Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States:

Forensic science sits at the intersection of evidence, behavior, and belief. When performed with discipline, it brings order to chaos and truth to uncertainty. When it drifts into assumption or politics, it risks turning science into spectacle.

That tension—between proof and persuasion—was the focus of Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, the National Academies Press report that reshaped how experts and courts view evidence. Its findings were uncomfortable but necessary. It concluded that many forensic disciplines had grown inside law enforcement rather than inside science itself.

• Standards varied wildly.
• Peer review was inconsistent.
• Oversight was fragmented.

The authors called for a national entity to oversee forensic research, validation, and accreditation—an independent body not beholden to prosecutorial outcomes. The goal was simple: make forensic science behave like science again.

The Historical Record

The power and peril of forensic evidence can be traced through two iconic cases.

State of New Jersey v. Hauptmann (1935)—the Lindbergh kidnapping trial—relied heavily on handwriting evidence. Analysts compared ransom notes with Bruno Hauptmann’s known writing. There were similarities, but no standardized testing or error-rate validation. The trial unfolded more like a stage play than a scientific examination. Hauptmann was convicted and later executed, though controversy still surrounds the evidence. The case remains a cautionary tale about expertise presented without empirical structure.

Six decades later, United States v. Theodore J. Kaczynski (1998)—the Unabomber investigation—used writing once again, but under vastly improved conditions. The FBI’s forensic document examiners, linguists, and behavioral analysts worked in coordination, comparing the Unabomber’s manifesto to Kaczynski’s letters and journals. Writing patterns, phrasing, and syntax narrowed the search. The evidence held up because it was collaborative, reproducible, and backed by behavioral context.

Two cases, same discipline—one emotional, one empirical.

That contrast captures exactly what the National Academies report warned about: forensic credibility is not inherited; it must be earned repeatedly.

Science, Law, and Human Perception

Even with advanced technology, the courtroom remains a stage where perception can outweigh precision. The public often treats DNA as absolute and handwriting as subjective. Both assumptions are wrong.

DNA usually commands more authority with juries because it’s viewed as “scientific fact.” But courtrooms have seen DNA evidence planted, mishandled, or misinterpreted. Lawyers sometimes cherry-pick probabilities to fit a theory. Complex DNA mixtures have sent innocent people to prison.

Handwriting, on the other hand, faces greater skepticism—frequently dismissed as “soft science” or "pseudoscience." Yet when paired with corroborating data, it can be decisive: ransom demands, suicide notes, fraud schemes, and anonymous threats all rely on authorship. Neither discipline is flawless. Both demand context.

Complementary Tools, Not Rivals

DNA and handwriting don’t compete—they complement each other. DNA tells you who was biologically present. Handwriting tells you who was physically present and authored the document.

Imagine this:

• A suspect’s DNA is nowhere near the crime scene, but their penmanship matches the ransom note.

• Or their DNA is on every envelope, but handwriting proves they didn’t write the message.

In layered investigations, these two forms of forensic evidence intersect to tell the whole story. DNA provides identity. Handwriting provides intent. Both are essential.

Beyond the Magic Bullet

The obsession with one “perfect” form of evidence is the oldest mistake in modern forensics. Real justice doesn’t come from any single technology. It comes from layered data, tested context, and corroborated findings. Throwing out handwriting analysis because it lacks a genetic barcode is shortsighted. Treating DNA as untouchable truth is just as dangerous.

DNA is biology. Handwriting is behavior. Each reveals something the other cannot. DNA identifies the body. Handwriting identifies the mind. Together, they bring investigators closer to understanding not just who did it, but why.

The Ongoing Mandate for Reform

Fifteen years after the National Academies Press report, progress remains uneven. Accreditation has improved, but fragmented oversight persists. State and federal labs still operate under different authorities. Some disciplines remain unvalidated by large-scale empirical research. The recommendations—independence, research investment, and education—are still the map forward.

The Daubert standard, set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, requires that expert testimony be both reliable and relevant. It’s a safeguard, not a substitute for scientific rigor. The report’s enduring message is that credibility must be measurable, not assumed.

Science, at its core, is humility organized into process. When forensic science honors that humility, truth becomes more than persuasion—it becomes proof.

Sources That Don’t Suck

• National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The National Academies Press.

• State of New Jersey v. Hauptmann (1935) — Lindbergh kidnapping trial.

• United States v. Theodore J. Kaczynski (1998) — Unabomber case.

• Butler, J. M. (2015). Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Interpretation. Academic Press.

• Gill, P., et al. (2014). “DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the Interpretation of Mixtures.” Forensic Science International: Genetics, 16, 41–51.

• Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). “The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science.” Science, 309(5736), 892–895.

• Huberty, T. J. (1999). “Forensic Handwriting Identification: Research and Practice.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(2), 375–385.

• Osborn, A. S. (1929, reprinted 2013). Questioned Documents. Lawyers Cooperative Publishing.

• U.S. Department of Justice, FBI Laboratory. Handwriting Analysis and Forensic Document Examination Resources.

• Supreme Court of the United States. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

• National Institute of Justice. “Forensic Science Reform: Implementation and Impact.”