A federal panel of experts looking into the reliability of CSI tests has heard damning evidence against some of the most common techniques used to convict killers, rapists and other criminals, The Post has learned.
The analysis of fingerprints, tire tracks and bite marks isn’t nearly as reliable as researchers once believed, crime-scene specialists told the panel. Some even called it junk science.
Many said major changes would be necessary if crime labs want to continue using the evidence.
The National Academy of Sciences report isn’t due out until December, but forensic expert Barry Scheck predicted the study could have blockbuster implications.
“The testimony before them was very compelling,” the former O.J. Simpson “Dream Team” lawyer said.
“There were some serious questions raised about the reliability of certain disciplines – bite impressions, tire tracks and automatic fingerprint identification.
“I’m assuming they’re going to make some big recommendations about how standards are set. A lot of people are anticipating a fairly far-reaching examination of forensic science.”
Peter Neufeld, Scheck’s partner at the Innocence Project, which works to clear the wrongfully convicted by using DNA evidence, was among dozens of experts who spoke before the panel, a blue-ribbon gathering of 17 evaluators who began their work in 2006.
The $1 million effort to assess forensic work is not final; the academy’s report is undergoing a peer review now.
But it’s already being viewed as a major potential challenge to the fundamentals of crime-scene investigation.
“If the rules change, it could open a Pandora’s box for defense lawyers to challenge what would be considered junk science,” said New York attorney Jeffrey Lichtman, who helped John “Junior” Gotti beat murder charges.
“All these cases would be susceptible to a second look. It certainly happened with DNA. You could end up having thousands of people being released.”
Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner, said the forensic community has long been aware of problems with the techniques under question.
But an official report undermining their validity from a group as prestigious as the National Academy of Sciences would have “great implications for guilt and innocence,” he said.
Panel member Dr. Robert Shaler said there was no consensus among experts who testified on whether the science could be trusted.
“Some people didn’t think there were problems, and some did,” he said. “Their opinions are theirs, not necessarily those of the committee.”
The matching of bite marks, which involves using putty to preserve impressions and making molds to reproduce suspects’ teeth, has been decried as unreliable.
Examiners in one study falsely identified an innocent person as the biter 63 percent of the time.
“I think bite marks probably ought to be the poster child for bad forensic science,” said expert David Faigman.
Additional reporting by Susan Edelman, Janon Fisher and Reuven Blau