2.4: Ethics in Forensics

In May 2025, during the retrial of Karen Reed, who was accused of the murder of her boyfriend John O’Keefe, an expert witness in digital forensics provided critical testimony for the prosecution regarding the time and position of the victim’s last known use of his cellphone in relation to the last known movement of Karen Reed’s SUV. During cross-examination, the attorney for the defense questioned the witness regarding false claims that he had made on some on-line resumes indicating he received a bachelor’s degree, when he did not. The judge allowed the questioning despite the expert witness having presented the court with a curriculum vitae that did not list a college degree. The judge allowed this line of questioning as a means by which the jury could judge the integrity of the expert’s testimony. Some readers may think the defense attorney was wrong to challenge resumes that were not introduced during testimony. However, your author believes that integrity goes to the core of an individual.

Your author defines ethics as always doing the correct thing, especially when the consequences of doing the correct thing are not favorable to your own position. Ethics are core principles that govern good conduct, or noble conduct in reference to law enforcement. In the forensic community, good ethics and moral character are those that conform to accepted standards of virtuous behavior. Virtuous testimony in court proceedings is that which is fair, unbiased, and objective. The forensic technician will never give testimony that is beyond the scope of their expertise, or upon anything that they have not given careful consideration. They will never mislead any of the parties involved in court proceedings regarding their education, training, experience, or area of expertise; nor will they misrepresent or falsify reports, or conclusions, or purposely withhold observations or documentation that might otherwise favor one side over another in court proceedings. They will not provide testimony in any case where they have a personal interest. They will conduct full and fair examinations and will offer conclusions based solely on the pertinent facts related to the evidence. They will never ignore exculpatory evidence. They will never bow to political pressure, favoritism, or other influences. They will support only forensic disciplines that are generally accepted by the forensic community, have been subject to peer review, and are based on sound scientific principles. A forensic technician will never misrepresent their qualifications by exaggerating or falsely embellishing their education, training, or experience, and will keep their professional and private lives unsullied. A forensic technician will never knowingly perjure themselves under oath. Perhaps the hardest dilemma faced by the ethical forensic technician is the duty to report illegal or unethical behavior by other law enforcement personnel of which they have direct knowledge to the proper authorities. A failure to do so may be tantamount to an inexcusable injustice to a person who is accused of a crime. Any violation of these core values and professional obligations may result in serious consequences that will tarnish the reputation of the technician, as well as the profession they represent.

In the landmark court decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, known in California as a Pitchess Motion, the California Legislature expanded upon the Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, stare decisis, which required the prosecution to provide as discovery to the defense any material evidence that is favorable to the defendant, to further allow criminal defendants to seek discovery from the court of potentially exculpatory information located in otherwise confidential peace officer personnel records. As you can imagine, any episode of professional dishonesty or violation of professional ethical conduct could result in an inability to provide future testimony in court proceedings.

A forensic technician should be bound to a solemn oath, generally voiced with venerable fealty included, which is a bond not only with the community, but also with the self. If you hold respect for yourself, your integrity, and your good character, you will hold true to an oath. If an oath was nothing more than a nuisance requirement to gain employment in law enforcement, let me be clear – you are in the wrong profession and have made a poor career choice. The oath and the badge are our links to a chivalrous past where knights on horseback were pure and noble. Your author holds his oaths quite dear these many decades after he first raised his right hand.