Keywords
forensic identification
black-box study
cognitive bias
confirmation bias
admissibility of evidence
forensic examination
false positive error
Daubert standard
forensic science reform
How to Cite
Abstract
Problem statement. Most traditional forensic identification methods – trace, odontological, ballistic, and trichological – have been applied in criminal proceedings for decades without proper empirical confirmation of their scientific validity, posing a systemic threat to justice, including the risk of wrongful convictions. Purpose. To conduct a systematic analysis of the problem of foundational validity of traditional forensic identification methods, identify scientific and methodological gaps, examine judicial practice regarding admissibility standards for scientific evidence, and formulate recommendations for reforming forensic practice. Methods. The study is based on a synthesis of comparative legal, systemic analytical, and documentary methods. The primary source base comprised key scientific and analytical reports – NRC (2009), PCAST (2016, 2017), NIST IR 8515 (2024); peer-reviewed empirical studies; the NIJ database of court decisions (2016-2024); and legislative instruments – FRE Rule 702 (2023). Scientific novelty. For the first time in Ukrainian forensic literature, a systematic application of the PCAST foundational validity concept to traditional forensic methods has been undertaken in the context of forensic expert activity reform; a gap has been identified between the procedural-doctrinal approach inherent in Ukrainian scholarship and the empirically oriented paradigm of foundational validity; cognitive bias has been established as a systemic independent source of error alongside the absence of empirical validation. Conclusions. Most traditional subjective identification methods lack sufficient empirical support; only fingerprint analysis has been recognised as foundationally valid, though it still demonstrates a significant false positive error rate. Cognitive bias undermines the reliability of subjective methods irrespective of the examiner’s qualifications. The judicial response remains inconsistent and jurisdiction-dependent. Reform requires mandatory empirical testing of methods, objectificationof analytical procedures, and transparent disclosure of error rates.
References
Abruquah v. State, 483 Md. 637 (Md. 2023) [in English].
Avdieieva H.K. (2021). Otsinka dostovirnosti vysnovku eksperta yak dzherela dokaziv v Ukraini ta v inshykh krainakh: porivnialno-pravovyi analiz [Assessment of the reliability of the expert opinion as a source of evidence in Ukraine and other countries: a comparative legal analysis]. Sudovo-psykholohichna ekspertyza. Zastosuvannia polihrafa I spetsialnykh znan v yurydychnii praktytsi. URL: https://expertize-journal.org.ua/spetsialni-znannya/5654-avdeeva-g-k-otsinka-dostovirnosti-visnovku-eksperta-yak-dzherela-dokaziv-v-ukrajini-ta-v-inshikh-krajinakh-porivnyalno-pravovij-analiz [in Ukrainian].
Baldwin D.P., Bajic S.J., Morris M., Zamzow D. (2014). A study of false-positive and false-negative error rates in cartridge case comparisons. Ames Laboratory, US Department of Energy. URL: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA611807.pdf [in English].
Brown v. State, 512 P.3d 269 (Nev. 2022) [in English].
Commonwealth v. Ross, 224 A.3d 789 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019) [in English].
Death Penalty Information Center. (2019). Ten years after landmark study, junk science still pervasive in death-penalty cases. URL: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ten-years-after-landmark-study-junk-science-still-pervasive-in-death-penalty-cases (accessed: 08.05.2026) [in English].
Dror I.E., Charlton D., Péron A.E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017 [in English].
Dror I.E., Hampikian G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science and Justice, 51(4), 204–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004 [in English].
Faigman D.L., Scurich N., Albright T.D. (2023). Scientific guidelines for evaluating the validity of forensic feature-comparison methods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(41), e2301843120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301843120 [in English].
Gardner v. U.S., 140 A.3d 1172 (D.C. Ct. App. 2016) [in English].
Garrett B.L. (2022). Autopsy of a crime lab: Exposing the flaws in forensics. University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1h9dkjv [in English].
Houck M.M., Budowle B. (2002). Correlation of microscopic and mitochondrial DNA hair comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47(5), 964–967. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS15515J [in English].
Innocence Project. (2019). Ten years later: The lasting impact of the 2009 NAS Report. URL: https://innocenceproject.org/news/lasting-impact-of-2009-nas-report/ (accessed: 08.05.2026) [in English].
Kassin S.M., Dror I.E., Kukucka J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 [in English].
Kukucka J., Dror I. E. (2023). Human factors in forensic science: psychological causes of bias and error. In: DeMatteo D., Scherr K. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Law. Chapter 36. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197649138.013.36 [in English].
Kunkler K.S., Roy T. (2023). Reducing the impact of cognitive bias in decision making: Practical actions for forensic science practitioners. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 7, 100341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100341 [in English].
Monson K.L., Smith E.D., Peters E.M. (2023). Accuracy of comparison decisions by forensic firearms examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 68(1), 86–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15152 [in English].
Morgan J. (2023). Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 68(3), 908–961. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15233 [in English].
National Center on Forensics, National Institute of Justice. (2016–2024). Post-PCAST court decisions assessing the admissibility of forensic science evidence. URL: https://nij.ojp.gov/program/national-center-forensics/post-pcast-court-decisions-assessing-admissibility-forensic-science-evidence (accessed: 08.05.2026) [in English].
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. National Academies Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/12589 [in English].
Pena G., et al. (2024). The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 69(5), 1678–1690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15565 [in English].
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2016). Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Executive Office of the President. URL: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_reporfinal.pdf [in English].
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2017). An addendum to the PCAST report on forensic science in criminal courts. Executive Office of the President. URL: https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/f iles/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensics_addendum_finalv2.pdf (accessed: 08.05.2026) [in English].
Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309(5736), 892–895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111565 [in English].
Salazar-Aguilar P., et al. (2023). Forensic odontology: Wrong convictions, “bad apples” and “the innocence files”. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 95, 102528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2023.102528 [in English].
Shepitko V.Yu. (2022). Formuvannia doktryny kryminalistyky ta sudovoi ekspertyzy v Ukraini–shliakh do yedynoho yevropeiskoho kryminalistychnoho prostoru [Formation of the doctrine of criminalistics and forensic science in Ukraine — the path to a unified European forensic space]. Pravo Ukrainy, 2, 76–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33498/louu-2022-02-076 [in Ukrainian].
Shcherbakovskyi M.H. (2021). Standart dostovirnosti vysnovku eksperta u kryminalnomu protsesi [The standard of reliability of the expert opinion in criminal proceedings]. Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky, 3(25), 21–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.3.2021.03 [in Ukrainian].
Swofford H. J., Lund S., Iyer H. K., Butler J., Soons J. A., Thompson R. M., Desiderio V., Jones J. P., Ramotowski R. (2024). Inconclusive decisions and error rates in forensic science. Forensic Science International: Synergy. Vol. 10. 100472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100472 [in English].
State v. Johnson, 2022-Ohio-1739 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022) [in English].
Swofford H.J. (2024). Forensic science environmental scan 2023 (NIST Interagency Report NIST IR 8515). National Institute of Standards and Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8515 [in English].
Swofford H.J., et al. (2024). Method performance versus method conformance in the development of forensic disciplines. Forensic Science International, 356, 111932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.111932 [in English].
Ulery B.T., et al. (2011). Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7733–7738. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018707108 [in English].
Ulery B.T., et al. (2012). Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners. PLOS ONE, 7(3), e32800. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032800 [in English].
U.S. v. Bonds, No. 15 CR 573-2, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166975 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2017) [in English].
U.S. v. Green, No. 2018 CF1 004356, 2024 D.C. Super. LEXIS 8 (D.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 1, 2024) [in English].
U.S. v. Hunt, 63 F.4th 1229 (10th Cir. 2023) [in English].
U.S. v. Shipp, 422 F. Supp. 3d 762 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) [in English].
U.S. v. Tibbs, No. 2016-CF1-19431, 2019 D.C. Super. LEXIS 9 (D.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 5, 2019) [in English].
Wales A., et al. (2026). A research-focused framework for empirical method validation in digital and multimedia evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 71(1), 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.70253 [in English].