that must be taken by the Court. We also want to highlight the possible causes for wrong identification. And yes they do occur, even with fingerprints! We will have the privilege to listen to interviews of persons closely involved in these cases: The father of Shirley McKie as well as Brandon Mayfield and her daughter Sharia.