The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Autopsy of a Crime Lab: Exposing the Flaws in Forensics
Abstract
This book exposes the dangerously imperfect forensic evidence that we rely on for criminal convictions. "That's not my fingerprint, your honor," said the defendant, after FBI experts reported a "100-percent identification." The FBI was wrong. It is shocking how often they are. Autopsy of a Crime Lab is the first book to catalog the sources of error and the faulty science behind a range of well-known forensic evidence, from fingerprints and firearms to forensic algorithms. In this devastating forensic takedown, noted legal expert Brandon L. Garrett poses the questions that should be asked in courtrooms every day: Where are the studies that validate the basic premises of widely accepted techniques such as fingerprinting? How can experts testify with 100-percent certainty about a fingerprint, when there is no such thing as a 100 percent match? Where is the quality control at the crime scenes and in the laboratories? Should we so readily adopt powerful new technologies like facial recognition software and rapid DNA machines? And why have judges been so reluctant to consider the weaknesses of so many long-accepted methods? Taking us into the lives of the wrongfully convicted or nearly convicted, into crime labs rocked by scandal, and onto the front lines of promising reform efforts driven by professionals and researchers alike, Autopsy of a Crime Lab illustrates the persistence and perniciousness of shaky science and its well-meaning practitioners.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Expert testimony regarding traditional forensic evidence, often depending on subjective judgments made using unvalidated or unreliable techniques, has resulted in tragic wrongful convictions and lab scandals.
“Expert testimony regarding traditional forensic evidence, which has often depended on subjective judgments made using unvalidated or unreliable techniques, has resulted in tragic wrongful convictions and lab scandals (38).”
From Interpretable algorithmic forensics (2023) · cites this paper as [38]
Due process, equal protection, confrontation, discovery, and expert evidence-related rights each place distinct burdens of justification on the government.
“As scholars have developed in a growing body of work, due process, equal protection, confrontation, discovery, and expert evidence-related rights, each places distinct burdens of justification on the government—and unfortunately, judges have often not insisted on searching review of forensic evidence used in criminal cases (36–38).”
From Interpretable algorithmic forensics (2023) · cites this paper as [38]
In criminal cases, judges have often deferentially approved black box systems, assuming that nondisclosure was justified by their great reliability, and have not conducted a careful analysis informed by law and data science.
“In criminal cases, judges have often deferentially approved black box systems, both those that rely on AI and those that rely on human-created algorithms, assuming that nondisclosure was justified by their great reliability. They have not conducted a careful analysis informed by law and data science.”
From Interpretable algorithmic forensics (2023) · cites this paper as [38]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interpretable algorithmic forensics
Garrett, B. L., & Rudin, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2301842120 · Cited by 68
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Garrett, B. L.
- Corresponding author
- Garrett, Brandon L.
- ORCID
- Garrett, Brandon L.
- Venue
- University of California Press eBooks
- Publisher
- University of California Press
- Published
- 2021-03-23
- OpenAlex
- W4235629325
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 3.82
- Type
- book
- Language
- it
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- University of California Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Evidence
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Keywords
- forensic evidence, forensic science reliability, wrongful convictions, fingerprint recognition, firearms evidence, face recognition, expert testimony
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review