Source: http://digital.forensicmag.com/forensics/september_2017?pg=15
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:32:23+00:00

Document:
The Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause are emerging as sources of regulation to increase the reliability and validity of scientific evidence and competency of counsel. The courts have sought to create workable standards to assist litigators in admitting and using forensic sciences during trial. A constitutional difference exists between admitting the expert’s opinion and using the expert to introduce the underlying report from a third party as a basis to form an opinion. 4 Furthermore, use of false evidence, debunked sciences, or repudiated expert witness opinions is a basis for challenging a conviction through a writ of habeas corpus and new trial. 5 Rules governing expert witness qualifications, however, lack specificity and discernable standards despite the courts’ attempt to stay current with the rapid advancements in forensic science.
Developments in forensic science have prompted the Supreme Court to issue decisions increasing counsel’s duty to competently litigate forensic science evidence. The standard for effective attorney representation is whether the performance was deficient, and errors existed depriving a person of fair trial (e.g., but for the attorney’s conduct, there would be a different result). 6 This obligation requires a working knowledge of forensic science. Attorneys still lack a fundamental understanding of scientific issues, which impedes effective and competent representation. The inability of counsel to adequately vet scientific evidence through cross-examination has led courts to place considerable dependence on sound laboratory techniques, careful litigation, complete disclosure of scientific procedures, scientific methodologies, and the limitations of forensic evidence. Most of these decisions are made at the trial court level on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, the “courts continue to rely on forensic evidence without fully understanding and addressing the limitations of different forensic science disciplines,” as stated in the NAS report.
2. Sunita Sah, Arturo Casadevall, Suzanne Bell et al, We Must Strengthen the “Science” In Forensic Science, Scientific American, May 8, 2017.
3. Kennedy, Stare Decisis Is Not Scientific, The Sci Tech Lawyer, supra.
4. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004); Me-lendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009); Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011); Williams v. Illinois, 564 U.S. 50 (2012).
5. Calif. Penal Code, Title 12, Chpt. 1, Sect. 1473 Writ of Habeas Corpus, eff. Jan. 1, 2015 (2016); Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chpt. 11, Art. 11.073, eff. Sept. 1, 2013 (2016) Habeas - Procedures related to certain scientific evidence (The Junk Science Writ).
6. The right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1994); Maryland v. Kulbicki, 136 S.Ct. 2, 577 U.S. _ (2015).
This article is adapted from Natalie Arvizu and Gil Sapir, Constitutional Requirement To Litigate Scientific Evidence, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Proceedings, Vol. 23, p. 834 (2017).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 11
 v. 
 v.