Page 27 - Delaware Lawyer - Spring 2022

cial/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsCon- tribFactorsByCrime.aspx (last visited Mar. 20, 2022)
4. National Academies Of Science, Strengthening Forensic Science In The United States: A Path Forward (2009) at S-5. The NAS is our nation’s preeminent scientific organization and it was commis- sioned by Congress to study the forensic sciences and issue this report.
5. Executive Office Of The President, Forensic Science In Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity Of Feature- Comparison Methods (2016).
6. Id. at 42.
7. Meghan J. Ryan, Escaping the Fin-
gerprint Crisis: A Blueprint for Essential Research, Vol. 2020, U. ILL. L. REV. 101, 141-42.
8. The National Registry Of Exon- erations, https://www.law.umich.edu/ special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail. aspx?caseid=3318 (last visited Mar. 20, 2022).
9. Executive Office Of The President, Forensic Science In Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity Of Feature- Comparison Methods (2016) at 121. 10. National Academies Of Science, Strengthening Forensic Science In The
United States: A Path Forward (2009) at 161.
11. See e.g., Jones v. United States, 202 A.3d 1154, 1162 (D.C. 2019)
12. See e.g., Letters from United States Department of Justice to the Delaware At- torney General regarding State v. Daniels and State v. Wicks, on file with authors. 13. The National Registry Of Exon- erations, https://www.law.umich.edu/ special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail. aspx?caseid=5470 (last visited Mar. 20, 2022).
14. National Academies Of Science, Strengthening Forensic Science In The Unit- ed States: A Path Forward (2009) at 50.
15. Executive Office Of The President, Forensic Science In Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity Of Feature- Comparison Methods (2016) at 112. Katie Kronick, Forensic Science and the Judicial Conformity Problem, 51 Seton Hall L.rev. 589, 597-602 (2021). See generally Erwin J.A.T. Mattijssen, Interpol Review of Fo- rensic Firearm Examination 2016-2019, Forensic Science International: Synergy, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2589871X20300085 (sur- veying and summarizing recent studies
on the reliability of firearm and toolmark
analysis).
16. See National Academies Of Science, Strengthening Forensic Science In The United States: A Path Forward (2009); Executive Office Of The President, Foren- sic Science In Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity Of Feature-Comparison Methods (2016).
17. See Pamela Colloff, Blood Will Tell Part I, May 31, 2018, New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/interac- tive/2018/05/23/magazine/joe-bryan- blood-forensics-murder.html.
18. Itiel E. Dror, David Charlton &
Ailsa E. Peron, Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications. Forensic Sci- ence International 156(1):74-78 (2006) (describing study showing that fingerprint identification conclusions are “vulnerable to irrelevant and misleading contextual
inf luences”).
19. See Itiel Dror, Judy Melinek, et. al. Cognitive Bias in Forensic Pathology De- cision, J. Of Forensic Sciences, Feb. 20, 2021, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.14697.
20. See Id.
SPRING 2022 DELAWARE LAWYER 25