Search

This black box study assessed the performance of forensic firearms examiners in the United States. It involved three different types of firearms and 173 volunteers who performed a total of 8640 comparisons of both bullets and cartridge cases. The overall false‐positive error rate was estimated as 0.656% and 0.933% for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively, while the rate of false negatives was estimated as 2.87% and 1.87% for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively. The majority of errors were made by a limited number of examiners. Because chi‐square tests of independence strongly suggest that error probabilities are not the same for each examiner, these are maximum‐likelihood estimates based on the beta‐binomial probability model and do not depend on an assumption of equal examiner‐specific error rates. Corresponding 95% confidence intervals are (0.305%, 1.42%) and (0.548%, 1.57%) for false positives for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively, and (1.89%, 4.26%) and (1.16%, 2.99%) for false negatives for bullets and cartridge cases, respectively. The results of this study are consistent with prior studies, despite its comprehensive design and challenging specimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on judicial errors such as prosecutor and defense attorney fallacies that arise in cases addressing forensic science evidence along with U.S judge Richard Posner's opinion in court cases that addressed forensic science evidence. It discusses court cases involving fingerprint evidence error including United States v. Herrera, United States v. Ford and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. It describes the concept of error probability.