What do you think?
Rate this book
Autopsy of a Crime Lab: Exposing the Flaws in Forensics
This book exposes the dangerously imperfect forensic evidence that we rely on for criminal convictions.
"That's not my fingerprint, your honor," said the defendant, after FBI experts reported a "100-percent identification." The FBI was wrong. It is shocking how often they are. Autopsy of a Crime Lab is the first book to catalog the sources of error and the faulty science behind a range of well-known forensic evidence, from fingerprints and firearms to forensic algorithms. In this devastating forensic takedown, noted legal expert Brandon L. Garrett poses the questions that should be asked in courtrooms every Where are the studies that validate the basic premises of widely accepted techniques such as fingerprinting? How can experts testify with 100-percent certainty about a fingerprint, when there is no such thing as a 100 percent match? Where is the quality control at the crime scenes and in the laboratories? Should we so readily adopt powerful new technologies like facial recognition software and rapid DNA machines? And why have judges been so reluctant to consider the weaknesses of so many long-accepted methods?
Taking us into the lives of the wrongfully convicted or nearly convicted, into crime labs rocked by scandal, and onto the front lines of promising reform efforts driven by professionals and researchers alike, Autopsy of a Crime Lab illustrates the persistence and perniciousness of shaky science and its well-meaning practitioners.
"That's not my fingerprint, your honor," said the defendant, after FBI experts reported a "100-percent identification." The FBI was wrong. It is shocking how often they are. Autopsy of a Crime Lab is the first book to catalog the sources of error and the faulty science behind a range of well-known forensic evidence, from fingerprints and firearms to forensic algorithms. In this devastating forensic takedown, noted legal expert Brandon L. Garrett poses the questions that should be asked in courtrooms every Where are the studies that validate the basic premises of widely accepted techniques such as fingerprinting? How can experts testify with 100-percent certainty about a fingerprint, when there is no such thing as a 100 percent match? Where is the quality control at the crime scenes and in the laboratories? Should we so readily adopt powerful new technologies like facial recognition software and rapid DNA machines? And why have judges been so reluctant to consider the weaknesses of so many long-accepted methods?
Taking us into the lives of the wrongfully convicted or nearly convicted, into crime labs rocked by scandal, and onto the front lines of promising reform efforts driven by professionals and researchers alike, Autopsy of a Crime Lab illustrates the persistence and perniciousness of shaky science and its well-meaning practitioners.
262 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 23, 2021
24 people are currently reading
370 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
1-awaiting-review-but-read
March 8, 2021Should you be so unfortunate as to find yourself in court and the best evidence against you is a fingerprint, then you stand almost no chance of getting off unless you employ a defence fingerprint expert. Juries always believe the prosecution when it comes to forensic evidence.
Once a defence expert casts any kind of doubt on the veracity of the match - asks about the quality of the prints (was only a blurry fingerprint left at the crime scene), asks for the actual technician who performed the matching to appear in court and challenges their ability or asks about the quality control of the lab (nine labs in the US have been closed down due to lack of quality control) then doubt as to whether the evidence can be relied upon is introduced into the jury's minds.
It is known from doubleblind experiments - exactly the same cases are given to technicians from what seems to be the defence or prosecution side - that labs employed by the prosecution are more likely to find what the prosecution wants and similarly with defence. Objectivity is not their strong point and 100% matches are very, very rare, it's all in what they say. So get a defence expert if you find yourself innocent and charged and the evidence rests on a fingerprint.
Once a defence expert casts any kind of doubt on the veracity of the match - asks about the quality of the prints (was only a blurry fingerprint left at the crime scene), asks for the actual technician who performed the matching to appear in court and challenges their ability or asks about the quality control of the lab (nine labs in the US have been closed down due to lack of quality control) then doubt as to whether the evidence can be relied upon is introduced into the jury's minds.
It is known from doubleblind experiments - exactly the same cases are given to technicians from what seems to be the defence or prosecution side - that labs employed by the prosecution are more likely to find what the prosecution wants and similarly with defence. Objectivity is not their strong point and 100% matches are very, very rare, it's all in what they say. So get a defence expert if you find yourself innocent and charged and the evidence rests on a fingerprint.
April 1, 2021
Autopsy of a Crime Lab was a somewhat interesting read.
Author Brandon L. Garrett teaches law at the Duke University School of Law. His research on the criminal justice system has ranged from the lessons to be learned from cases where innocent people were exonerated by DNA tests, to research on false confessions, forensics, and eyewitness memory, to the difficult compromises that prosecutors reach when targeting the largest corporations in the world.
Brandon L. Garrett:
Autopsy of a Crime Lab examines problems with forensic science. Garrett goes through many different types of forensic evidence and then talks about the problems associated with each. He discusses bite mark science early on; mentioning that Keith Harward, who was convicted based largely on bite mark analysis, and was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence after spending 30 years in prison.
Garrett talks about problems with the methodology in the studies of forensics here, as well as expert infallibility, bias, and other problems associated with making exact determinations for a legal judgment in a court of law. He examines many case studies in the book to help make his case.
He writes that problems with the application of forensics have resulted in both false positives (innocent people wrongly convicted), and false negatives (guilty criminals not convicted).
Some of the topics covered here by Garrett include:
* Bite mark analysis.
* Hair analysis and comparisons.
* Firearm ballistics.
* DNA testing.
* Blood type analysis.
* Negligent and corrupted forensic examiners, as well as the labs in which they work.
* Recommendations for forensic reforms.
Unfortunately, despite fielding some interesting subject material, I felt that Garrett's writing here fell a bit short for me. The book is written in a rather flat and dry tone that didn't bring this interesting subject matter to the reader in an engaging manner.
3 stars.
Author Brandon L. Garrett teaches law at the Duke University School of Law. His research on the criminal justice system has ranged from the lessons to be learned from cases where innocent people were exonerated by DNA tests, to research on false confessions, forensics, and eyewitness memory, to the difficult compromises that prosecutors reach when targeting the largest corporations in the world.
Brandon L. Garrett:
Autopsy of a Crime Lab examines problems with forensic science. Garrett goes through many different types of forensic evidence and then talks about the problems associated with each. He discusses bite mark science early on; mentioning that Keith Harward, who was convicted based largely on bite mark analysis, and was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence after spending 30 years in prison.
Garrett talks about problems with the methodology in the studies of forensics here, as well as expert infallibility, bias, and other problems associated with making exact determinations for a legal judgment in a court of law. He examines many case studies in the book to help make his case.
He writes that problems with the application of forensics have resulted in both false positives (innocent people wrongly convicted), and false negatives (guilty criminals not convicted).
Some of the topics covered here by Garrett include:
* Bite mark analysis.
* Hair analysis and comparisons.
* Firearm ballistics.
* DNA testing.
* Blood type analysis.
* Negligent and corrupted forensic examiners, as well as the labs in which they work.
* Recommendations for forensic reforms.
Unfortunately, despite fielding some interesting subject material, I felt that Garrett's writing here fell a bit short for me. The book is written in a rather flat and dry tone that didn't bring this interesting subject matter to the reader in an engaging manner.
3 stars.
April 28, 2021
Interesting book. A little too much time spent in the fingerprint dept., but still an informative book.
November 20, 2023
At minimum, this is a gross misrepresentation of the forensic science field causing great damage to the science which lies at the core of forensics.
Brandon Garrett brings up so many valid and necessary cases and discussion topics. However, he often cherry-picks information. In a book aimed to attack forensic science, a majority of his cases focus on gross misconduct in the judicial and criminal justice fields, which remain separate from forensic science. He focuses cases where lawyers don’t question properly, judges do not gatekeep evidence, cops illegally transport and hide evidence (and that’s if they’re even collecting it correctly), and so much more. But he tries to make these forensic science issues, and they’re just not.
It’s evident that the author did not talk to a single scientist, let alone a forensic scientist, about any of the topics introduced in the book. Did he talk to a trace evidence specialist? A hair analyst? A forensic chemist? Students in a forensic science program? Course coordinators for those programs? Nope! And it’s quite evident in the way that he vaguely describes analysis techniques, instrumentation, and the requirements of the field. I mean, did he even look at a single forensic science job posting? He writes, “Forensic science education programs are typically not accredited and may be informal.” (103). My accredited forensic science degree requires ~50% of my required classes to be science courses, hence the science part of forensic science. He also claims that forensic scientists often learn more from “the old timers, and without any background in scientific fundamentals.” (98). Every single one of my professors whom have years of experience in the field have science degrees, often in biology, biochemistry, or chemistry, and all of them have at minimum a masters degree if not a PhD in these hard sciences.
He claims that forensic scientists should stray from being “cops in lab coats” (199) when the two fields hardly intersect. Forensic Scientists have degrees in the hard sciences and often have multiple masters degrees or certificates. Many of them have PhDs. They learn the core scientific principles of their desired field then apply them to evidence. In my time in my forensic science program, we’ve been told time and time again that our job is to simple speak on behalf of the science, without bias.
The book brings extremely important topics to light. As a forensic science student, we intertwine ethics and ethical testimony into our course requirements, and we often discuss these cases where they were mishandled. It’s unfortunate that Garrett relies on fear mongering and emotional manipulation to tell this story. He cherry-picks details from the cases that fit his narrative, removes necessary context, and misrepresents the field as a whole. Not to mention the ridiculous amount of typos, sentence fragments, and run on sentences present.
All in all, the cases he discusses in this book are incredibly important and deserve attention. I support the Innocence Project and their work to combat wrongful convictions. However, the problems he probes in this book have almost nothing to do with the science, but rather the system. We should be calling for change within the criminal justice system which allows for so many wrongful convictions.
Brandon Garrett brings up so many valid and necessary cases and discussion topics. However, he often cherry-picks information. In a book aimed to attack forensic science, a majority of his cases focus on gross misconduct in the judicial and criminal justice fields, which remain separate from forensic science. He focuses cases where lawyers don’t question properly, judges do not gatekeep evidence, cops illegally transport and hide evidence (and that’s if they’re even collecting it correctly), and so much more. But he tries to make these forensic science issues, and they’re just not.
It’s evident that the author did not talk to a single scientist, let alone a forensic scientist, about any of the topics introduced in the book. Did he talk to a trace evidence specialist? A hair analyst? A forensic chemist? Students in a forensic science program? Course coordinators for those programs? Nope! And it’s quite evident in the way that he vaguely describes analysis techniques, instrumentation, and the requirements of the field. I mean, did he even look at a single forensic science job posting? He writes, “Forensic science education programs are typically not accredited and may be informal.” (103). My accredited forensic science degree requires ~50% of my required classes to be science courses, hence the science part of forensic science. He also claims that forensic scientists often learn more from “the old timers, and without any background in scientific fundamentals.” (98). Every single one of my professors whom have years of experience in the field have science degrees, often in biology, biochemistry, or chemistry, and all of them have at minimum a masters degree if not a PhD in these hard sciences.
He claims that forensic scientists should stray from being “cops in lab coats” (199) when the two fields hardly intersect. Forensic Scientists have degrees in the hard sciences and often have multiple masters degrees or certificates. Many of them have PhDs. They learn the core scientific principles of their desired field then apply them to evidence. In my time in my forensic science program, we’ve been told time and time again that our job is to simple speak on behalf of the science, without bias.
The book brings extremely important topics to light. As a forensic science student, we intertwine ethics and ethical testimony into our course requirements, and we often discuss these cases where they were mishandled. It’s unfortunate that Garrett relies on fear mongering and emotional manipulation to tell this story. He cherry-picks details from the cases that fit his narrative, removes necessary context, and misrepresents the field as a whole. Not to mention the ridiculous amount of typos, sentence fragments, and run on sentences present.
All in all, the cases he discusses in this book are incredibly important and deserve attention. I support the Innocence Project and their work to combat wrongful convictions. However, the problems he probes in this book have almost nothing to do with the science, but rather the system. We should be calling for change within the criminal justice system which allows for so many wrongful convictions.
January 4, 2025
Buckle up for a fairly critical review. I annotated each chapter and this is the summary of my annotations.
It is clear from the first chapter than the author, Brandon Garrett, is a lawyer, and not a scientist. I believe he specializes in DNA exoneration cases. Even so, I got the impression that he took a tour of a few crime labs and deemed himself an expert on workflow and general procedures of a crime lab. I wish he would have spoken to a scientist or two before deciding to write a book about something that is not his area of expertise.
The term “flawed forensics” is inflammatory. Perhaps “outdated” is a better word to use. To put it plainly, science is going to science. You learn, you research, you improve the methods, and a new gold standard way of doing things is born. For example, doctors used to treat infections with leeches because it was seen as gold standard at the time. Today we use antibiotics because we researched and now know it’s more effective than bloodletting. Doctors of old weren’t necessarily wrong - they were doing what was best practice for the time period. I don’t think it’s forensic analysts fault that the courtroom does not have a steadfast method for reevaluating old cases with new methods.
I found that the issues brought forth were mainly issues with *testimony* and not the science done. Again, is that the crime lab’s fault? Garrett seems to think so. I agree federal regulation could perhaps improve testimony of forensic evidence, but the courtroom is not my wheelhouse and therefore I cannot speak on it (see how I stayed in my lane? Garrett should try it.)
To give Garrett some credit, there are some forensic science disciplines that lack scientific basis and i agree should not be used in testimony. These are visual hair analysis/comparison, bite mark analysis, and other visual means of comparison.
Last thing I want to touch on are his sources. He has a lot, so here are the highlights - it’s a mix of good and “bad” sources. He does cite his own articles/papers quite a few times which I found interesting. There is a myriad of different law reviews and news articles. There are some PCAST/NAS sources, as well as quite a few government sources. Many of the dates are >10years ago; I would have liked to see some more recent *scientific* sources. I get the impression he cherry picked his sources as well as his data.
This book should not be taken at face value and is not an accurate representation of forensic science at a crime lab level. I urge anyone who reads this to think critically and remain skeptical. To my local friends - I will lend my annotated copy to you if you want to read it. I have many more notes that I just couldn’t touch on here and I’d love to see your own annotations as well!
My qualifications are that I have a Bachelors in Clinical Laboratory Science, PSM in Forensic Science, current experience as a Technical Specialist in a Clinical/Forensic Tox lab, and I have common sense (that’s all you really need to read this).
It is clear from the first chapter than the author, Brandon Garrett, is a lawyer, and not a scientist. I believe he specializes in DNA exoneration cases. Even so, I got the impression that he took a tour of a few crime labs and deemed himself an expert on workflow and general procedures of a crime lab. I wish he would have spoken to a scientist or two before deciding to write a book about something that is not his area of expertise.
The term “flawed forensics” is inflammatory. Perhaps “outdated” is a better word to use. To put it plainly, science is going to science. You learn, you research, you improve the methods, and a new gold standard way of doing things is born. For example, doctors used to treat infections with leeches because it was seen as gold standard at the time. Today we use antibiotics because we researched and now know it’s more effective than bloodletting. Doctors of old weren’t necessarily wrong - they were doing what was best practice for the time period. I don’t think it’s forensic analysts fault that the courtroom does not have a steadfast method for reevaluating old cases with new methods.
I found that the issues brought forth were mainly issues with *testimony* and not the science done. Again, is that the crime lab’s fault? Garrett seems to think so. I agree federal regulation could perhaps improve testimony of forensic evidence, but the courtroom is not my wheelhouse and therefore I cannot speak on it (see how I stayed in my lane? Garrett should try it.)
To give Garrett some credit, there are some forensic science disciplines that lack scientific basis and i agree should not be used in testimony. These are visual hair analysis/comparison, bite mark analysis, and other visual means of comparison.
Last thing I want to touch on are his sources. He has a lot, so here are the highlights - it’s a mix of good and “bad” sources. He does cite his own articles/papers quite a few times which I found interesting. There is a myriad of different law reviews and news articles. There are some PCAST/NAS sources, as well as quite a few government sources. Many of the dates are >10years ago; I would have liked to see some more recent *scientific* sources. I get the impression he cherry picked his sources as well as his data.
This book should not be taken at face value and is not an accurate representation of forensic science at a crime lab level. I urge anyone who reads this to think critically and remain skeptical. To my local friends - I will lend my annotated copy to you if you want to read it. I have many more notes that I just couldn’t touch on here and I’d love to see your own annotations as well!
My qualifications are that I have a Bachelors in Clinical Laboratory Science, PSM in Forensic Science, current experience as a Technical Specialist in a Clinical/Forensic Tox lab, and I have common sense (that’s all you really need to read this).
December 18, 2023
Another brick in the “goddamnit, fucking legal system“ wall.
I’m gonna end up as like a defense attorney aren’t I? This stuff is so frustrating.
I’m gonna end up as like a defense attorney aren’t I? This stuff is so frustrating.
July 19, 2022
Leitora totalmente necessária para mim. Não só mostra o grande problema de ter perícia subordinada à polícia, mas também os erros inerentes à técnica pericial. Gostei muito que aponta como o que é feito não é exatamente ciência, mas também como melhorar e aprimorar a perícia.
November 2, 2021
Great info but kinda goes over thing over and over and just isn't written that well.
September 21, 2021
This book is a rude eye opener on the conditions of forensic science. Growing up, I have always thought of this field as a cool choice of profession, being able to put criminals behind bars through evidence beyond that could be discerned by a lay person. Reading this book made me realize it was all those snazzy crime shows that have given this profession its rockstar status. Reality is far from it.
Certain takeaways from the book: Forensic science is yet to be recognized through defined means. There's no degree for it that you get from opting for the course through university curriculum. Many people have been handed over the right to decide the fates of people on trial by means of their online certificate. Unless there's DNA involved, all that comes under the umbrella of forensics is essentially flawed- bite marks, fingerprints, etc. And to show that, the author recounts several cases wherein people have been on life term or even executed because the people in charge of proving culpability had no qualms lying about their findings or their lack of educational qualifications. And if they weren't in either of these categories, they ended up being druggies who used labs to serve their drug habit or were essentially dry labbing (giving results for tests without actually conducting them). It's all very shocking.
But while you get shocked, you still have to go through a lot of dry matter. Persist you must though, if only to rid yourself of the rose tinted glasses of forensics that you currently wear. And hope to never have to stand on trial, now that you know the shoddy state of affairs.
Certain takeaways from the book: Forensic science is yet to be recognized through defined means. There's no degree for it that you get from opting for the course through university curriculum. Many people have been handed over the right to decide the fates of people on trial by means of their online certificate. Unless there's DNA involved, all that comes under the umbrella of forensics is essentially flawed- bite marks, fingerprints, etc. And to show that, the author recounts several cases wherein people have been on life term or even executed because the people in charge of proving culpability had no qualms lying about their findings or their lack of educational qualifications. And if they weren't in either of these categories, they ended up being druggies who used labs to serve their drug habit or were essentially dry labbing (giving results for tests without actually conducting them). It's all very shocking.
But while you get shocked, you still have to go through a lot of dry matter. Persist you must though, if only to rid yourself of the rose tinted glasses of forensics that you currently wear. And hope to never have to stand on trial, now that you know the shoddy state of affairs.
November 21, 2021
What an eye opener! Brandon Garrett clearly demonstrates that most of the forensic methods that are believed to be highly accurate even to the point of practical infallibility, can actually have high error rates, and some lack validation at all. He examines fingerprinting, hair, bite mark, fiber, voice, and firearm comparisons, blood spatter, etc. DNA is appraised, of course.
Real life examples illuminate the issues he tackles. While there are disturbing, but not really surprising examples of nefarious behaviours such as hiding forensics that would exclude the accused, it's the lack of scientific rigour that is truly mind blowing. Even more shocking still is the fact that some of this has been known for many years now, yet lawyers, judges, etc., carry on. Nothing to see here folks.
This book is easy to digest. Even though scientific methodology is assessed, it's done in a completely comprehensible manner. The statistics drag the engrossment a bit, but uh, it's necessary. Garrett does not just castigate, but offers clear and concrete examples of steps that can and should be taken. I'll never look at forensics the same way again.
Real life examples illuminate the issues he tackles. While there are disturbing, but not really surprising examples of nefarious behaviours such as hiding forensics that would exclude the accused, it's the lack of scientific rigour that is truly mind blowing. Even more shocking still is the fact that some of this has been known for many years now, yet lawyers, judges, etc., carry on. Nothing to see here folks.
This book is easy to digest. Even though scientific methodology is assessed, it's done in a completely comprehensible manner. The statistics drag the engrossment a bit, but uh, it's necessary. Garrett does not just castigate, but offers clear and concrete examples of steps that can and should be taken. I'll never look at forensics the same way again.
August 23, 2024
Really interesting with lots of great research, but the recommendations at the end were so disappointing. The author repeatedly details an enormous number of cases of not just poor lab practices, but intentional and systemic corruption that he shows is constant in crime labs at all levels — and then argues that regulations and QA systems would fix it. Time and again there is the story of an innocent person whose life has been quite literally stolen by this widespread corruption across analysts, expert witnesses, police, prosecutors, judges, professional associations, government agencies, and beyond. The book makes an incredibly compelling case for abolition…and then doesn’t see it through. Feels like an illogical conclusion and a huge missed opportunity.
October 7, 2023
I read this book for a class and it was super insightful. Showed a lot of things that need to be fixed within our criminal justice system, specifically the forensics side of things. Wouldn’t necessarily have read it on my own but would recommend, if only to educate ourselves on the flaws within the criminal justice system and how these flaws can seriously impact innocent people’s lives when they are wrongfully convicted.
February 21, 2024
Some terribly repetitiousness passages. Gives a little insight about what goes on. Basically screams bad management and no oversight leading to terrible practices and outcomes. This book says the situation has been allowed to become so malignant since it favors law enforcement. Which… yeah.
Good intro to the topic but not great for those that already know the horrendous state of the forensic sciences.
Good intro to the topic but not great for those that already know the horrendous state of the forensic sciences.
August 24, 2022
3.5 stars. An invaluable, thorough examination of the role of forensics in the American legal system: the misplaced trust put in them, the terrible consequences, and the concrete actions which can be taken to improve the situation. Also horribly written, especially on audio; short segments and topic-hopping make for so much repetition. Recommended nonetheless.
April 3, 2021
A very good read in terms of information on the system of evidence and the inherent flaws we must address and should know as potential jurors. I wish there was more focus on in-depth information and a better method to connect with the reader.
September 29, 2025
Fantastic book. Best (so far) of the forensic science books I've read. Garrett explains why each category of forensic science has serious flaws. He gives specific examples. I think this is must reading for folks handling cases with these issues, but this is accessible to everyone.
March 23, 2022
some things I knew, some things I figured, and some things that will make you angry anew.
September 29, 2022
Interesting, but really poorly written.
June 12, 2023
I have always wanted to get into investigating. This book was awesome to listen to not just how things work in the labs but to also hear some juicy details of when the labs processes fail.
Read
December 31, 2023Happy 100th book of 2023!
This is a good one! But I honestly need to stay away from nonfiction in my area of study. I skimmed a bit and it wasn’t as insightful for me personally.
This is a good one! But I honestly need to stay away from nonfiction in my area of study. I skimmed a bit and it wasn’t as insightful for me personally.
Read
January 7, 2024Going to dnf for now. The writing style is difficult for me to get into :/
March 31, 2025
So so. I think the author wasn't sure who was the audience he wanted to convince
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews