The 'CSI' effect and forensic experts

Newsweek published a very interesting article about the mistakes and uncertainties surrounding the testimony of forensic experts: 'CSI' Backlash: Forensics on Trial.'

The article provides very interesting examples of how jurors and courts used to give high regard to certain forensic experts - scientists examining things such as blood splatter, bite marks, hair follicle comparison, fingerprint analysis, etc. - only to have convictions overturned years later by DNA analysis, which is free of human error, since these tests are run by machines.

This is definitely an issue when you look at the television shows popular with the public: CSI, Bones and Dexter. On those shows it is so easy to run tests and get results, but in real life, these tests are subject to human error:

“Elasticity” is possible because the tests are largely subjective. Just how much human judgment is required depends on the discipline: DNA testing is mostly—though not entirely—done by machine, for instance, whereas microscopic hair comparison is based solely on the analyst’s opinion. Even fingerprints, which many of us regard as foolproof tools for identifying culprits—think Dexter feeding a print into his computer and a bad guy’s photo and driver’s license appearing on the screen—in fact rely largely on human interpretation, and therefore are subject to human error.

This information is particularly important related to the West Memphis Three case, because when processing all of the new theories and information coming out, law enforcement and the public need to be aware of the flaws of certain forensic analysis.