Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
National Research Council / The National Academies Press · 2009 consensus study report · 2009
Identifier: DOI 10.17226/12589; ISBN 0-309-13130-8 (paperback)
Access and status
Cost
Partly free
Part of it is free and part is not. The entry says which part; read that before you plan around it.
Status
Current
Current as at the verification date below. Standards and tools both move — confirm at source before you rely on it.
What it is
The congressionally requested report that found much of US forensic practice lacked demonstrated validity, consistent standards, and independence from law enforcement, and recommended a national institute to set and enforce them. It reset how courts and commentators talk about forensic reliability.
Who it is for, and when
Read it for the framework — validation, error rates, proficiency testing, standards, independence — that now underlies almost every reliability challenge, including challenges to digital evidence. Lawyers use it to frame a Rule 702 argument about a discipline's evidentiary foundation. Examiners should read it to understand why a court may ask for a validation study rather than a résumé.
What it does not cover
It is not digital-forensics-specific: digital and multimedia evidence receives only brief treatment and none of its recommendations were written with computer or mobile examination in mind. It is also seventeen years old, its central recommendation was never implemented, and it is a policy report with no legal force.
Go to the source
Open at nationalacademies.org (opens in a new tab)https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/12589
Details
- Type
- Paper or report
- Written for
- Lawyers and courtsWorking examinerAdvancedLawyers and courts, Working examiner, Advanced
- Publisher
- National Research Council / The National Academies Press
- Version verified
- 2009 consensus study report
- Year
- 2009
- Identifier
- DOI 10.17226/12589; ISBN 0-309-13130-8 (paperback)
- Topics
- forensic-science-policy, validation, standards-development, expert-testimony
- Checked at source
Related entries
The judiciary's own reference work on scientific and technical evidence, produced jointly by the Federal Judicial Center and the National Academies, made up of reference guides written by scientists and judges on individual fields plus chapters on the judge's gatekeeping role. The fourth edition rewrites every guide carried over from 2011 and adds new guides on eyewitness identification, computer science, and artificial intelligence.
A presidential advisory report distinguishing foundational validity — whether a method works at all, shown by empirical studies with measured error rates — from validity as applied by a particular examiner, and applying that distinction to feature-comparison disciplines such as latent prints, firearms marks, and bitemarks.
The decision holding that the Federal Rules of Evidence, not Frye's general-acceptance test, govern expert scientific testimony, and that the trial judge acts as a gatekeeper for reliability and fit. It offers a non-exclusive list of considerations: testability, peer review and publication, known or potential error rate, standards controlling the technique's operation, and general acceptance.
NIST's scientific foundation review of digital forensics, examining the peer-reviewed literature, academic material and practitioner guidance behind digital investigation techniques. It concludes the techniques rest on established computer science methods and are reliable when properly applied, while naming specific limits.
The federal admissibility rule for expert testimony. The 2023 amendment moved the burden into the rule text — the proponent must demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that each of the four requirements is met — and rewrote subsection (d) so that the opinion must reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.