Errors and Failures in Forensic Practice

  • Wayne PetherickEmail author


Failures and errors occur in a variety of settings and for a variety of reasons. In some practices, errors present a good learning opportunity with little (or minimal) impact to the lives of those concerned. However, in other areas, errors have disastrous or catastrophic consequences, such as the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor on April 26, 1986. In any given number of forensic disciplines (forensic science, forensic psychology/psychiatry, and forensic criminology among others), such failures can have a profound negative impact on the life or liberty of any or all parties involved. This can occur when experts do not avail themselves of all available evidence, when they are oblivious or unaware of evidence that exists, when experts are not aware of their own shortcomings, or where bias or cognitive distortion taint the expert’s opinion, even in cases where the evidence may be pristine or voluminous.

This chapter examines error from the perspective of forensic practice, followed by a discussion of two forms of cognitive errors: metacognition and patternicity. Some examples will be used throughout to highlight areas of discussion. These will mostly be drawn from the area of forensic science as these are perhaps the most documented and accessible. Finally, some recommendations for reducing error and failure will be offered through the lens of culture.


Mistakes Errors Failure Forensic Metacognition Patternicity Confirmation bias 


  1. 60 Minutes. (2008, November 18). Evidence Of Injustice. Retrieved from
  2. Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches. 7(1), 39–59.Google Scholar
  3. Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2005). Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: The need for cognitive closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2(1), 43–63. Scholar
  4. Blackburn, R. (1996). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct: Theory, Research and Practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J. D. (2012). Understanding the Better Than Average Effect: Motives (Still) Matter. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budowle, B., Bottrell, M. C., Bunch, S. G., Fram, R., Harrison, D., Meagher, S., … Stacey, R. B. (2009). A Perspective on Errors, Bias, and Interpretation in the Forensic Sciences and Direction for Continuing Advancement. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(4), 798–809. Scholar
  7. Chisum, W. J., & Turvey, B. E. (2007). Crime Reconstruction (1st ed.). San Diego: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, A. M., Crowder, C. M., Ousley, S. D., & Houck, M. M. (2014). Error and its Meaning in Forensic Science. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59(1), 123–126. Scholar
  9. Clarke, S. (2002). Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorizing. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 32(2), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dörner, D. (1997). The Logic of Failure: Recognising and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Dror, I. E., & Charlton, D. (2006). Why Experts Make Errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(4), 600–616.Google Scholar
  12. Du, M. (2017). Analysis of errors in forensic science. Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, 3(3), 139. Scholar
  13. Eagleton, T. (2016). Culture (1st ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Mointoring: A New Area of Cignitive-Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giannelli, P. C. (2010). Scientific Fraud. Criminal Law Bulletin, 46(6), 1313–1333.Google Scholar
  16. Giannelli, P. C. (2011). Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis: A Retrospective. Criminal Law Bulletin, 47, 1–10.Google Scholar
  17. Gross, H. G. (1924). Criminal Investigation: A Practical Handbook for Magistrates, Police Officers, and Lawyers. 1002. Scholar
  18. Heuer, R. J. (1999). Psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington, D.C.: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.Google Scholar
  19. Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. Scholar
  20. Kolodner, J. L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 6(3), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krueger, J., & Mueller, R. A. (2002). Unskilled, Unaware, or Both? The Better-Than-Average Heuristic and Statistical Regression Predict Errors in Estimates of Own Performance. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 82(2), 180–188. Retrieved from
  22. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It How Difficulties in Recognising One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self Assesments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. Retrieved from
  23. Langenburg, G., Champod, C., & Wertheim, P. (2009). Testing for Potential Contextual Bias Effects During the Verification Stage of the ACE-V Methodology when Conducting Fingerprint Comparisons∗. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(3), 571–582. Scholar
  24. Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A Multilevel Investigation of Factors Influencing Employee Service Performance and Customer OUtcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 41–58.Google Scholar
  25. Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An Overview. Institute of Education Sciences, 2–9.Google Scholar
  26. Mcvicker, S. (2002, October 26). Accuracy of sobriety testing machine challenged. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from
  27. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Scholar
  28. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2013). How Metacognition can Promote Academic Learning and Instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of Thinking and Congitive Instruction (pp. 15–47). New Jersey: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Petherick, W. A. (2015). An Introduction to Applied Crime Analysis. In Applied Crime Analysis: A Social Science Approach to Understanding Crime, Criminals, and Victims (1st ed., pp. 1–13). Waltham: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Petherick, W. A., & Rowan, A. (2015). Physical Evidence and the Crime Scene. In W. A. Petherick (Ed.), Applied Crime Analysis: A Social Science Approach to Understanding Crime, Criminals, and Victims (1st ed., pp. 39–61). Waltham: Anderson Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Petherick, W. A., & Turvey, B. E. (2010). Cognitive Ethos of the Forensic Examiner. In W. A. Petherick, B. E. Turvey, & C. E. Ferguson (Eds.), Forensic Criminology (1st ed., pp. 81–129). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Proust, J. (2010). Metacognition. Philosophy Compass, 5(11), 989–998. Scholar
  33. Rassin, E., Eerland, A., & Kuijpers, I. (2010). Let’s find the evidence: An Analogue Study of Confirmation Bias in Criminal Investigations. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7(3), 231–246. Scholar
  34. Risinger, D. M., Saks, M. J., Thompson, W. C., & Rosenthal, R. (2002). The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion. CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW, 90, 56.Google Scholar
  35. Ross, A., & Castelle, G. (1993, November 4). Matter of W. Va. State Police Crime Lab., 438 S.E.2d 501 – Retrieved June 30, 2019, from CourtListener website:
  36. Ryvkin, D., Krajč, M., & Ortmann, A. (2012). Are the unskilled doomed to remain unaware? Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(5), 1012–1031. Scholar
  37. Shermer, M. (2008). Patternicity. Scientific American, 299(6), 48–48. Scholar
  38. Sorochan, D. (2008). Wrongful Convictions: Preventing Miscarriages of Justice and Some Case Studies. TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW, 41, 25.Google Scholar
  39. Staub, S., & Kaynak, R. (2014). Is an unskilled really unaware of it? Social and Behavioural Sciences, 150, 899–907. Retrieved from
  40. Thornton, J. (1983). Use and Abuses of Forensic Science. American Bar Association Journal, 69, 288–292.Google Scholar
  41. Thornton, J., & Petersen, J. (2002). The General Assumptions and Rationale of Forensic Identification. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. (Vol. 3). St. Paul: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  42. Tobin, W. (2004). Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis: A Case Study in Flawed Forensics. The Champion, (July), 12–21.Google Scholar
  43. Walter, P. (2012, October 5). Forensic lab error led to miscarriage of justice. Chemistry World. Retrieved from
  44. Woodhouse, B., & Petherick, W. A. (2014). Metacopgnition in Criminal Profiling. In W. A. Petherick (Ed.), Profiling and Serial Crime: Theoretical and Practical Issues (3rd ed., pp. 185–206). San Diego: Anderson Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.C/- Criminology Department, Faculty of Society and DesignBond UniversityRobinaAustralia

Personalised recommendations