[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-500298-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-500298-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","analysis-of-september-19-2016-pcast-report-forensic-science-in-criminal-courts-ensuring-scientific-validity-of-feature-comparison-methods-september-23-2016","ANALYSIS OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 PCAST REPORT - “FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL COURTS: ENSURING SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF FEATURE-COMPARISON METHODS” - September 23, 2016","","A legal-technical analysis reviews the September 19, 2016 PCAST report titled “Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods.” The document outlines PCAST members’ qualifications and examines how prior forensic-admissibility debates have played out, focusing on feature-comparison validity and the implications for evidence admissibility. It discusses relevant case law, including scrutiny of DNA evidence admissibility, and summarizes critiques from appellate courts and the need for scientific rigor and transparent validation methods.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/analysis-of-september-19-2016-pcast-report-forensic-science-in-criminal-courts-ensuring-scientific-validity-of-feature-comparison-methods-september-23-2016/500298/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/analysis-of-september-19-2016-pcast-report-forensic-science-in-criminal-courts-ensuring-scientific-validity-of-feature-comparison-methods-september-23-2016/500298.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Genevieve","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-16","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the core focus of the analyzed PCAST report?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The analysis centers on the scientific validity of feature-comparison methods used in forensic science within criminal courts and how those methods should be ensured for admissibility.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the document describe PCAST members’ qualifications?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It notes that all PCAST members are scientists, but only one has practiced forensic science, while several members have previously argued for major reforms to how forensic evidence is deemed admissible.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Which case is used to illustrate DNA evidence admissibility concerns?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The document discusses the Joseph Castro prosecution, focusing on a suppression of DNA evidence and how appellate decisions criticized or evaluated the admissibility framework.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},500298,1791064202,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},1374391974585,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Amy Ely's response to PCAST  \nFrom:  \nTo:  \nDate:  \nAttachment  \nKristine Hamann \u003C(b) (6) @[pceinc.org](pceinc.org)>\"Hunt, Ted (ODAG)\" \u003C(b) (6) > Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:45:09-0400 20160923 Memo re PCAST Report NAAG  \nAmy Ely pdf (234 86 kB)  \nHi Ted,  \nHere is Amy’s response to the PCAST report. She has not widely disseminated it, but she has made it available to prosecutors.  \nI look forward to seeing you in DC.  \nBest,  \nKris  \n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Attorney Work Product* * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * *  \nANALYSIS OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 PCAST REPORT: “FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL COURTS: ENSURING SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF FEATURE-COMPARISON METHODS”  \nSeptember 23, 2016  \nBy Amie Ely, National Association of Attorneys General,  \nDirector of NAGTRI Center for Ethics & Public Integrity  \nI. PCAST Members and Senior Advisors  \nThe President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) refers to itself as “the leading external scientific advisory body established by the Executive Branch.”“Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods”(herein “Report”), released September 19, 2016, at 144.  \nAll of the 19 Members of PCAST are scientists. Only one has practiced forensic science. 1 Members’ areas of expertise range from mathematics and genome research, to physics and computer engineering, to aerospace and environmental change. Despite this lack of training and experience, at least five Members have previously spoken about or written on the need for radical overhaul of the current judicial approach to forensic evidence admissibility.  \nEric S. Lander, Co-Chair of the Council, is a mathematician and researcher in genome biology. Lander is the only PCAST Member to have served as an expert witness in forensics, ashe has testified on behalf criminal defendants in the past.  \nIn a case that began his long relationship with the Innocence Project, Lander testified, as one of several defense experts, regarding the admissibility of DNA evidence in the prosecution of Joseph Castro, who was charged with murdering a pregnant woman named Vilma Ponce and her 2-year old daughter. See, e.g., People v. Castro, 544 N.Y.S.2d 985, 985, 989 (Bronx S. Ct. 1989) . A small bloodstain, which prosecution experts were prepared to testify came from Ms. Ponce, was found on Castro’s watch. After a lengthy hearing, Bronx Supreme Court Judge Gerald Scheindlin suppressed the DNA evidence and announced a new legal test for admissibility of DNA evidence. This decision was inconsistent with several other decisions admitting similar DNA evidence—one of which was later affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals in a decision that rebuked the Castro case. People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417, 436 n.2 (NY 1994) (“We disagree with the conclusion of the court in People v. Castro”).2  \n1 One other Member, S. James Gates, Jr., is a staff member of the National Commission on Forensic Science, which was established by the DOJ in 2013. Gates is a theoretical physicist who studies string theory. His 101-page C.V. reveals no familiarity with—or even interest in—any areas of forensic science. See Curriculum Vitea: Sylvester James Gates, Jr., available at [http://www.umdphysics.umd.edu/images/CV/gates_cv.pdf](http://www.umdphysics.umd.edu/images/CV/gates_cv.pdf).  \n2 In an interesting footnote to the Castro case: Joseph Castro pled guilty about a month after the DNA evidence was suppressed, and admitted that the blood on his watch did, indeed, belong to the woman he stabbed to death. See “DNA Forensic Testing Industry Faces Challenges to Credibility,” The Scientist, Nov. 1989, available at [http://www.the](http://www.the)[scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/10722/title/DNA-Forensic-Testing-Industry-Faces](scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/10722/title/DNA-Forensic-Testing-Industry-Faces)Challenge-To-Credibility/ .  \n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Attorney Work Product* * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * *  \nThe a","cbCaivPoPTgmRg8X","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivPoPTgmRg8X","pdf",7502213,104,"English","# ANALYSIS OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 PCAST REPORT: “FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL COURTS: ENSURING SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF FEATURE-COMPARISON METHODS”\n## PCAST Members and Senior Advisors","[{\"question\":\"What is the core focus of the analyzed PCAST report?\",\"answer\":\"The analysis centers on the scientific validity of feature-comparison methods used in forensic science within criminal courts and how those methods should be ensured for admissibility.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the document describe PCAST members’ qualifications?\",\"answer\":\"It notes that all PCAST members are scientists, but only one has practiced forensic science, while several members have previously argued for major reforms to how forensic evidence is deemed admissible.\"},{\"question\":\"Which case is used to illustrate DNA evidence admissibility concerns?\",\"answer\":\"The document discusses the Joseph Castro prosecution, focusing on a suppression of DNA evidence and how appellate decisions criticized or evaluated the admissibility framework.\"}]","ANALYSIS OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 PCAST REPORT - “FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL COURTS: ENSURING SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF FEATURE-COMPARISON METHODS” - September 23, 2016 | PDF",1791010178,262]