WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS BASED ON FORENSICS

Wrongful Convictions Based on Forensics

Katerina Turchetti
Writing 104
University of Rhode Island
May 19, 2016

Abstract
This paper is an attempt to showcase how unvalidated forensics causes wrongful imprisonments
and how to counteract future events from occurring. Examples of such cases are included within,

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS BASED ON FORENSICS

2
along with what the analysts did wrong during the case. Errors from pure guesswork to
tampering of evidence is summarized. The solution to this monumental problem is simple
prevention; hire those who have the right credentials and experience for the job.

Citizens are convicted of crimes all the time. Jurors are swayed by witness statements,
video evidence, expert opinions, and forensic proof. Most of the time DNA and other biological
evidence are a great way of determining whether or not a suspect was at the scene of a crime or if
they had contact with the weapon. Blood samples, fingerprinting, saliva, and hair samples all
contribute to the biological side to forensic evidence and procedure. It is seen as undeniable
proof of guilt to the jury; the suspect was there, they held the murder weapon, or their prints are

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS BASED ON FORENSICS

3
all over the bank safe. Convicts cannot deny the fact that their DNA is at a crime scene, but there
are some cases where the evidence is not correct. There are at least 116 wrongful conviction
cases that have been overturned because of unvalidated or improper forensic science. Those
cases are just what the Innocence Project had found up to February 1st, 2009.
In one case specifically, James Kluppelberg was released from prison after 25 years of
being wrongly incarcerated. The case goes as follows: there was a fire at an apartment building
that killed a woman and her 5 children, the fire was ruled as arson during a training exercise
without any investigation, a coerced confession through the means of police brutality, and a
snitch testimony that implicated Kluppelbergs alleged guilt. The firefighter, James Burns,
took no notes, made no reports, and never told anyone of his belief, but he testified from
memory that he saw burn patterns that indicated the fire was arson. (Possley, 2012). His
testimony was given at least 4 years after the fire occurred. Kluppelbergs confession to the
police of his supposed guilt was suppressed by a judge due to the circumstances surrounding said
confession. Kluppelberg had been beaten by the interrogating officers during their time together.
He had multiple bruises all over where his kidneys were and he was urinating blood. The reason
for the polices suspicion of Kluppelberg in the first place was based on a witness statement from
a neighbor of Kluppelberg. While this would be helpful to the prosecution, the witness confessed
to be high at the time he saw Kluppelberg casing the apartment building before the fire.
Finally, in 2009 the witness, Duane Glassco, recanted his statement because he lied and because
he only implicated Kluppelberg because of jealousy. Due to this recantation and a more modern
viewpoint on arson, James Kluppelberg was released. This all could have been prevented if there
was an actual arson investigation given at the time; the fire department could have concluded

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS BASED ON FORENSICS

4
that the fire wasnt intentionally started so there would have been no reason for Kluppelberg to
be suspect.
There are nearly a hundred more cases like that one where the forensic specialists
did not obtain the correct evidence. Most of the evidence that was deemed incorrect was in hair
analysis. Issues in hair microscopy ranges from particle filaments to just saying the hairs were
similar to the one left at a crime scene. The FBI admitted last year that there are issues in hair
microscopy. More than 95% of cases with such an analysis were flawed. In fact, around 82 cases
involving hair microscopy since 1989 were wrongful convictions (Hsu, 2015). This means that
they are multitudes of innocent people in jail and quite a bit of prosecutors who unknowingly put
them there because the evidence proved otherwise.
The problem with forensics right now is not the actual science, it is the scientists that are
performing the tests. Due to human error, people are being wrongfully convicted. One man,
Stephen Cowans, was convicted based on a botched fingerprint analysis. His prints were not
tested against the ones found on the evidence, but instead against his own prints (Innocence
Project, 2009). All of these convictions were
caused by human neglect or ignorance of
procedure.
Another way of wrongful conviction is
the tampering of evidence. A crime scene can
be contaminated by a third party. Evidence
can be planted to guide guilt elsewhere, it can
be destroyed or handled incorrectly by a field
technician. Things can also go wrong in the

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS BASED ON FORENSICS

5
lab; results can be fabricated or
contaminated in order to throw off the
investigation. The scientists could perform
the wrong tests, accidentally or purposely
consume the evidence, or mislabel
something. All of this could drastically
affect the outcome of a case, and not in a
good way.
I plan on becoming a forensic chemist when I am older, so this is a subject that I hold a
heavy interest in. I would not be fulfilling the quest of justice if Im unable to successfully do my
job. Leaving important evidence and distinctions to just eyeballing the result will not cut it.
There needs to be a change in how the forensic scientists conduct their tests and experiments. A
way that insures a minimal chance of error. There is no real way to fix human faults, but their is a
way to minimize the effects of our actions. The NCFS (National Centre for Forensic Sciences)
and the OSAC (Overseas Security Advisory Council) is starting to look into what causes these
errors and how to fix the issue (Kafadar, 2015).
The solution to the problem of such mistakes is prevention. Federal and state
governments should establish necessary requirements in order to work for a crime laboratory
(Innocence Project, 2013). A scientist must have the proper training and accreditation. The labs
themselves need to be held to higher standards as well. For one thing, there needs to be stricter
rules regarding the collection, preservation, and the chain of custody towards evidence. Every
piece of evidence needs to be checked and correctly labeled in order to preserve them properly.
This will lessen the chance of contamination and error. Keeping track of the evidences chain of

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS BASED ON FORENSICS

6
custody will help insure that there will be a lower percentage of sabotage if the evidences
history is being tracked.
Having scientists with the proper credentials and training will improve the validity of
results and the testimonies based on those results. There will no longer be any guesswork if
this solution is put into place. People wont be put into jail based on some similarities that have
no scientific basis. There will be a legitimate procedure used in order to find the correct
perpetrator. There is the slight drawback of getting those in charge to actually go along with such
a plan though. Insuring that the right people are doing their jobs accurately requires a modicum
of effort and possibly money. Sometimes it is easier to just let things be as long as they dont
affect a person directly. The higher ups may not wish to change the methods already in place. If
they are still getting results most of the time, what is 116 errors? Asking people to change their
ways is not a simple task. There is the stubborn pride of man to get past and the question of if
these changes will cost more than people are willing to pay.
It is not a question of money though; its a question of justice. Whether or not the
government wants to be known for causing innocent people to be put in jail or on death row. If as
long as somebody is put away for the crime, it doesnt matter if the true criminal got away? They
believe that they have found justice for the victims, but they also create new ones by using faulty
forensics. Forensic is supposed to help the police find the offender. To help make their jobs
easier, by giving them real answers. Whether the police found a pile of baking powder or cocaine
in someones kitchen; if a stab wound matches a certain model of knife; if the hair on the victim
is from the suspect or a dog. The forensic work is supposed to clear up any confusion during a
case. This cannot happen if the scientists arent trained properly or dont have the credentials
needed for such a sensitive job. If there is not an actual expert working cases like these then how

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS BASED ON FORENSICS

7
does the government expect to receive the right information? All the scientists need to do is find
a way to become more organized and refined whilst dealing with evidence. The list of the chain
of custody will let the police and the court system know who handled to evidence and if the
person who had the evidence even had the clearance to do so. Retesting the evidence multiple
times to insure that the results are correct will definitely help lessen the amount of wrongful
convictions in the long run. It will also cost the system less to implement this because there
wont be any more appeals or re-trials that are a lot of time and money.
In todays age we are lucky that we have such advanced technology. Without it we may
have even more overturned cases to deal with. AFIS is able to run fingerprints through the
database quickly without forcing the people to scour through a library of prints, making the risk
for error lower even more. Computers are able to do most of the forensic testing for the
scientists, all they need to do is determine if the technologys conclusion is correct. This means
multiple tests can be done at the same time by the same scientist. There will be less of a chance
for a wrongful conviction to occur because of forensics, because the results arent only reliant
upon the human eye. Technology, training, credence, following the correct procedure, and being
more careful with the evidence is what will change the outcomes of future cases.