New Directions in the Study of Forensic Science Reform: Understanding Judicial Policy Implementation by Crime Labs

• In Event: Miscarriages of Justice: New Perspectives on Innocence Issues

Abstract

Forensic science evidence is often cited as a correlate of wrongful convictions (see Garrett, 2011). Indeed, increasing awareness of problems related to the forensic science disciplines and crime laboratory practices has led to manifold calls for forensic science reform—both predating and amplified by the innocence crisis (Cole, 2014; National Research Council, 2009). Consequently, crime laboratories may have to implement policies imposed on them as a result of legislative changes, executive orders, and judicial decisions. However, since policies are rarely implemented precisely as policy-makers intend, it is important to understand how crime laboratories put policies into action. The present study applies a conceptual framework proposed by political scientists Bradley Canon and Charles Johnson (1999) for understanding how public agencies implement judicial policies. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009), in which the Court acknowledged the fallibility of forensic science practice and extended the 6th Amendment confrontation right to forensic laboratory reports, serves as the context for this study. The application of the Canon-Johnson framework, the use of qualitative interviews to explore the implementation process, and preliminary findings will be discussed.

Author

• Catherine L. Bonventre, University at Albany, SUNY