Forensic sciences
Test Results for Mobile Device Acquisition Tool: CelleBrite UFED 1.1.8.6 - Report Manager 1.8.3 UFED Physical Analyzer 2.3.0
Test Results for Digital Data Acquisition Tool: ASR Data SMART version 2010-11-03
Test Results for Digital Data Acquisition Tool: VOOM HardCopy 3P - Firmware Version 2-04
National Institute of Justice Annual Report 2013
Evaluating the Los Angeles County Elder Abuse Forensic Center
Tracking Movements with Isotopes
Evaluating the Los Angeles County Elder Abuse Forensic Center
NIJ-funded evaluations show that the multidisciplinary model refers more elder abuse cases to the district attorney and the Office of the Public Guardian.
National Institute of Justice Annual Report 2014
NIJ Directors, 1969–Present
NIJ was created in 1969 and has been in the forefront of nearly every innovation in criminal justice research and policy ever since. The following Director's have led the Institute in that work. Select a director to view a list of their speeches, remarks, and testimony.
- Jennifer Scherer, Acting January 2025 - Present
- Nancy La Vigne, May 2022-January 2025
- Jennifer Scherer, Acting 2021-May 2022
- David...
Improved Detection of Synthetic Cathinones in Forensic Toxicology Samples: Thermal Degradation and Analytical Considerations
Forensic Death Investigation Symposium, June 7-9, 2010
Forensic Optical Topography Working Group Meeting, March 17-18, 2015
Validation and Evaluation of Magneto-Optical Imaging Technology for Recovering Obliterated Serial Numbers in Firearms
TECHBeat, September/October 2015
Fighting Crime With Science
Fighting Crime With Science
NIJ research and development projects hold promise for significantly improving forensic science disciplines.
Landscape Study of DNA Mixture Interpretation Software
Development of a SNP Assay Panel for Ancestral Origin Inference and Individuals Somatic Traits
Support for Forensic Science Research: Improving the Scientific Role of the National Institute of Justice
How Reliable Are Latent Fingerprint Examiners?
Brian Cerchiai discusses a NIJ-supported a study conducted by the Miami-Dade Police Department on the accuracy of fingerprint examiners. The study found that fingerprint examiners make extremely few errors. Even when examiners did not get an independent second opinion about their decisions, they were remarkably accurate. But when decisions were verified by an independent reviewers, examiners had a 0% false positive, or incorrect identification, rate and a 3% false negative, or missed identification, rate.
See the YouTube Terms of Service and Google Privacy Policy