Report to the President — Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods
Executive Office of the President, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology · September 2016 · 2016
Access and status
Cost
Free
Free to read or download at source. No account, no purchase.
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
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.
Who it is for, and when
The two-part validity framework is the most useful analytical tool in the report and transfers directly to any digital method that relies on examiner judgement rather than deterministic computation. Lawyers should read it before arguing that experience alone cannot establish reliability. Examiners should read it before writing a conclusion that implies a certainty their method cannot support.
What it does not cover
It is not digital-forensics-specific and examines no digital method; its subject is feature-comparison pattern disciplines. It was produced by an advisory body, was rejected by the Department of Justice at the time, and has no legal force; courts cite it selectively.
Go to the source
Open at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov (opens in a new tab)https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf
Details
- Type
- Paper or report
- Written for
- Lawyers and courtsWorking examinerAdvancedLawyers and courts, Working examiner, Advanced
- Publisher
- Executive Office of the President, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
- Version verified
- September 2016
- Year
- 2016
- Topics
- forensic-science-policy, validation, expert-testimony, reporting
- Checked at source
Related entries
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.
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.
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.
A book for technologists who are about to testify: how the gatekeeping standards work, how to establish and defend qualifications, how to present technical material to a lay fact-finder, and where technical witnesses habitually lose credibility.
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.