READ: History of Forensic Science

Introduction

History of Forensic Science

The term Forensic comes from the Latin word forensis, meaning forum. In history class, you probably have studied about the Roman Forum and the Roman justice system. Our use of Forensic questioning methods was greatly influenced by this period in history. During the time of the Romans, a criminal charge meant presenting the case before the public. Both the person accused of the crime and the accuser would give speeches based on their side of the story. The individual with the best argumentation would determine the outcome of the case.  This is very similar to our current court proceedings and is the foundation for the emphasis on the meticulous methodologies adopted by Forensic Scientists.

Interactivity: Influential Forensic Scientists

Many have contributed to the development of Forensic Science and many continue today to refine and develop methods to examine evidence and crime scenes.  While Forensic Science actually began long ago, modern Forensic Science has made great use of technology to take the foundational knowledge of the forefathers to a new level.  Today's crime lab still uses microscopes, fingerprinting and some anthropometric measurements, but technology has improved both the equipment and knowledge base of those working within the lab.

In addition to the contributions of these individuals, there have been several court cases that have shaped the way forensic evidence is collected and admitted into court.  Specifically there are two landmark cases that all forensic scientists and criminalists need to be aware of.

The Frye Standard

The Frye Standard arose from the court decision, Frye v. United States, in 1923.   Frye v. United States was a court case involving a man named John Frye who was charged with murder.   An expert witness claimed that he could tell that the defendant, Mr. Frye, was not telling the truth by detecting increases in Mr. Frye's blood pressure as he was asked questions.   The questionable reliability and admissibility of this simplistic polygraph test brought the need to create a standard by which scientific evidence could be more reliably judged to the forefront of legal ruminations.

To date, the Frye Standard pertains to the admissibility of scientific examinations and experiments in legal proceedings. To meet the Frye Standard, the data that is collected from specific types of evidence must be reliable and reproducible under the same circumstances and be generally accepted by the scientific community. For example, methods used for testing blood alcohol levels are admissible under the Frye Standard, however, polygraph tests (also know as "lie detector" tests) are not "routinely" admissible in court because these tests have not proven to be scientifically reliable.   In other words, people have been known to "beat" the polygraph.   Some states still use the Frye Standard to judge admissibility of evidence, but most states have changed and follow an update to the Frye Standard known as the Daubert Ruling.

The Daubert Ruling

The Daubert Ruling arose from the 1993 court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Jason Daubert and a co-plaintiff, Eric Schuller, were born with significant birth defects that they claimed were caused by a drug their mothers had been prescribed in pregnancy known as Bendectin.   Bendectin was a drug often prescribed for nausea and vomiting from morning sickness during pregnancy and was made up of a combination of an antihistamine and vitamin B6. The expert witness from the trial was an obstetrician from Australia named William McBride. Dr. McBride claimed that Bendectin caused multiple serious birth defects such as limb and skeletal malformations, brain damage, and cancer among several other impairments and illnesses. The testimony and data he presented in the trial were examined by independent sources and found to be falsified. Co-authors of his research came forward announcing that they had knowledge that McBride had falsified the study findings he was presenting as well. William McBride was found guilty of scientific fraud and stripped of his medical license in Australia as his testimony was found to be mostly supported by his own falsified scientific data.   The drug has been tested extensively since the Daubert ruling and no harmful effects on a developing embryo have been demonstrated in connection with it. Bendectin was approved by the FDA in April 2013 and is now back on the market under the new name, Diclegis. Incidentally, it has the FDA's safest drug rating for use in pregnancy known as "Category A".

The Daubert Ruling is essentially a revision of the Frye Standard where expert scientific evidence is being presented. The courts wanted to prevent the same issues found in the Daubert case with expert witnesses presenting questionable findings. Thus, the Daubert Ruling requires more rigorous application of the scientific method including hypothesis testing, estimates of error rates, peer-reviewed publication, and general acceptance. Most states have adopted the Daubert Ruling over the Frye Standard, though some have their own evidence admissibility requirements. 

Georgia Virtual, Introduction to Forensic Science and Criminal Justice, CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Timeline

Many people have contributed to forensic science by publishing their findings and developing techniques. Some of the earliest known instances of forensic science date back to the 1200's, but forensic science wasn't routinely used until the late 1800's. Click on the link below and read through the timeline of the history of forensic science. 

History of Forensic Science Timeline