◆ SpookStack

Brady and Other Ethical Issues Facing Forensic Scientists Much evidence acquired by prosecutors may be material to the defense. The 1963 Brady v. Maryland decision requires them to turn over potentially exculpatory infor- mation to the defense. Brady is some- times seen as asking the prosecutor to aid the accused. It has produced more Freedom of Information Act discoveries by defense and more attempts to find out about misleading evidence. One presenter noted that defense counsel needs ade- quate breadth of discovery to obtain scien- tific evidence. On the other hand, Brady has in some cases led to large additional areas of discovery for information that is only circumstantial. Can DNA Be the Magic Bullet? What DNA Can (and Cannot) Do Issues in the use of DNA evidence contin- ue to emerge. Among them are whether there is a right to postconviction relief based on DNA, the scientific limitations of DNA testing, and the inability of many crime laboratories to work every case that involves DNA evidence. Analytical prob- lems persist even though information expands. Computerassisted data interpre- tation can help reduce laboratory backlogs. One presenter noted that the common assumption that DNA evidence wins the case could be dangerous. Defense attor- neys sometimes do not ask for indepen- dent DNA testing because problems like contamination can arise. Although the Daubert decision required assessing evi- dence for its admissibility, courts still have not decided how to treat mixed-DNA evidence. Keynote Address on DNA and Genetics: A Challenge for Lawyers and Judges in the New Millennium In science, there is a distinction between “error” and “mistake”; in the law, there is no such distinction. When.a mistake occurs in a scientific experiment, the experiment can be conducted again. Errors in experiments need only be docu- mented. In the law, an error is the same as a mistake because it may overturn a deci- sion. Exoneration via DNA has become fair- ly frequent, but DNA databases remain controversial. As genetics research contin- ues to shed light on these issues, it is like- ly to have more influence on the law. The discovery of genetically caused diseases may raise issues of privacy and classifica- tion of people by their DNA. Medical infor- mation is already being used to make some hiring, firing, and promotion decisions. \ Reports on Science and the Law Daubert is not the only evidentiary stan- dard, and the sky may not be falling as a result of it. Peer review is a standard, although one on which not too much emphasis should be placed in the legal context. Changes in technical fields affect testimony, including police officers’ testi- mony and clinical medical testimony. The Kumho Tire decision illuminated the issue of rigor in a variety of technical fields, causing, for example, handwriting evi- dence and fingerprints to be increasingly challenged. Typically, police are not asked to explain the basis of their experience when they testify, but scientific experis are asked to do so. Certain issues have created essentially a scientific revolution in the courts. The current confusion over litigation-sponsored science is likely to promote more research that will resolve issues now in conflict. TON COR MA Si UNCLASSIFIED Lle-1l0-c00e BY 6 ATHED Og24 UC BAU/BS LSC