Abstract

Scientific evidence is often more reliable than other types of evidence commonly used in criminal trials – i.e., eyewitness identifications, confessions, and informant testimony. Nevertheless, despite its obvious value, forensic science has not always merited the term “science.” Three developments in the 1990s focused attention on its shortcomings: the advent of DNA profiling, the Supreme Court's “junk science” decision, and a number of wellpublicized crime laboratory scandals. In light of these developments, and in order to take full advantage of the power of forensic science to aid in the search for truth, a number of reforms are needed: Crime laboratories should be accredited, lab procedures should be standardized, and basic research needs to be conducted on many commonly used techniques. Court procedures also require improvement: Defense experts should be more readily available to indigent defendants, and more comprehensive pretrial disclosure of the substance of expert testimony should be provided