There have been 261 post-conviction DNA exonerations since 1989, which devastated the criminal justice system in the Unites States. As a result, there have been many efforts to identify causes of wrongful convictions. One main cause for wrongful convictions is related to the limitations and problems of forensic science evidence. This paper introduced wrongful conviction cases cause by forensic science evidence in order to illustrate and identify which factors within the criminal justice system contributed to wrongful conviction in the United States, Canada, England, and Australia. Research and examination of wrongful conviction cases identified three major obstacles regarding forensic science evidence. First, many forensic testing methods lack scientifically acceptable standards. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research, other forensic disciplines were developed to be used as tools to solve crime. Thus, some testing methods have little or lack scientific validation or uation of testing reliability. Second, there is a number of wrongful conviction cases caused by forensic misconduct. Some forensic analysts made serious mistakes, fabricated results, reported results without conducting tests, or concealed parts of test results that were supportive of defendants' innocence. Third, there is a number of wrongful conviction cases caused by improper forensic testimony. Some forensic analysts provided non-probative evidence presented as probative, discounted exculpatory evidence presented inaccurate frequency or statistic, provided statistic without empirical support and provided non-numerical statistics without empirical support.
In order to minimize wrongful conviction cases due to forensic science evidence, the U. S. government passed the law, which requires federally funded forensic facilities to develop an independent auditing organization to conduct investigations about allegations of misconduct and negligence by forensic analysts and to develop such procedure. However, many states failed to comply with the oversight requirement.
Because the U. S. Congress recognized significant necessity for improving forensic science disciplines, National Research Council of National Academy of Science published a comprehensive recommendation in order to strengthening forensic science evidence in the criminal justice system. In order to establish the quality standards and to monitor forensic science services for criminal justice system in England, the Home Office organized a number of Forensic Science Regulator groups to provide independent advice on specific areas of forensic discipline and to conduct research on forensic science technology.
Expert testimony is intended to assist the trier of fact in understanding certain type of evidence. Thus, the trier of fact is more likely to encounter "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" in order to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In other words, forensic science evidence analysts are more likely to provide testimony in court as expert witnesses. There is a number of empirical research on general perceptions of forensic science evidence and the effects of forensic science evidence on legal decision making. Previous research on the effects of DNA evidence on legal decision making indicated that jurors generally perceive that scientific evidence analysis result is always accurate and flawless. Furthermore, many research suggested that DNA expert testimony significantly influence guilt judgment and the effect is not diminished when limitations of DNA evidence is presented through cross-examination and opposing expert testimony. Further, previous research findings suggested that jurors generally do not understand scientific expert testimony.
Nevertheless, survey research on how legal practitioners and lay persons perceive forensic science evidence is rare and there is no empirical research examined the effects of forensic science evidence on legal decision making in Korea. Therefore, conducting a survey research to uate the perception of forensic science evidence and an empirical research on the effects of forensic science evidence in legal decision making are inevitable and essential in Korea.
The current study investigated how legal practitioners, such as prosecutors and lawyers as well as lay persons perceive reliability of forensic science evidence in different areas. Moreover, empirically examined how DNA, fingerprints, and fiber evidence presented as prosecution expert testimony influence legal decisions. Also, the study empirically analysed the effects of cross-examination and opposing expert testimony on legal decisions by examining whether limitations and problems of forensic evidence presented by prosecution can be effectively exposed and thus, educate the trier of fact about the evidence.
The current study results indicated that prosecutors, lawyers, and lay persons generally perceived that DNA evidence, fingerprints, digital picture enhancement are highly reliable, but testimony by police, eyewitness identification, and testimony by victim are least reliable. Although prosecutors, lawyers, and lay persons perceived that DNA evidence as most reliable, DNA evidence did not influence the guilt judgment of the defendant. When DNA expert testimony by prosecution was provided, participants were more likely to produce guilty verdict compared to when only circumstantial evidence was presented. It is interesting to note that cross-examination was not effective tool to educate jurors on the limitations of DNA evidence but opposing expert testimony by defense effectively provide information regarding the problems and limitations of DNA evidence, which forced participants to critically uate the DNA evidence and as a result, reduced the probability of producing guilty verdict. Furthermore, prosecutors were more likely to feel confident about their verdict and perceived that it was easy to decide the verdict than lawyers and lay persons. Prosecutors also perceived that enough evidence was presented, evidence was clearly presented, and prosecution's evidence was more persuasive, the trial was less complex, felt less sympathy toward the defendant and testimony or evidence from the defense was less persuasive than lawyers and lay persons.
Prosecutors, lawyers, and lay persons perceived fingerprint evidence as highly reliable, come after DNA evidence, but it did not influence the legal decisions. There was no difference in guilty verdict rate whether circumstantial evidence was provided, fingerprint expert testimony by prosecution was provided, cross-examination was provided, and opposing fingerprint expert testimony by defense was provided. However, when perceived reliability of fingerprint expert is high, participants showed a tendency to produce more guilty verdicts and more likely to be certain about their verdict.
It is also more likely that participants produced more guilty verdict when perceived reliability of fiber evidence is high. When fiber expert testimony by prosecution and when cross-examination was provided, there was no difference in guilty verdict. However, participants produced more not guilty verdict when opposing fiber expert testimony by defense was provided.
Therefore, it is important to provide opposing forensic expert testimony to educate the trier of fact about the limitations and weaknesses of forensic science evidence provided by prosecution. Because forensic evidence in Korean court is not uated whether analysis results and/or expert testimony was accurate and adequate, opposing expert testimony is the best way to provide opportunity to the trier of fact to make reliable and fair legal decisions.
Korean society demands better criminal investigation techniques and abilities as heinous crimes such as serial homicide and child molestation have baffled the public. Furthermore, the judicial reform such as court-oriented trials and jury system is challenging the longstanding criminal investigation methods which heavily relies upon verbal evidence. Under the ongoing changes in the criminal procedure, scientific evidence becomes more important to uncover factual truth. Thus, greater attention is paid upon a variety of activities performed by patrol officers and crime scene investigators at crime scenes including initial response, crime scene control, ation, evidence collection, and evidence preservation. The current study attempts to suggest effective and practical guidelines for better crime scene investigation.
Forensic science means scientific knowledge applied to uncover factual truth in the criminal procedure. For example, medical knowledge helps the police to reveal the cause of death by identifying bloodstains through chemical reactions. Forensic evidence means all kinds of physical evidence collected by applying forensic science.
To ensure the admissibility of evidence, the police should confirm the procedural integrity of the evidence by showing that the physical evidence is collected at the crime scene, that the evidence is relevant to the crime at issue, and that no fabrication or contamination has occurred from the crime scene to the court. Given that various participants get involved, however, there is likelihood that forensic evidence may be damaged or contaminated. In this sense, securing and ing the crime scene should be given the first priority among various crime scene activities. Since the collection of evidence entails a move of the evidence from the original location, some changes at the crime scene are unavoidable. Thus, it is very important to photograph or sketch the scene. Also the chain of custody should be maintained during evidence collection, preservation, and transportation.
In the case study, criminal cases of Korea and the U.S. are analyzed to investigate how forensic evidence was damaged in the process of collection and what impact the damage had upon the overall criminal investigation. For example, in the O.J. Simson murder case, most forensic evidence against the defendant was not accepted by the jury because the police failed to maintain the procedural integrity of the collected evidence. The case study also shows several homicide cases which went unsolved mainly due to the failure to ensure security at the crime scene and the errors that occurred in the process of evidence collection. Despite both the Korean police and the American police experienced similar problems, the responses are much different. While the American police have made great efforts to correct the problems by making specific guidelines for crime scene participants and providing regular training and education, the Korean police still rely upon crime scene investigators' individual capabilities rather than any principles or rules that govern the process of evidence collection and preservation.
Surveys were conducted with patrol officers and crime scene investigators in order to understand their crime scene activities and their perceptions regarding forensic science. In addition an participatory observation was conducted to investigate the reality of crime scene investigation. The study outcomes revealed that patrol officers were not fully aware of the safety procedures that they were required to follow to secure the crime scene. In terms of controlling persons at the scene, although patrol officer were successful in controlling civilians, they were limited with controlling movements of police officers not working the case, media, and emergency medical personnel. Inadequate training was found to be relevant to the patrol officers' lack of knowledge regarding crime scene activities.
The survey with crime scene investigators also revealed that they did not observe the protocols to maintain the chain of custody for collected evidence. The majority of respondents pointed out more human resources and budget to improve forensic science. Unlike the findings in the survey with patrol officers, the forensic science training provided by police training institutions did not produce meaningful differences for crime scene investigators in their crime scene activities. This finding suggests that the effectiveness of those training programs be reconsidered.
The in-depth interview with two forensic scientists highlighted the importance of a specialized training and eduction to improve the procedure of evidence collection. Despite the recent improvement in the abilities of crime scene investigators through training and eduction, high-ranking officers who direct at crime scenes often do not have adequate understanding about crime scenes. Thus, regardless of rank, all the officers who may participate in crime scene investigation must receive adequate training and eduction. The interviewees also suggested that standardized evidence collection kits should be utilized to avoid individual effects by a person who collects the evidence.
The duties of responding officers include securing the scene, performing emergency care, and ing the scene. The responding officer must understand that any person who gets involved with a crime scene bears risk to cause damage and contamination to the scene. Therefore, the responding officer's efforts to secure and control the crime scene are fundamental to determine the quality of criminal investigation. Crime scene investigators must gather all available information prior to arriving at the scene. They must the scene with photographs and sketches before collecting the evidence. Nextly, crime scene investigators must utilized the most adequate method for collecting and preserving evidence depending on the type of evidence, and maintain the chain of custody by keeping the record of the entire evidence collection process.
One of the key points in crime scene investigation is to ensure the procedural integrity by maintaining and ing the chronological history of the evidence. Damage to the evidence most frequently occurs during the transition between the crime scene and the laboratory. Currently, the Korean police are considering to build an evidence laboratory for each provincial police agency and adopt bar-code system to ensure the chain of custody for forensic evidence. However, the chain of custody should be maintained from the moment of collection at the crime scene to the moment of presentation at the court to avoid evidentiary issues. In practice, both handwriting and bar-code should be utilized when sealing the envelope to establish the chain of custody.
Expert testimony is intended to assist the trier of fact in understanding certain type of evidence and the admissibility of expert evidence is determined by the trial judge. The admissibility standards for expert witness exist in the United States, but Korean legal system do not have structural standards or explicit rules for uating the admissibility of scientific evidence or expert testimony. Frye test, Daubert criteria, and McCormic test are used to determine the admissibility of evidence in US courts. In order for evidence to be admissible, the evidence should be reliable and relevant. In order to examine the reliability of the evidence, three criteria must be met: the validity of the underlying theory, the validity of the technique apply that theory, and the proper application of the technique on a particular occasion.
Since Korea introduced adversarial procedures, education and training of forensic science professionals is in great need because of the pivotal role it plays as examiner and provider of crucial evidence in the judicial process. In order to identify the drawbacks of the current system, duties and qualifications of analysts and technicians, as well as accreditation systems of forensic science laboratories of other countries were studied and compared.
Current issues of forensic science were examined to provide a number of possible remedies to current problems. It was observed that in the aspect of forensic science service for criminal investigation, there has been an increase in use of forensic science service by Korea’s police, prosecution, and army. However, there is an obvious insufficiency of forensic science professionals to meet the increasing demand. Other issues also include lack of laboratory development and forensic science education system.
Currently in Korea, forensic science courses are only offered as optional electives in medical schools and law schools. On the other hand, other countries such as the United States, the Great Britain, Australia, and Japan not only have variety of established undergraduate programs in forensic science, but there are also training programs provided by governmental institutions. Moreover, Canadian universities and community colleges also offer forensic science education programs for certifications, and carry out training programs for law enforcement officers.
One of the major reason for such lack of infrastructure for forensic science in Korea is that forensic science research and investigation are mainly based on government funding since the main duty is to provide analysis and identification services for the judiciary.
Even if the funding is supported by the central government like Japan, laboratories built in provinces should receive some financial aid from the local government. National forensic laboratories can assist in unification for the support in increase of forensic science personnel, funding, and establishment of laboratories. Therefore the head of these nstitutes should be allowed for more exercise of discretion to aid growth of infrastructure of forensic science employment.
Another way to increase Korea’s forensic science infrastructure is to provide protection of forensic science professionals and forensic science/investigation supportive institutions by law. There should be clearly set standards and regulations for the qualification of forensic science professionals, and investigation process.
In measures to seek securing of forensic science infrastructure along with relieving the supply and demand stress of number of forensic science professionals, the precondition of providing sufficient employment organization must be met. Furthermore, qualification standards should follow the footsteps of the advanced countries. Universities shall establish forensic science programs to produce forensic scientists with bachelor’s, master’s, and doctor’s degree. Forensic science professional certification process also should be considered.
In 2010, Korea’s National Forensic Service (NFS), forensic scientist accreditation system was initiated. NFS is taking the lead in system reform reinforcing duty ability, which has improved analysis ability and reestablishment of credibility. Retraining researchers and analysts also played a large role. Not only does this reinforcement should be for forensic science related personnel for professional improvement, but legal personnel that use forensic science service should be reeducated and retrained also. Education format should be set to be used constantly as a training program. Therefore instructor qualification, student requirement, performance goal achievement, and qualification test should be required, and each process should compose of core element and training element.
Above all, the process of hiring a forensic scientist should not only review educational degree, but background check and other various types of tests. In addition, for duty efficiency, there should be a systematic way of uating one’s technical skills.
For the cultivation of these individuals, undergraduate forensic science degree program should be established. Undergraduate programs should provide students with opportunities to learn upper level science courses through specific science degree programs, exposure to hands-on laboratory environment through internships, and learning opportunities to understand how to apply forensic analysis to criminal justice system through hands-on crime scene experience. In graduate program, there should be active research participation of both faculty members and students. Furthermore, professional training like medical residency should be established. This type of program allows graduate students to experience real-life professional forensic science. Therefore there should be cooperative sponsorship by forensic science institutes.
Based on the described contents, I present the following Forensic Science Professional Cultivation Plan. First, the number of forensic science laboratory in Korea is significantly insufficient compared to other advanced countries. The ratio of professional analyst to population is between 1 to 10 and 1 to 20, which needs revolutionary increase in number of personnel.
Secondly, there is need of establishing forensic science degree program in undergraduate universities and/or installing accredited program in forensic science institutions. Recently, Kosin University introduced forensic biology as a major choice. Kyonggi University and Chungnam University are preparing to initiate criminal psychology major and forensic science degree program, respectively. Following these precedents, expansion of forensic science degree program at universities, and establishment of forensic science integrated program in collaboration of NFS and police administration degree program may be considered.
Lastly, for reeducation of existing personnel and continuing professional education plans, education/training program should be installed at forensic science institutions. Education institute should provide education infrastructure and theoretical foundation whereas the working group shall provide work experience and potential learners to revive forensic science education.

Key Words : Forensic Science, Forensic Science Expert, Criminal Investigation, Perceptions, Expert Testimony, Probative Value, Admissibility, Training and Education, Manual