Forensic commentary series: Hypothesis testing in law and forensic science: A memorandum

David Harris Kaye

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This Forum Commentary series presents views on a letter from a group of lawyers and judges advising the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC).1 In response to calls for improving the practices of forensic science,2 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) created the Scientific Area Committees in 2014 to promote and develop standards “that are fit-forpurpose and based on sound scientific principles.”3 The memorandum from the Legal Resource Committee (LRC)4 responds to a question from a scientist on OSAC’s governing board about whether the criminal law’s concern with avoiding false convictions at the expense of false acquittals should affect the choice of a “significance level” for deciding whether pieces of glass match in their chemical composition (and hence might have a common origin). Must a criminalist favor the hypothesis that similarities are coincidental over the hypothesis that the fragments have a common origin? The underlying issue applies to many forms of identification evidence, including fingerprints, fibers, paint chips, bullets, and biological fluids. Indeed, arguments over the choice of a significance level arise for statistical evidence of all sorts, from econometrics to epidemiology. 5

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)127-136
Number of pages10
JournalHarvard Law Review
Volume130
Issue number5
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

memorandum
hypothesis testing
governing board
Law
criminal law
epidemiology
science
lawyer
econometrics
evidence
organization
resources
Group

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Law

Cite this

@article{768caa9592ba4ec8a7a9c40a8488c6c9,
title = "Forensic commentary series: Hypothesis testing in law and forensic science: A memorandum",
abstract = "This Forum Commentary series presents views on a letter from a group of lawyers and judges advising the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC).1 In response to calls for improving the practices of forensic science,2 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) created the Scientific Area Committees in 2014 to promote and develop standards “that are fit-forpurpose and based on sound scientific principles.”3 The memorandum from the Legal Resource Committee (LRC)4 responds to a question from a scientist on OSAC’s governing board about whether the criminal law’s concern with avoiding false convictions at the expense of false acquittals should affect the choice of a “significance level” for deciding whether pieces of glass match in their chemical composition (and hence might have a common origin). Must a criminalist favor the hypothesis that similarities are coincidental over the hypothesis that the fragments have a common origin? The underlying issue applies to many forms of identification evidence, including fingerprints, fibers, paint chips, bullets, and biological fluids. Indeed, arguments over the choice of a significance level arise for statistical evidence of all sorts, from econometrics to epidemiology. 5",
author = "Kaye, {David Harris}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "130",
pages = "127--136",
journal = "Harvard Law Review",
issn = "0017-811X",
publisher = "Harvard Law Review Association",
number = "5",

}

Forensic commentary series : Hypothesis testing in law and forensic science: A memorandum. / Kaye, David Harris.

In: Harvard Law Review, Vol. 130, No. 5, 01.01.2017, p. 127-136.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Forensic commentary series

T2 - Hypothesis testing in law and forensic science: A memorandum

AU - Kaye, David Harris

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - This Forum Commentary series presents views on a letter from a group of lawyers and judges advising the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC).1 In response to calls for improving the practices of forensic science,2 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) created the Scientific Area Committees in 2014 to promote and develop standards “that are fit-forpurpose and based on sound scientific principles.”3 The memorandum from the Legal Resource Committee (LRC)4 responds to a question from a scientist on OSAC’s governing board about whether the criminal law’s concern with avoiding false convictions at the expense of false acquittals should affect the choice of a “significance level” for deciding whether pieces of glass match in their chemical composition (and hence might have a common origin). Must a criminalist favor the hypothesis that similarities are coincidental over the hypothesis that the fragments have a common origin? The underlying issue applies to many forms of identification evidence, including fingerprints, fibers, paint chips, bullets, and biological fluids. Indeed, arguments over the choice of a significance level arise for statistical evidence of all sorts, from econometrics to epidemiology. 5

AB - This Forum Commentary series presents views on a letter from a group of lawyers and judges advising the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC).1 In response to calls for improving the practices of forensic science,2 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) created the Scientific Area Committees in 2014 to promote and develop standards “that are fit-forpurpose and based on sound scientific principles.”3 The memorandum from the Legal Resource Committee (LRC)4 responds to a question from a scientist on OSAC’s governing board about whether the criminal law’s concern with avoiding false convictions at the expense of false acquittals should affect the choice of a “significance level” for deciding whether pieces of glass match in their chemical composition (and hence might have a common origin). Must a criminalist favor the hypothesis that similarities are coincidental over the hypothesis that the fragments have a common origin? The underlying issue applies to many forms of identification evidence, including fingerprints, fibers, paint chips, bullets, and biological fluids. Indeed, arguments over the choice of a significance level arise for statistical evidence of all sorts, from econometrics to epidemiology. 5

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015079454&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85015079454&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85015079454

VL - 130

SP - 127

EP - 136

JO - Harvard Law Review

JF - Harvard Law Review

SN - 0017-811X

IS - 5

ER -