Interesting article from RealClearScience,  We_cant_trust_forensic_science.  I think the line is drawn a little brightly in the article. The article also fails to point out that some of the inequity could be addressed at the trial court level.

The quality of the work product produced is going to vary from lab to lab. I saw a definite increase in jury expectations after CSI became popular. It didn’t matter what could be accomplished in reality, if it got done on CSI the jury expected the same protocols in real life. Even when the protocols existed only in a scriptwriters mind.

I fought a never ending battle with a Chemist Supervisor at DPS Austin. Texas makes no distinction between cocaine hcl and cocaine base. It is all cocaine as far as Texas law is concerned. Federal Law does make a distinction so it isn’t enough to identify a substance as cocaine. If the offense charged alleges cocaine base then the Government must prove it. This means the chemist must take the testing one step further and specify cocaine hcl or cocaine base. Might take thirty seconds and a Ph strip. Each time I requested a test for cocaine base, I would get a telephone call from this clown, about how he didn’t do that. I would have to explain that I really didn’t care about Texas law and that Federal law applied. I got my test.

The article does not adequately address the role of the criminal defence attorney in this process. The defense attorney has the ability to challenge the lab results both on cross examination and direct examination. This would include an inquiry as to the means, methods of carrying out the tests, the reliability of the science, and the status of a particular chemist or lab. The defense has the ability to produce competing lab reports and experts to support any adverse contention. All too often the defense chooses not to question the government’s chain of custody, analysis or conclusions in regards to lab results.