I was fairly young when courts in developed countries began admitting DNA evidence. I've read a bit about expert testimony and how DNA evidence came to be admitted both in the service of the prosecution and defence (particularly for post-conviction appeals, like those pursued by the Innocence Project). I know some of the relevant US court cases that helped decide on the admissibility of DNA evidence. I think tracing these processes is fairly interesting from the perspective of history of ideas, philosophy of science, etc. How do we come to accept things as true, the lag between scientific invention and social recognition, trust, authority, etc.
I am interested in reading about similar histories of earlier forensic techniques, like fingerprinting. In an era before legal interest groups were quite as entrenched, and before expert witness testimony was quite as routine as it is today, I am interested in how long it took courts to consolidate around the admissibility of early forensic evidence, how they decided to interpret novel forensic techniques, if judges and juries differed in their trust in the evidence, if this process differed by country or culture, and whether uptake of early forensic techniques was primarily driven by prosecution, defence, or both? Were courts skeptical or did they rapidly consolidate around admitting such evidence? Finally, as standards for the collection of such evidence and technology marched on, do judges, jurors, or legal experts regret the use of earlier forensic evidence as contributing to false convictions/exonerations?
So as to avoid "example seeking" I would say I am especially interested in England and the United States, and fingerprinting at the turn of the 20th century; but I invite historians who have interesting stories (e.g. the history of medicine, the development of pathology, and how pathology and doctors became implicated in the court system, discredited pre-scientific or pseudo-scientific techniques like phrenology being used in court, etc.) to chime in as well.
Thank you.
This question was the premise in the PBS hour special "The Posioner's handbook" and more the complete book^1 of the same name. It focused on 2 men considered in the US to be the "fathers" of Forensic Science.
New York City's first scientifically trained medical examiner, Charles Norris, and his chief toxicologist, Alexander Gettler, turned forensic chemistry into a formidable science and set the standards for the rest of the country.
Here is their suggested reading list on the subject.
Here is the Program itself. ^it ^is ^also ^on ^^netflix
^1 Blum, Deborah. The Poisoner’s Handbook. (New York: Penguin Books, 2010)