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 court opinions and academic and other literature 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/
  • Suzanne Bell, Sunita Sah, Thomas D. Albright, S. James Gates Jr., M. Bonner Denton, and Arturo Casadevall, A Call for More Science in Forensic Science, 115(18) Proceedings Nat'l Academy Sci. 4541–4544 (2018), available at  www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712161115
  • 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).")
  • Jennifer Friedman & Jessica Brand, It Is Now Up to the Courts: “Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods”, 57 Santa Clara L. Rev. 367, 382 (2017)
  • Paul C. Giannelli, Forensic Science: Daubert's Failure, 68 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 869 (2018) 
  • 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 Opportunity 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
  • Trials
  • Appeals
    • People v. Perez, No. B284668, 2019 WL 2537699 (Cal. Ct. App. June 20, 2019) (unpublished) (even if PCAST report and other materials showed that scientific community no longer accepted firearms toolmark comparisons as definitive of a unique source, admission of traditional testimony without a hearing was harmless error and limitation on cross-examination of state's expert about PCAST and NRC reports was consistent with rule against hearsay evidence)
    • Motorola, Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016) (concurring opinion citing PCAST report as valuable in determining admissibility under Daubert's "evidentiary reliability" standard for scientific evidence), noted, Judge Spotlights PCAST Report, Forensic Sci., Stat. & L., June 30, 2017, http://for-sci-law.blogspot.com/2017/06/judge-spotlights-pcast-report.html
    • Williams v. United States, 210 A.3d 734 (D.C. 2019) (relying in part on PCAST's conclusion that "firearms examiners do not currently have a basis to give opinion testimony that matches a specific bullet to a specific gun and that such testimony should not be admitted without a verifiable error rate" to conclude that it was plainly error to admit testimony that three bullets matched a specific gun without “any doubt” (but that the error did not justify reversing the conviction), noted, Forensic Sci., Stat. & L., Aug. 15, 2019, 
    • State v. Allen, No. 2017-0306, 2017 WL 4974768 (La. Ct. App., 1 Cir., Nov. 1, 2017), noted, Louisiana's Court of Appeals Brushes Aside PCAST Report for Fingerprints and Toolmark Evidence, For. Sci., Stat. & L., Nov. 4, 2017, http://for-sci-law.blogspot.com/2017/11/louisianas-court-of-appeals-brushes.html 
    • Willie v. State, 274 So.3d 934 (Miss. Ct. App.  2018) (permissible to testify “that based on a ‘reasonable degree of scientific certainty,’ the shell casing found at the murder scene was fired from the 9-millimeter found in Lewis's SUV’ when the expert conceded on CX that “we do not have a reporting procedure for a margin of error”)
    • State v. DeJesus, 436 P.3d 834 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019) (misreads the PCAST report as applying only to "the question of reliability of the individual [firearms identification] test and tester at issue"), noted, Washington Court of Appeals Declares PCAST Report To Be "Of Dubious Value," Forensic Sci., Stat. & L., Mar. 12, 2019, https://for-sci-law.blogspot.com/2019/03/washington-court-of-appeals-declares.html
Other
Posted by DH Kaye at 5:35 PM
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)