Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Index to Comments and Cases Discussing the PCAST Report on Forensic Science

The page lists the discussions of the PCAST report and its addendum appearing on this blog. It also lists some academic literature and court opinions that discuss the report. I expect to update the list periodically.

Forensic Science, Statistics & the Law
Academic Journals and Books
  • ANZFSS Council, Letter to the Editor, 50(5) Australian J. Forensic Sci. 451–452 (2018), originally published as ANZFSS Council Response to President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report, available at http://anzfss.org/anzfss-council-response-to-presidents-council-of-advisors-on-science-and-technology-report/
  • John Buckleton, Jo-Anne Bright & Duncan Taylor, Letter, Response to Lander’s Response to the ANZFSS Council Statement on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report, 50(5) Australian J. Forensic Sci. 453–454 (2018) (arguing that STRmix has been validated)
  • Gary Edmond & Kristy A. Martire, Antipodean Forensics: A Comment on ANZFSS’s Response to PCAST, 50(2) Australian J. Forensic Sci. 140-151 (2017)
  • I.W. Evett, C.E.H. Berger, J.S. Buckleton, C. Champod, G. Jackson, Finding the Way Forward for Forensic Science in the US—A Commentary on the PCAST Report, 278 Forensic Sci. Int'l 16-23 (2017), https://t.co/A7y7Qy6dRn
  • David L. Faigman et al., 1 Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony x (2016-2017) ("[C]ourts have largely ignored the virtually consensus opinion of mainstream academic scientists that much of the forensic expertise routinely admitted in courts today is unsound. The latest statement of this consensus view came in September, 2016, in a lengthy and carefully reasoned report by The President's Council of  Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).")
  • Ted Robert Hunt, Scientific Validity and Error Rates: A Short Response to the PCAST Report, 86 Fordham L. Rev. Online 24-39 (2018) https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flro/vol86/iss1/14/ ("To clarify the DOJ’s position, this Article is a short response to the Report’s discussion of scientific validity. The focus is on PCAST’s use of the term foundational validity, its views on error rates, and the proposed application of these concepts to forensic feature-comparison methods.")
  • Aliza B. Kaplan & Janis C. Puracal, It's Not a Match: Why the Law Can't Let Go of Junk Science
    81 Alb. L. Rev. 895 (2017-2018) 
  • David H. Kaye, David E. Bernstein & Jennifer L. Mnookin, The New Wigmore on Evidence: Expert Evidence § 15.7.5 (2d ed. Cum, Suppl. 2019)
  • David H. Kaye, Firearm-Mark Evidence: Looking Back and Looking Ahead, 68 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 723-45 (2018), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=3117674
  • Eric S. Lander, Response to the ANZFSS Council Statement on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report, 49(4) Australian J. Forensic Sci. 366-368 (2017)
  • Geoffrey Stewart Morrison, David H. Kaye, David J. Balding, et al., A Comment on the PCAST Report: Skip the 'Match'/'Non-Match' Stage, 272 Forensic Sci. Int'l e7-e9 (2017), http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.018. Accepted manuscript available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2860440
  • Adam B. Shniderman, Prosecutors Respond to Calls for Forensic Science Reform: More Sharks in Dirty Water, 126 Yale L.J. F. 348 (2017), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/prosecutors-respond-to-calls-for-forensic-science-reform
  • Transcript, Symposium on Forensic Science Testimony, Daubert, and Rule 702, 86 Fordham L. Rev. 1463-1550 (2018)
Professional Periodicals
  • Judge Herbert B. Dixon Jr., Another Harsh Spotlight on Forensic Sciences, Judges' J. Winter, 2017, at 36 ("The report's conclusion is clear that the accuracy of many forensic feature-comparison methods has been assumed rather than scientifically established on empirical evidence. ... PCAST expects, partly based on the strength of its evaluations of scientific validity in this report, that some forensic feature-comparison methods may be determined inadmissible because they lack adequate evidence of scientific validity.")
  • Donna Lee Elm, Continued Challenge for Forensics: The PCAST Report, Crim. Just., Summ. 2017, at 4-8.
  • Jennifer Friedman, Another Opport6unity for Forensic Reform: A Call to the Courts, Champion, July 2017, at 40 
  • Jonathan J. Koehler, How Trial Judges Should Think About Forensic Science Evidence, Judicature, Spr. 2018, at 28–38, https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/editions/spring-2018/ (critiques organized criticisms of the report)
  • Norman L. Reimer, Two New Tools to Include in a Cutting-Edge Defense Toolkit, NACDL's Champion, Nov. 2016, at 9-10 ("[T]he PCAST report was not greeted with great glee by the Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. ... So this report will by no means change practices overnight. But that is all the more reason why the defense bar should up its game when confronting questionable forensic evidence. The PCAST report will be a big help in that effort.").
  • Jack D. Roady, The PCAST Report: A Review and Moving Forward—A Prosecutor's Perspective, Crim. Just., Summ. 2017, at 8-14, 39.
  • J. H. Pate Skene, Up to the Courts:  Managing Forensic Testimony with Limited Scientific Validity, Judicature, Spr. 2018, at 39-50, https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/editions/spring-2018/ (“With the exception of DNA analysis of single-source samples, none of the forensic methods reviewed by PCAST has yet met rigorous criteria for both foundational validity (Rule 702(c)) and validity as applied (Rule 702(d)).”)
  • Eric Alexander Vos, Using the PCAST Report to Exclude, Limit, or Minimize Experts, Crim. Just., Summ. 2017, at 15-19.
Federal Cases
State and Washington DC Cases

No comments:

Post a Comment