This database gathers federal and state court decisions issued after the release of a 2016 report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology titled Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (the “PCAST Report”).
The PCAST Report, among other things, defined and established guidelines for what its authors termed “foundational validity” and applied those guidelines to certain forensic science disciplines: DNA, latent fingerprints, firearms/toolmarks, footwear, bitemarks, and hair microscopy. The authors opined that only the following forensic science disciplines met their standard for “foundational validity”: (1) DNA samples from one individual, (2) a mixture of DNA from no more than two individuals, and (3) latent fingerprints. The PCAST report judged the remaining forensic science disciplines to lack “foundational validity” and suggested that the U.S. Department of Justice not seek to introduce evidence requiring analysis by those disciplines’ practitioners.
The database seeks to compile decisions addressing the PCAST Report in a manner that is easy for courts, attorneys, forensic scientists, and others to review. It is both sortable by column and searchable. Columns are described below, and the terms used in each column are explained. The database includes cases that have been published in recognized court reporters, cases that have been published by Lexis Nexis, unpublished cases, and oral decisions. Copies of unpublished cases or transcripts of oral decisions can be requested by emailing [email protected].
- Caption: This column includes the case name and citation (if any). Copies of unpublished cases or transcripts of oral decisions can be requested by emailing [email protected].
- Federal or State: This column notes whether the court that issued the decision was a federal or state court.
- State, Including Federal District or Circuit: This column includes the name of the state where the decision was issued; for federal cases, it includes a parenthetical indicating the federal district or circuit court.
- Posture: This column notes the procedural posture of the case:
- Pretrial,
- Mid-trial,
- Appeal,
- Post-conviction.
- Discipline: This column notes the forensic science discipline(s) at issue in the case:
- Bitemark,
- DNA,
- Firearms/toolmarks (as “FTM”),
- Latent fingerprints (as “Fingerprints”),
- Footwear,
- Ink dating,
- General discussion of the PCAST Report and Fed. R. Evid. 702 (as “PCAST/FRE 702”),
- Dicta re: PCAST,
- Presence of semen.
- Named Experts: This column includes the names of any experts who were referenced by name in the decision. If a witness was referred to only by his or her last name, the first name is FNU, for “First Name Unknown.” Each expert’s name is followed by an indication of the entity that sponsored that witness:
- G: Government witness,
- D: Defense witness,
- P: Plaintiff witness in a civil case,
- C: Court witness.
- Decision Date: This column indicates the date of the decision summarized in the corresponding row.
- Decision Effect: This column seeks to categorize the essence of the court’s decision regarding the forensic science evidence at issue:
- Admit: Forensic science evidence was admitted without limitation.
- Admit with gov’ts proposed limits: This indicates that the court admitted testimony in a case where the government proposed or agreed to limitations on a forensic science expert’s testimony (for example, that it would be consistent with the requirements set forth in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports, or ULTRs).
- Affirm admission: An appellate court affirmed the decision of a lower court to admit forensic science evidence.
- Error to admit, but harmless: An appellate court concluded that a lower court erred by admitting forensic science evidence, but found that error to be harmless.
- Exclude: The court fully excluded the testimony of a witness who would have testified about a forensic science discipline, forensic science evidence, or the PCAST Report itself.
- Exclude def expert: As courts were sometimes called up to determine admissibility of both government and defense experts, if the court decided to exclude admissibility of a defense expert, that is so indicated.
- Limit: Forensic science evidence was admitted, but the court imposed limitations on how the expert could describe that evidence. In some instances, the chart includes a short description of the limitation in a parenthetical.
- N/A: The court’s decision does not fit in to one of the other categories.
- PCAST dicta: Court opined about PCAST in dicta without using PCAST to decide the admissibility of forensic science evidence.
- Remand for new trial: An appellate court remanded a case for a new trial.
- Remand for admissibility hearing: An appellate court remanded a case for the trial court to hold an admissibility hearing under Daubert, Frye, or a similar state admissibility standard.
- Reverse conviction: A defendant’s criminal conviction was reversed.
- Reverse exclusion: An appellate court reversed a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence.
- Outcome: This column identifies the outcome of the case summarized in the row:
- Conviction affirmed: A defendant’s criminal conviction was affirmed. This includes cases where the court found harmless error.
- Conviction reversed: A defendant’s criminal conviction was reversed. This includes cases that were remanded to the trial court for an admissibility hearing.
- Def motion denied: A defendant’s motion— including for admission or exclusion of forensic science evidence or testimony, or for a new trial—was denied by the trial court.
- Def motion granted: A defendant’s motion— including for admission or exclusion of forensic science evidence or testimony, or for a new trial —was granted by the trial court.
- Dicta about FRE 702/PCAST: Court opined about PCAST in dicta without using PCAST to decide the admissibility of forensic science evidence.
- Gov’t motion granted: The government’s motion— including for admission or exclusion of forensic science evidence or testimony—was granted by the trial court.
- Habeas petition denied: A petitioner/criminal defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief was denied.
- Petitioner permitted to file successive post-conviction motion: A petitioner/criminal defendant seeking post-conviction relief was permitted to file a successive motion requesting that relief.
- Pl’s motion granted: A plaintiff’s motion was granted.
- Reversing exclusion of evidence by trial court: An appellate court reversed a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence.
- Note: There are a few entries in this column that do not use one of these standard descriptions, as the court’s decision did not fit neatly into one of these categories.
- Publication Status: This column summarizes the publication status of the case:
- Pub: Published in an official federal, regional, or state reporter.
- Lexis: Available through LexisNexis, but not through an official reporter. (Note: Citations do not confer endorsement of LexisNexis over any competing service.)
- Unpub: Not published through an official reporter or by LexisNexis. This includes both written and oral decisions. Copies of unpublished cases or transcripts of oral decisions can be requested by emailing [email protected].
- Description: This column provides a short summary of the case.