As an expert in forensic document examination, I have observed that the judicial system can, whether intentionally or unintentionally, place pressure on forensic experts, potentially causing them to prepare incomplete or erroneous reports. In fact, rather than referring specifically to courts, I could describe this more broadly as the judicial system. After all, court administrative staff are also part of the judicial system.
In many courts, communication with forensic experts has effectively been delegated to the court’s administrative offices. Court administrative staff, including administrative managers and clerical personnel, may select experts from a designated list and, in doing so, influence the court’s choice. In a sense, forensic experts may end up being selected by court administrative staff rather than directly by the judge.
How, then, can court administrative staff, judges, prosecutors, or the judicial system in general cause a forensic expert to make a mistake? Of course, deliberate misconduct, such as bribery, corruption, or any other conduct that constitutes a criminal offense, is outside the scope of what I am discussing here. I am referring specifically to mistakes and unintended forms of influence.
In this article, I will address only one of the mistakes that can arise: the distinction between requesting additional comparison specimens and deciding not to request them.
The method of selecting forensic experts may vary from country to country. The points I discuss below are based on the example of Türkiye.
In forensic document examination, particularly in handwriting and signature comparisons, the handwriting or signatures under examination are compared with known comparison specimens belonging to the person or persons in question. These comparison specimens may consist of specimens obtained in the presence of the relevant judicial authority or handwriting and signatures previously produced on other documents.
However, there are occasions when the available comparison handwriting or signatures are insufficient to reach a reliable conclusion. In such circumstances, additional comparison specimens are needed in order to arrive at a scientifically sound and accurate opinion.
Yet, some judges, prosecutors, or court administrative staff may not welcome requests for additional comparison specimens. They may regard obtaining additional specimens as an additional administrative burden and, because they wish to reduce their caseload as quickly as possible, may prefer to dispose of cases without undertaking further procedural steps.
For this reason, forensic experts may sometimes be verbally encouraged to “reach a conclusion in this case without requesting additional comparison specimens.” Moreover, when selecting experts, those who “do not request additional comparison specimens” may be preferred over experts who frequently make such requests.
This situation can become known among forensic experts. As a result, experts may find themselves facing a difficult choice: either request additional comparison specimens and risk becoming an expert whom the court disfavors, or avoid making such requests and accept the possibility of receiving fewer—or perhaps no—cases.
The “fast” experts who do not request additional comparison specimens may therefore become more likely to be selected.
Ultimately, reports prepared on the basis of insufficient comparison material carry a higher risk of error. Even when such a situation occurs in a single case, the consequences can be serious. A flawed forensic conclusion may contribute to an unjust outcome and, ultimately, affect the rights and lives of the people involved. This is why the adequacy and quality of comparison material should never be treated as a minor issue in forensic document examination.