Analysing hair for criminal casework purposes has had some new developments recently, as reported in Forensic Science International. For your delectation and delight, and as the journal has a log in, I have decided to share some of the papers that deal with day-to-day issues to which we can all relate:

In Sweden, if someone is convicted of either drug crimes (described as “petty”, presumably referring to possession only) or drug driving, their driving licence can be revoked. In order to regain their licence the driver must prove that they have been drug-free for a given period time. As anyone working with drug offenders knows, it is relatively easy to pass a drug urine screening test: either abstain for a relatively short period or cheat the results by using someone else’e urine (there’s a black market for ‘clean’ urine – think Gattaca). When drugs are consumed, the pattern of use is recorded in hair, particularly in head hair. A Swedish study has looked at the viability of using hair analysis instead of urine analysis when assessing whether or not to return someone’s driving licence to them. Interpretation has several issues (including understanding and knowledge of the screening method limitations) but the people being tested apparently approved of hair sampling “considering it a better means to prove their drug abstinence. In addition, both the clients and the clinicians thought hair sampling easier than urine sampling.”
(Hair analysis for drugs in driver’s license regranting. A Swedish pilot study, Pages 55-58, Robert Kronstrand, Ingrid Nyström, Malin Forsman, Kerstin Käll).
As with all cases where people have to prove drug abstinence by providing a sample of hair for analysis, it’s always interesting when they turn up to have their sample taken but have just come from the hairdressers where they had a Number 1…..

In Italy, a study has been completed to “investigate acute and chronic exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in a cohort of young adolescents using urinary cotinine and hair nicotine testing after recent implementation of Italian smoke free legislation,” which has implications for everyone. The overall conclusions were that “due to the implementation of smoke-free legislation and information campaign against smoking, a significant trend toward low exposure to ETS was observed in this study cohort with no association between exposure to ETS and respiratory illnesses.” What I did find interesting was this: “Hair nicotine was inversely related to educational level of the adolescents’ parents” – not just the comment itself but the way it was phrased. It must have taken a while to phrase that appropriately…
(Assessment of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in young adolescents following implementation of smoke-free policy in Italy, Pages 97-100, M. Pellegrini, M.C. Rotolo, S. La Grutta, F. Cibella, O. Garcia-Algar, A. Bacosi, G. Cuttitta, R. Pacifici, S. Pichini)

Finally, a French study investigated something that I find to be utterly fascinating: “Heroin markers in hair of a narcotic police officer: Active or passive exposure?” I think the Abstract just says it all without any need of assistance from me: In “March 2007, a police officer (46-year-old man) and a clerk (37-year-old woman) were arrested and subjected to investigation on the charges of drugs of abuse trafficking. The loving couple was exploiting their administrative positions to make money with the resale of seized drugs. The laboratory was requested to analyse their hair for drugs of abuse. Hair of the 2 subjects tested positive for heroin by GC–MS. A few days later, analysis of hair obtained from 11 other police officers of the same unit was requested, in order to compare the results, as external contamination was proposed to account for the positive results. The aim of the investigations was to demonstrate that passive contamination could not occur for persons dealing every day with drugs of abuse with minimal caution and hygiene, and that the measured concentrations in the arrested subjects correspond to personal abuse. All the narcotic team tested negative, irrespective of the compound.”

And that’s this month’s round-up of Forensic Science International….

The clue’s in the title so I don’t intend to pass opinion on this matter, merely draw your attention to the results of the research, the full report of which can be read here. The summary points are:
***
This was a UK study. It found little evidence that juries are not fair. Research from other jurisdictions should not be relied upon to understand juries in the UK. Presumably, this applies in other countries, i.e. research should be undertaken in each country to gauge whether or not their jury system is fair.
***
Black and minority ethnic (BME) defendants are not more likely than white defendants to be found guilty by juries at courts where there is a large proportion of BME defendants and a very low level of ethnic diversity in the local population.
White defendants accused of racially motivated crimes are not more likely to be acquitted by all-white juries than racially mixed juries.
***
INDIVIDUAL JUROR DECISION-MAKING:
The only difference between White jurors serving on racially mixed and on all-White juries was that White jurors on racially mixed juries had lower conviction rates overall.
White jurors on all-White juries in a diverse community appeared particularly sensitive to the plight of a BME victim allegedly assaulted by a White defendant.
Jurors, regardless of ethnic background, do not racially stereotype Black, Asian or White defendants as more or less likely to commit certain crimes.
Female jurors were tougher on defendants at the start of jury deliberations than male jurors but more open to persuasion to change their vote during deliberations.
BME.
***
KEY FINDINGS ON BME DEFENDANTS IN ALL CROWN COURT CASES 2006–08:
Even though jurors do not racially stereotype defendants as likely to commit certain offences, White and BME defendants are in fact charged most often with very different types of offences.
BME defendants consistently plead not guilty more often than White defendants.
Jury conviction rates show only small differences based on defendant ethnicity.
For offences that make up over two-thirds of all jury verdicts jury conviction rates were almost identical for White and BME defendants.
One stage in the criminal justice process where members of BME groups appear not to be treated disproportionately is when a jury reaches a verdict.
***
BME defendants are not more likely than White defendants to be found guilty by juries at courts where there is a large proportion of BME defendants and a very low level of ethnic diversity in the local population.
White defendants accused of racially motivated crimes are not more likely to be acquitted by all-White juries than racially mixed juries.
***
Juries are efficient. Once sworn they almost always deliberate. Once they deliberate, they reach a verdict more than 99% of the time.
Even when a hung jury occurs, in most instances the jury has reached a verdict on at least some charges.
***
Juries appear to try cases on the evidence and the law. Offences where the strongest direct evidence is likely to exist against a defendant appear to have the highest conviction rates. Cases where juries must be sure of the state of mind of a defendant or complainant appear to have the lowest jury conviction rates.
***
Contrary to popular belief and previous government reports, juries actually convict more often than they acquit in rape cases. Other serious offences (attempted murder, manslaughter, GBH) have lower jury conviction rates than rape.
***
Differences exist in jury conviction rates between Crown Courts, but it is a myth that juries rarely convict at certain courts. All courts have a jury conviction rate of 53% or higher.
The reason for variations in jury conviction rates between courts is not known. It may reflect differences in the types of offences presented to juries at different courts, differences in local attitudes to crime and justice, or variations in police, prosecution or judicial handling of cases.
There were no substantial differences in jury conviction rates based on the severity of the offence (defined by maximum sentence).
Two-thirds of all juries are presented with more than one charge on which to reach a verdict. The likelihood of a jury returning any guilty verdict against a defendant increased with the number of charges against a defendant.
***
Most jurors thought the judge’s legal instructions were easy to understand, but a majority in fact did not completely understand them in the terms used by the judge in his instructions.
A written summary of the legal directions given to jurors during the judge’s oral directions improved juror comprehension of the law.
Younger jurors had the highest level of comprehension of legal directions.
Almost half of all jurors did not feel they would know what to do about improper jury conduct.
A majority of jurors wanted more information about how to conduct deliberations.
Almost all jurors supported the existing rule requiring jury deliberations to remain secret.
***
The fade factor exists. Most jurors that recalled media coverage of their case recalled coverage published during, not before, the trial. But a third of jurors on high profile cases recalled some pre-trial coverage.
Most jurors who recalled media coverage did not recall any emphasis in the coverage. A fifth of jurors on high profile cases said it was difficult to put the media coverage out of their minds.
More jurors said they saw information on the internet during the trial than admitted looking for information on the internet during the trial.
More jurors on high profile cases admitted to looking for information about their case on the internet during trial than jurors in standard cases.
Most jurors who looked for information on the internet during trial were over 30.

Obviously, these summary points condense an awful lot of information and I would recommend a quick read of the main report if you want an insight into how much detail forms the basis of the final summaries.

Burglars are apparently more likely to wear Reebok Classic trainers than other brands of training shoe. This is one of the findings of a recent scientific study of the running shoes of choice used by burglars in the English county of Northamptonshire. These results tie in nicely with my own (professional) experiences of burglary cases in England & Wales and also confirm my comments on misc.ience’s post If I was a running shoe manufacturer, I would be worried…
The study also found that burglars from poorer areas tended to wear more expensive trainers, which follows many people’s observational experiences, and the average cost of trainers worn by unemployed burglars was greater that those worn by burglars with jobs. Understandably perhaps, the study had no knowledge of whether or not said trainers were bought or stolen…..

I’ve been preaching for some time now about the problems that programs like CSI cause regarding the general perception of the capabilities of forensic science – and look, here is one of the world’s foremost DNA scientists and pioneers of DNA in forensics saying exactly the same thing, specifically about DNA: CSI no relevance to real DNA profiling.

Dr Gill also mentioned that although TV programs have highlighted science (which is a good thing), they do hinder the Expert when it comes to presenting evidence in court. I wholeheartedly agree.

Dr Gill said, “(CSI) doesn’t really represent the way in which forensic science works. My concerns with programs like that it gives the impression that if there is a DNA profile found at a crime scene and you have a suspect that it doesn’t necessarily follow that a suspect is guilty of that crime. There are a lot of other things which must be considered.” – this is so true.  Forensic Scientists shouldn’t necessarily just report (or review) the science in isolation – the framework into which that science fits is crucial for the proper understanding of what the science is telling the Trier of Fact (usually a jury and/or a Judge). It is then for the Trier of Fact to decide what weight to apply to that evidence when deciding on the Ultimate Issue, which is usually down to two choices: guilty or not guilty.

Forensic Science can of course also be used for investigative purposes – and it may take an investigation down a different track from the one that the investigators were expecting. The important thing is that the investigators should take that scientific information into account when deciding what to do next – just sticking with their previous track of thought may be neither appropriate nor correct.

“The scientist is not there to prosecute anyone. Whether the individual is found guilty or innocent has no bearing on the science.” Dr Gill makes an extremely valid point in this last sentence.  ALL forensic scientists should be impartial and unbiased in their reporting – no exceptions.

U.S. academics at UCLA are being granted funds to consider error rates in latent fingerprint evidence.  Some would ask whether or not this sort of exercise should have been completed loooong ago.  As with any other area of applied science, regular review should be undertaken.  Unfortunately, this is not something that necessarily occurs in forensic science, partly because some agencies aren’t keen on their databases being examined (see
Crime DNA databases should be independently examined).

Last year, the United States National Academy of Sciences issued a damning report on the state of forensic science in U.S. crime laboratories.  The report basically stated that the accuracy and reliability of practically all forensic science methods, ranging from glass to fingerprints, had not been established adequately through rigorous scientific scrutiny.  At the end of this month (Feb 2010), the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) is holding its annual scientific meeting, which is tellingly entitled, “Putting Our Forensic House in Order: Determining Validation and Expelling Incompetence.”

So, not only is forensic science in the States being shaken upside down until the grotty bits drop out of its pockets, someone somewhere is getting paid to do the work that should have been done long ago, on an ongoing basis. Let’s hope one of the resolutions that arises from the AAFS meeting is that forensic science techniques should be reviewed regularly. The problem is of course that most people working for the prosecution don’t really want any technique investigated too deeply in case problems are found. Once that happens then other convictions might be called into question, which could throw the whole system into disorder, incurring enormous expense and all the obvious associated problems.

To my mind, that’s not a good enough reason not to do it.  If people are going to be sent to prison based, even in part, on scientific findings then the science must be robust and reliable (as well as other legal issues such as relevant and repeatable).  If science is reviewed regularly and the law takes that into account then it should be possible to work out a system whereby the courts can be sure that the science is up-to-date, which in turn adds to the strength of science in court.  It also might present the current stink that’s going on in Texas over the inadequate forensic science presented in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham (Wikipedia link), who was executed for allegedly killing his children in a house fire he was supposed to have set.  The science has since been shown to have been wrong.

The other thing to remember is that if the overall outcome of the US review and the work being carried out to address those issues identifies some real problems, the implications could be felt throughout court systems worldwide – including New Zealand.