Enabling Trust in Forensic Evidence: Role of Standardisation

Introduction

Standardisation of forensic evidence remains a perpetual issue, since forensic sciences were mostly raised, if not always born, in the realm of police to broadly aiding law enforcers for individualisation and human identification.¹ However, forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiling was an exception because this gene technology was invented purely in scientific settings and later evolved for assisting courts for adjudication. Earlier, the forensic experts were mainly from law enforcement professions and were often without formal scientific education or specialised training. The expert opinions were largely presumed to be scientific and were suffering from overstated claims mostly supporting the prosecution story. The forensic reports were regularly accepted in the court without adversarial challenge or rigorous scrutiny, primarily because the legal fraternity including Judges were not well conversant with science and laboratory procedures. This fact of deficiency of scientific knowledge was reflected in Frye standard², where in 1923, the US Supreme Court accepted polygraph tests based on “general acceptance by the scientific community” rule for admissibility of scientific report as evidence. Several glaring cases of deficient forensic evidence-based adjudication was exposed revealing the gross miscarriage of justice.³ Thus, standardisation of techniques and procedures involved in forensic reporting became prerequisite for admissibility mainly during fourth quarter of the twentieth century. This article navigates the background of expert testimony and its inherent challenges. Further, this article explores standardisation mechanisms for both technologies and procedures involved in the evaluation of expert opinion to evaluate reliability and admissibility in the courtroom.

Need for standardisation in forensic processes and expert testimony

Forensic evidence plays a crucial role in enhancing trust in the legal system through scientific validation; however, it is essential to distinguish between legitimate science and flawed science.⁴ Justice Weinstein of the US Supreme Court has rightly noted that “… Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it”.⁵ Indeed, the scientific outlook in forensic reporting process faces two broad challenges: (i) general resistance to change in the forensic community; and (ii) the scientific community has to accept the fact that forensic science is not merely the application of other sciences, but it needs intellectual development, customisation and validation as a unique domain. For the holistic advancement of forensic science, emphasis on scientific rigour and assessment is a necessity in addition to quality management of techniques and processes. “To be acceptable, the forensic science must be as good as it can be, our explanation must be understandable, and our process must be convincing. Forensic evidence enables the scientific enlightenment to the law; however, one must differentiate between science and flawed science” says David Stoney, a leading forensic expert at Stoney Forensic, Clifton, Virginia, USA.⁶

The major challenge in expert opinion is to transform personal opinion to scientific statement with a reasonable degree of certainty.⁷ The challenge of admissibility of forensic evidence has succinctly been reported by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), “Forensic science professionals have yet to establish either the validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions, and the courts have been utterly ineffective in addressing this problem.”⁸ The framework of “trusting the examiner” must give away to one that “trust the empirical science”. The scientific reinvention of the forensic science is a progressive but continuous process. In fact, forensic science is continually evolving to establish its own intellectual foundation. An emphasis has been laid to build a robust process of standardisation for demonstrating science behind forensic evidence.

Background of standardisation in forensic science

The discovery of DNA evidence sparked an intense debate in the legal profession and courtroom, particularly during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Initially many Judges excluded DNA evidence on the basis that it had not undergone the rigorous vetting by the broader scientific community, as required by Frye case⁹ standard. However, after further, in-depth legal scrutiny in People v. Castro¹⁰, DNA was accepted as potent evidence for human identification. In addition to the comprehensive and varied factors responsible for limiting scope of Frye case¹¹, post-DNA legal scrutiny in the courts, probably compelled the US Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.¹² to take over responsibility for admissibility determination of forensic evidence, and role of the Court as “gatekeeper” was conceptualised and introduced. Ultimately Daubert¹³ standard may be considered more rigorous, since it necessitates evaluation of testing rather than consensus based on third-party assessment by scientific community for “general acceptance”.¹⁴ Further, two reports issued by the National Academy of Science in the United States¹⁵, initiated regular dialogue amongst interdisciplinary experts, and critical academic writings for focusing on scientific validity of forensic evidence. In addition to Daubert¹⁶, the US Federal Supreme Court decided two more cases,¹⁷ popularly clubbed as the “Daubert trilogy”, which paved the way for setting admissibility standards for forensic evidence. Recently in 2024, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States has released a landmark report on research and standards for forensic science, which deals with identifying most pressing needs and challenges faced by criminal justice system.¹⁸

The forensic experts mostly tender testimony in the courtroom as prosecution witnesses, hence the defence also raising eyebrow for their alleged neutrality due to “adversarial allegiance” or “myside bias”.¹⁹ Forensic misconduct, individualisation, and different types of biases including cognitive, perceptual, confirmatory or motivational biases are well-known for miscarriage of justice.²⁰ Boasting and exaggeration of accuracy of results by forensic expert claiming 100% certainty and 0% error rate in their opinion is yet another fallacy to address.²¹ Interestingly, disclosure of error rate by the forensic expert is essential under the five necessities for compliance of Daubert²² standard.

During 21st century, legitimate open question incessantly challenging the system, how to make forensic sciences “scientific” in order to fortify admissibility in the courtroom, has been addressed. This led to a paradigm shift form relying upon untested fundamental assumptions in forensics to ensuring empirical testing, data-driven reproducible results, estimation of accuracy along with robust protocols and proficiency tests. Gradually emphasis has been laid on detailed protocols, empirical testing, data-driven test reporting, blind testing and blind peer review of reports.²³ For admissibility, an expert opinion especially forensic report needs validation broadly on two facets: (i) scientific method (technology); and (ii) the probity of procedures. Methods are technological driven and largely addressed by various global standards mainly by Daubert²⁴ trilogy. Various standards such as International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for ensuring procedural probity were introduced in the end the 20th century in various jurisdiction. These standards have been briefly deliberated below to understand nuances of admissibility of forensic evidence.

Standardisation of forensic technology

Along the way, the United States initiated standardisation of forensic technology by introducing Frye standard in 1923²⁵, which ultimately culminated into the “Daubert trilogy” consists of: (i) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.²⁶; (ii) General Electric Co. v. Joiner²⁷; and (iii) Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael²⁸. In addition, two important factors Weisgram v. Marley Co.²⁹, and Rule 702 of the US Federal Rules of Evidence³⁰, further braced the admissibility criterion. Post-Daubert development however, reinforced and clarified the basic premise of “gatekeeping” propelled in Daubert³¹. Thus, Frye³² represented the ancient regime, and Daubert³³ sparked a revolution for standardisation.³⁴

Daubert³⁵ standard largely absorbed the ingredients of Frye³⁶ rule for admissibility of scientific technology. Frye³⁷ standard obligated the Court to sublet the admissibility criterion based on “general acceptance” of technology by the larger scientific community at global landscape. This standard does not necessitate for specific scrutiny of methodology, validity or reliability of scientific evidence. Further, it was difficult to ascertain “general acceptance” since no objective parameter was mentioned in Frye case³⁸ nor was it formulated later. This criterion faced criticism, since it stifles innovative and potentially more reliable methods like DNA profiling, digital forensics, etc., because these may lack general acceptance amongst scientific community at early stage. This standard further squeezed the judicial discretion in decision-making process. As a result, Daubert³⁹ standard was brought in by the US Federal Supreme Court in 1993, to introduce more comprehensive approach to curtail the admissibility of pseudoscientific or unreliable expert testimony. Daubert⁴⁰ standard compels the Judge to scrutinise not only expert methodology but also the underlying scientific principles used for expert opinion. Thus, a Judge acts as a “gatekeeper” to assess the methods and reasoning behind the technology and probity of the procedures adopted by the expert during analysis and generating the report. Daubert⁴¹ explored the better course to define nature and source of duty of the Judge. The trial court, to obey Daubert⁴², considers broadly five factors for admissibility of the expert opinion:

(i) whether the theory or technique in question has been tested;

(ii) whether the technique has been subjected to publication and peer review;

(iii) known or potential error rate;

(iv) standards and controls for operations; and

(v) general acceptance by the scientific community.

As cited in Joiner⁴³, the US Supreme Court rejected the idea of gatekeeping role of an appellate court. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for unanimous court “… hold that abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard” for appellate court intervention.⁴⁴ On the language earlier mentioned in Daubert⁴⁵, Joiner⁴⁶ observed that:

… nothing in either Daubert⁴⁷ or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a District Court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.⁴⁸

Citing the case of Kumho Tire⁴⁹, the US Supreme Court clarified prevailing difficulties associated with Daubert⁵⁰ and its application, solely to scientific expertise. Technical experts or specialists like engineers, who are scientists but do not fall within the ambit of expert to qualify for trial court scrutiny as gatekeeper. Kumho Tire⁵¹ held that under Rule 702 there is no relevant evidentiary distinction between science and non-science or “scientific” knowledge or “technical” or “other specialised knowledge”. Thus, Kumho Tire⁵² imposes responsibility on trial courts to examine all expert opinions without any distinction derived either from rigorous experimental tests or daily experience with the subject, in order to ensure that expert testimony is based on good grounds. Interestingly, “good grounds” concept is like a moving target, which perpetually changes and challenges the goalpost. Kumho Tire⁵³ also clarified that Daubert⁵⁴ “imposes special obligation upon a trial Judge to ‘ensure that any and all scientific testimony … is not only relevant, but reliable’”.⁵⁵ Thus, Kumho Tire⁵⁶ was an expressed invitation for the courts to join scientific revolution in the arena of evidencing.

Furthermore, in Weisgram⁵⁷, the trial court admitted expert testimony regarding source of fire (allegedly by defective room heater manufactured by Marley Company) that destroyed the house of plaintiff and caused Bonnie Weisgram death due to carbon monoxide poisoning. During trial Weisgram introduced three witnesses, proffered as experts, to prove that defect of alleged heater had causal connection to fire. The District Court overruled Marley’s objections that this testimony was unreliable, and hence inadmissible under Rule 702. The defendant reasserted that Weisgram had failed to meet his burden of proof on the issues of defect and causation, but the District Court denied the motion, and matter was appealed by the defendant. The Eighth Circuit on the appeal held that lower court erred to pass order under Daubert⁵⁸ but refused to remand the case for retrial to provide the plaintiff the second chance. Consenting for not granting the second chance to the plaintiff to find admissible experts, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had observed:

Since Daubert⁵⁹, moreover, parties relying on expert evidence have had notice of the exacting standards of reliability such evidence must meet…. It is implausible to suggest, post-Daubert, that parties will initially present less than their best expert evidence in the expectation of a second chance should their first try fail.⁶⁰ (emphasis supplied)

In nutshell Daubert⁶¹ trilogy may be summarised as: (i) in Daubert⁶² the Court enabled a trial Judge with the onus of acting as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable expert testimony or unsound science; (ii) The case of Joiner⁶³ held that reliability tests may be applied to an expert’s reasoning process, not just his general methodology. It further clarifies that gatekeeping role is primarily limited to trial court except the abuse of discretion standard, irrespective of whether or not they admit or exclude the expert testimony; and (iii) the Court proceedings in Kumho⁶⁴ clarify that the gatekeeper function applies to all expert testimony, not just testimony based in science streams. In Weisgram⁶⁵, it was held that the Court should not offer a second opportunity given to produce expert testimony by another set of experts. In fact, these four cases ultimately resulted in exclusion of proffered expert testimony and summarises the disposition on the merits, granting the Court to complete control over the docket it handles ensuring that expert testimony is both relevant and reliable. Furthermore, the validity test established in these cases impose a substantial obligation on trial Judge to comprehend the fundamental principles of scientific research methods and statistical analysis. By 2000, the US Court had established “exacting standards of reliability” for the admissibility of experts’ testimony.⁶⁶

Execution of Daubert trilogy and amendments in the US procedural laws

In 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) was enacted having Rules 701 to 706 grouped under Article VII, titled “Opinions and Expert Testimony” to govern the oral testimony of witnesses concerned in the US Federal Courts. Rule 701 deals with opinion testimony by the lay witnesses (not qualified as an expert).⁶⁷ Rule 702 addresses the admissibility of the opinion testified by the expert witnesses, which does not distinguish between criminal and civil matters and equally apply to both. However, Rule 702 enabled the Judge for gatekeeping role, “but (Rule) would neither say how it does so nor explain what that role entails”.⁶⁸ Prior to Rule 702, the expert testimony was addressed by Frye⁶⁹ standard and the principles from the common law, which were not uniformly applied across jurisdictions.⁷⁰

These Rules faced substantive amendment in 2000, where specialised knowledge was excluded from the testimony under Rule 701 to distinguish between “lay” testimony and “expert” testimony. Testimony under Rule 701 does not necessitate to provide the opposite party with a pre-trial report for sharing underlying facts or data, a list of other cases where expert had tendered testimony for experience, and expert’s education.⁷¹ Rule 702 amended in 2000, which came into effect from 1-12-2000, has adopted several key features introduced by the Daubert⁷² trilogy.⁷³ The amended Rule 702 affirms the trial court’s role as gatekeeper and codified certain general standards for enabling trial courts to assess reliability and connectedness of proffered expert testimony. Despite the existence of Rule 702, it came to light that various trial courts have adopted a lenient approach to their gatekeeping role. Many have relied on outdated precedents that contradict the legislative intent of Rule 702 for determining admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 104(a) of the US Federal Rules of Evidence.⁷⁴ Jack B. Weinstein, J. observed that under the Federal Rules, a trial Judge “exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses”.⁷⁵

To address these challenges and to prevent unreliable opinions from reaching juries, Rule 702 was amended in 2023. The amended rule established additional requirements for the admissibility of expert testimony, which now include: (i) preponderance of the evidence; (ii) reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case; and (iii) that the expert testimony is based on sufficient facts or data. The revised Rules clarify that the proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of proof for all four criteria outlined in Rules 702(a) through (d) to demonstrate that the methods used are “more likely than not” reliable. This amendment indeed not intended to alter the law but to reinforce Judge’s duty to act as a vigilant gatekeeper when determining admissibility of expert testimony. Judges can no longer defer this obligation, assuming it will be adequately addressed during cross-examination. The new provisions emphasise the essential role of the trial Judge in determining whether a jury may hear and consider expert testimony; the Judge, not the jury, serves as the sole gatekeeper responsible for assessing reliability, which is crucial for admissibility. This clarification eliminates interpretational inconsistencies surrounding Rule 702 and helps eradicating influence of junk science and other unreliable scientific claims that can lead to miscarriages of justice.

Consequently, for determining the admissibility of expert testimony, a trial Judge must evaluate four key requirements: (i) the expert’s qualification and experience in relevant domains; (ii) the reliability of the principles and methods employed; (iii) the testimony’s support by sufficient facts or data; and (iv) the expert’s reliable application of those principles and methods. To establish that these principles and methods have been applied reliably in forensic examinations and data analyses to reach just conclusions, certain global standards have been devised, which have been briefly discussed below.

Quality management standards (QMS) and accreditation in forensic science

QMS define and describe canons for assessing competency, consistency, accuracy and quality of an organisation or a laboratory. These predefined standards ensure compliance of quality assurance (QA)⁷⁶ and quality control (QC)⁷⁷, which are intertwined components of quality management (QM), and they set the yardsticks for accreditation by the competent authority. This process envisages a structural pathway for a laboratory to monitor and enhance their quality, accuracy and accountability, and thus reduces risk of variability and errors in analysis results. There are variety of standards prevailing across global landscape, which have been briefly addressed below.

Types of quality management standards

QMS are developed by various bodies at international, regional and national levels. ISO⁷⁸ closely collaborates with IEC⁷⁹ to provide globally recognised joint conformity assessment standards for technical and operational areas. ISO and IEC share working groups, Committees and methodologies for developing standards in collaboration. The ISO/IEC 17000 series deal with conformity assessment and used for inspection, testing, certification and accreditation of organisation or laboratory. ISO/IEC 14000 series relate to standards for environment management, while ISO 9000 series address quality management. An overview of globally available QMS is narrated below:

(i) ISO/IEC 17025:2017

The first version of ISO/IEC 17025 was introduced in 1999 for establishing the framework for competence in laboratory testing and calibration of methods. Subsequently, it was revised in 2005 with focus on technical competence and method validation. The latest version has been introduced in November 2017, having greater emphasis on risk-based thinking, permitting flexibility in methodology and focus on results. The ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard is most widely recognised international platform for accreditation, which entails general requirements for competence and accuracy of testing and calibration of laboratories. This standard applies to all forensic labs and ensures managerial impartiality and confidentiality.

(ii) ISO/IEC 17020:2012

The first version of this standard was introduced in 1998 for defining fundamental requirements for inspections of bodies mainly focusing on technical competence and impartiality. The latest version implemented in 2012, has laid emphasis on risk management, and updated structure for varieties of inspecting bodies having alignment with the ISO 9001 and ISO/IEC 17025 standards. The 2012 version mainly applies to inspecting bodies including forensic science units engaged in the crime scene investigation or inspection procedures. This standard focuses on the operations including forensic science services, which are engaged in evidence collection and analysis, but not meant for forensic laboratories.

(iii) ISO/IEC 17043:2010

In 1997, ISO/IEC Guide 43:1997 was introduced in two parts, which became precursor to 17043 version that was published first in February 2010 replacing Guide 43:1997. The 1997 Guide emphasised on (i) the methodologies for conducting proficiency testing program; (ii) general procedures for organising inter-laboratories comparisons; and (iii) a guide for deciding proficiency testing schemes for laboratory accreditation. The 2010 standard looks for conformity assessment mainly proficiency testing programs used by laboratories including forensic laboratories. The key features of 2010 standard include (i) competence assessment of the service providers; (ii) guidelines for data analysis with accuracy; and (iii) confidentiality and impartiality of data during proficiency testing. This standard evaluates testing accuracy to ensure reliability of results by comparing them with peer labs. It focuses on external validation of laboratory through proficiency testing across various sectors including calibration, testing, proficiency assessment, etc.

(iv) ISO 9001:2015

This is a more general quality management standard framework applicable to any organisation, including forensic laboratory. It aims for ensuring overall quality in process and services, and largely accentuates upon customer satisfaction, engagement, leadership and continuous improvement.

(v) ISO 17034:2016

This standard addresses the competence of reference material producers and largely applicable to the laboratories which produce reference materials used for forensic analysis. This certification ensures quality and reliability in the production of certified reference materials. It covers technical requirements of the production of reference material so that it may fit for purpose and fulfil quality requirements.

(vi) ISO/IEC 27037:2012

This standard entails guidelines for identifying, collecting, acquiring and preserving the electronic evidence for meeting data integrity requirements.

(vii) ISO 18385:2016

It addresses contamination control in forensic laboratories especially for DNA analysis, where contamination remains a great challenge.

(viii) ENFSI-QCC (European Network of Forensic Science Institutes — Quality Assurance and Competence Committee)

Tailored for European forensic laboratories, ENFSI accreditation standard ensures that quality assurance and competence framework is in place. It replicates ISO/IEC 17025 compliance with additional guidelines for European forensic laboratories.

(ix) ASCLD/LAB (American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board)

ASCLD is a US Based system for accreditation of forensic laboratories that were customarily using ISO/IEC 17025 standard, but also provide additional standards for crime labs. Now this organisation is under ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB) to specifically cater to forensic laboratories in the United States.

(x) ANAB Forensic Accreditation (ANSI National Accreditation Board — Forensic science testing and calibration laboratories)

This standard broadly obeys ISO/IEC 17025 along with other parameters for forensic testing, method validation and evidence handling for various disciplines including DNA, firearms, toxicology and digital forensics.

(xi) NABL ISO/IEC 17025 (National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories)

NABL is a set of quality standards used for accreditation of various sectors including forensic services in India. NABL accreditation is primarily based on ISO/IEC 17025:2017 but tailored and designed for accreditation and calibration of laboratories and the competence of testing so that forensic reports are based on valid results derived through comprehensive quality management system (QMS). NABL sets a policy statement aligned with goals and regulatory requirements.

(xii) OSAC standards

The Organisation of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC)⁸⁰ approved standards have strong scientific foundation dealing with those areas that are not fully addressed by ISO standards such as in the fields of DNA testing, toxicology, and firearms analysis, etc.⁸¹ OSAC provides additional guidelines beyond ISO/IEC framework by providing specific standard operating protocols for each forensic technique. It further provides guidelines to assist expert testimony to present and interpret forensic evidence in courtroom. Thus, these standards are designed for compliance of legal requirements necessary for admissibility of forensic evidence such as error rates, mitigating cognitive biases, probabilistic analysis, etc. OSAC standards and ISO/IEC standards have complementary relationship offering twin-tiered framework. In fact, ISO/IEC standards chart a robust foundation for laboratory operations and quality management, OSAC norms build upon the additional forensic-specific requirements.

QMS for accreditation at global landscape: A comparison matrix

The competent authority in every jurisdiction accredits the quality of the product or services based on the quality standards deliberated above. The accreditation necessitates for adherence to strict regime for certification for a forensic laboratory.

General requirements for accreditation certification of a forensic laboratory

The accreditation certification demands to fulfil defined set of conditions on case-to-case basis. The general conditions desired for accreditation of a forensic laboratory have been listed below:

(i) Accreditation mandates a laboratory to define its organisational structure, role and responsibilities with defined hierarchy driven chain of command for quality related functions.

(ii) Accreditation dictates to monitor the facilities and environmental conditionalities such as temperature, humidity and contamination to prevent any compromise in accuracy of the testing.

(iii) Access control to forensic laboratory must be maintained to ensure that only authorised persons get entry into sensitive areas to maintain secrecy, integrity of reporting process and preventing chances of contamination.

(iv) A well-defined system must be in place to assign, review and revise role of the personnel responsible for quality management.

(v) The laboratory equipment must be maintained and calibrated having a log to maintain and preserve records.

(vi) The laboratory has to ensure that its operations are impartial and free from extraneous influence or pressures, which are likely to compromise the quality of forensic reporting.

(vii) The sample control and the chain of custody with proper documentation at every stage of testing must be maintained for ensuring integrity of the samples.

(viii) The laboratory must use only standardised and validated methods for testing.

(ix) The error rate estimation is also desired for accreditation process.

(x) Documentation and preservation of records are intrinsic components of forensic services, since it ensures process transparency, reproducibility of results and sustained reliability. Hence, the records related to testing, quality management, staff training, procurements, etc. must be maintained and duly secured without any chance of manipulation. Methodical documentation presented during court proceedings foster confidence and trust of judiciary on forensic reports.

(xi) An independent peer review and proficiency assessments are the key elements in ensuring rigour and reliability of forensic analysis and reporting. This process evaluates and cross verifies scientific integrity, consistency of the results of forensic analysis with relevant protocols and standards. It further identifies error and inconsistencies, if any. Consistent peer review by independent bodies fosters confidence and faith on forensic services building a solid bedrock of truth and justice.⁸²

(xii) The training of the experts and staff on the advancement of technology must be arranged on regular basis.

(xiii) Internal audit of its operation must be conducted on regular basis.

(xiv) Accreditation necessitates that all laboratories must ensure competency of their experts and staff based on their education, experience and training. The competency of the experts and support staff must be properly evaluated and consistently certified.

(xv) Annual management review must be conducted including assessments of the key performance indicators such as proficiency testing, audit results, customer feedback, etc.

(xvi) Proficiency testing including inter-laboratory comparisons to evaluate the performance and consistency in results.

(xvii) In case of non-conformities from standards are observed, appropriate corrective and preventive measures must be taken to avoid recurrence.

An overview

It is well established, therefore that accreditation of forensic laboratories is essential for maintaining high operational standards and must be grounded in a well-defined set of criteria. Central to this process is the creation of a robust organisational framework that clarifies roles and responsibilities, enhancing both quality management and accountability. A critical aspect of this accreditation is environmental monitoring, which involves regulating factors such as temperature and humidity to ensure the accuracy of test results. Access control measures are equally important, as they restrict entry to authorised personnel only, thereby protecting sensitive areas from contamination and safeguarding the integrity of reports. The foundation of reliable operations lies in the adoption of standardised and validated testing methods, alongside meticulous records of equipment maintenance and calibration. It is crucial to conduct operations impartially, free from external influences, to preserve the quality of forensic reporting.

Maintaining strict sample control and ensuring a documented chain of custody are vital for the integrity of samples throughout the analytical process. Thorough documentation serves as a cornerstone of forensic work, promoting both transparency and reproducibility. Laboratories must secure all records related to testing and quality management, as comprehensive documentation instils confidence in judicial proceedings. Independent peer reviews and proficiency evaluations play a key role in confirming the reliability of forensic analyses. Continuous staff development through regular training on technological advancements is necessary to enhance their expertise, while internal audits help pinpoint areas needing improvement.

To ensure that standards are maintained, accreditation requires competency assessments for all personnel, based on their qualifications and experience. Annual management reviews that focus on key performance indicators and proficiency testing are crucial for fostering ongoing improvement. When discrepancies arise, laboratories are obligated to implement corrective actions to uphold standards, ultimately bolstering the quality and credibility of forensic services. This comprehensive approach ensures that forensic laboratories operate at the highest level of professionalism and integrity.

Concluding remarks

Strict compliance of quality standards in forensic reporting can effectively eliminate “junk science”⁸³ from courtroom practices. Accreditation certification assures quality management in forensic reporting; however, the accreditation agencies lack enforcement power. Consequently, forensic reports from forensic laboratory lacking accreditation are potent source of miscarriage of justice reported globally. The courts need to perform “gatekeeping” role by ensuring that forensic expert has faithfully complied the quality standards. The training of all stakeholders of justice administration is the need of hour. The Judges need to be well conversant with intricacies of expert opinion and laboratory practices. There is a dire need to create an autonomous statutory agency in every jurisdiction to regulate and superintendence of various facets of expert opinion. The Ombudsman mechanism such as Texas Forensic Science Commission or Forensic Science Regulator in the United Kingdom may be a model for designing statutory bodies for regulating forensic services.⁸⁴ The future of forensic science is bright, full of progress and hopes, provided it march towards scientific validation.

Integration of forensic analytical tools with emerging technologies and innovations in modern era can transform the precision and credibility of forensic evidence. The Governments must invest adequately for building forensic facilities commensurating with the crimes. There is a need for international collaboration to formulate and design framework for universal protocols and Standard Operating Procedures (SoPs) from crime scene to courtroom proceedings for sampling, forensic analysis and reporting to judicial interpretation. International bodies like International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL), the United Nations, or the International Forensic Strategic Alliance (IFSA) may lead for such initiatives and collate worldwide prevailing good practices in the fields of forensics and expert opinion.