FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

1

Forensic Science and Wrongful Convictions in Canada: Errors, Challenges and Reforms

Ancy Maria Herbert
J0512422
Post-Baccalaureate Diploma in Law Enforcement Studies, Justice Institute of British Columbia

Author Note
This research paper was completed for LAWS 4003: Research Project, instructed by
Rachelle Louden. This paper is 7,116 words and is due March 28, 2025.

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

2

Abstract
Forensic science plays a very significant role in criminal case investigation, but lately, errors in
forensic methods and judicial misconceptions have significantly contributed to miscarriages of
justice in Canada. The following paper examines how poorly constructed forensic methods,
cognitive limitations, and the misuse of forensic data undermine the stability of the judiciary.
Despite technological progress, institutional fault rests with poorly validated forensic procedures,
lack of standardized regulation, and poor forensic literacy among judges and court staff. Based
on the analysis of case studies, peer-reviewed journals, and legal reports, this research identifies
major flaws in forensic practice including misinterpretation of forensic probability, expert bias,
and inconsistent forensic standards across jurisdictions. The study discovers that forensic
evidence is at times considered to be unfailing, leading to over-dependence on unsound forensic
practices such as bite mark analysis and microscopic hair comparison. In response to these
problems, this study recommends the establishment of a national registry of wrongful
convictions, enacting stricter verification processes for forensic techniques, mandating forensic
science training for legal professionals, and enhancing independent observation of forensic
practice. Ensuring equal access to forensic expertise for defense and enhancing forensic
admissibility criteria in courtrooms are also essential steps toward reform. Strengthening the
connection between forensic science and legal accountability through interdisciplinary
collaboration and policy change will enhance the validity of forensic evidence, minimize
forensic errors, and prevent future wrongful convictions in Canada.
Keywords: Wrongful convictions, forensic errors, legal misinterpretation, forensic
oversight, cognitive bias, expert testimony, forensic reliability, criminal justice reform

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

3

Table of Contents
Forensic Science and Wrongful Convictions in Canada: Errors, Challenges and
Reforms………….….................................................................................................................... 5
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study......................................................................................................... 6
Research Question............................................................................................................. 6
Main Argument and Expectations .................................................................................... 7
Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 7
Reliability and Limitations of Forensic Methods ............................................................. 8
Misinterpretation of Forensic Evidence and Cognitive Bias............................................ 9
Systemic Failures of Forensic Governance..................................................................... 10
Legal Reforms to Improve Forensic Reliability.............................................................. 11
Divergent Views and Debates ........................................................................................ 12
Gaps in Current Literature...............................................................................................13
Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 13
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria ........................................................................................... 14
Initial Article Assessment and Selection ........................................................................ 15
Final Article Evaluation and Selection ...........................................................................16
Ethical Considerations.................................................................................................... 17
Results ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Misinterpretation of Forensic Evidence.......................................................................... 18
Cognitive Bias in Forensic Analysis .............................................................................. 18
Lack of Regulatory Oversight .........................................................................................20

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

4

Limited Forensic Literacy Among Legal Professionals.................................................. 20
Reforms to Enhance Forensic Evidence Reliability........................................................ 22
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................23
Limitations of the Research ............................................................................................ 26
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 27
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................30
References .................................................................................................................................. 32
Appendix A................................................................................................................................. 36
Appendix B................................................................................................................................. 38

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

5

Forensic Science and Wrongful Convictions in Canada: Errors, Challenges and Reforms
Forensic science plays a crucial role in criminal investigations by providing scientific
examinations that help convict or acquit suspects. However, despite advancements, challenges
remain in the reliability and interpretation of forensic evidence, particularly concerning wrongful
convictions (Savage, 2023). In Canada, cases of wrongful convictions due to flawed forensic
examinations highlight systemic weaknesses in forensic methods and their application within the
criminal justice system (CJS). Uncertainty regarding the credibility of forensic techniques, as
well as the misapplication of findings by legal professionals, has contributed to miscarriages of
justice (Cunliffe & Edmond, 2021). While technological advancements have strengthened
forensic science, inconsistent application within the CJS continues to pose risks to innocent
individuals (Pollanen, 2014). To ensure justice and maintain the integrity of Canada’s CJS, it is
essential to critically assess forensic methods, standardize their application, and implement
safeguards that prevent wrongful convictions.
Problem Statement
Some well-known Canadian wrongful convictions of Donald Marshall Jr., Guy Paul
Morin, and David Milgaard expose inherent flaws in forensic science practice (Mason, 2020).
The primary areas of concern are over-reliance on unvalidated forensic methods, expert bias, and
abusive use of forensic evidence by legal professionals (Public Prosecution Service of Canada
[PPSC], 2019; Cunliffe & Edmond, 2021). In some cases, forensic evidence presented in court
was later discredited due to methodological defects or misrepresentation, leading to grave
miscarriages of justice. Problems also exist with the lack of scientific control, inadequate training
of lawyers and judges in evaluating forensic evidence, and the absence of clearly defined
standards of admissibility (Garrett & Neufeld, 2009). These problems emphasize the need for

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

6

reforms to improve forensic practice, improve legal literacy in scientific evidence, and prevent
the use of questionable forensic practices.
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to determine common forensic analysis errors resulting in wrongful
convictions in Canada and how recent advances counter such obstacles. The study will also
discuss potential forensic and legal reforms to ensure forensic practice is more dependable in
Canada's justice system. Specifically, it will address issues like cognitive bias, lack of
standardized forensic procedures, and the challenges legal professionals face when evaluating
scientific evidence (Morgan, 2023a; Cunliffe & Edmond, 2021). The study will consider the
impact of flawed forensic methods such as bite mark analysis and microscopic hair comparison
(Pollanen, 2014), and it will propose recommendations for stricter forensic reliability standards,
improved legal education, and greater accountability for forensic experts. Based on a critical
review of peer-reviewed literature, government documents, forensic examinations, and case
studies of wrongful convictions, this study will provide evidence-based solutions to enhance
forensic science standards and legal regulation.
Research Question
This study strives to answer the questions: How can forensic analysis errors and legal
misinterpretations cause wrongful convictions in Canada, and what reform would enhance the
reliability of forensic evidence? These questions are important because forensic science is
considered untouchable throughout legal proceedings. However, in the case of wrongful
convictions, it exhibits the disastrous consequences of forensic errors. Misinterpretation by legal
professionals, cognitive bias, and low standards of admissibility lead to miscarriages of justice
(Morgan, 2023a; Savage, 2023). The current study will examine forensic and legal breakdowns

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

7

to provide recommendations for reform that enhance forensic accuracy and reduce wrongful
convictions.
Main Argument and Expectations
Forensic errors and legal misinterpretations have significantly contributed to wrongful
convictions in Canada. Defective forensic practices, biased experts, and misinterpreted evidence
have led to flawed convictions, compounded by the limited ability of legal professionals to
critically analyze forensic science (Morgan, 2023a; Savage, 2023). The main argument of this
research is that significant reforms are needed to improve the reliability of forensic evidence and
ensure its accurate application in the legal system. It is expected that addressing issues like
cognitive bias, lack of standardized forensic procedures, and inadequate legal evaluation of
scientific evidence will help reduce wrongful convictions. This paper argues for stricter forensic
reliability standards, improved legal education on scientific evidence, and greater accountability
for forensic experts in the Canadian justice system.
Literature Review
A review of the literature revealed some common themes regarding the role of forensic
science in wrongful convictions. These include the accuracy and limitations of forensic
techniques, the challenges in interpreting forensic evidence, the influence of cognitive biases,
and the shortcomings in forensic governance and regulation. These themes are discussed across
multiple sources by Garrett and Neufeld (2009), Rajapakse (2024), Scherr and Dror (2021), and
Roach (2009). The ongoing controversy highlights a significant dispute over whether forensic
science itself is directly responsible for wrongful convictions, as well as the necessity of legal
and scientific reforms. Although technological advances in forensic techniques have certainly
improved the accuracy of investigations, institutional flaws persist. These flaws indicate a need

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

8

for continuous research, standardization, and policy reforms to enhance the credibility of forensic
evidence and prevent miscarriages of justice. Addressing these issues will be crucial in ensuring
that forensic science can truly fulfill its role in achieving justice.
Reliability and Limitations of Forensic Methods
Forensic science has experienced tremendous advancements, particularly with the
invention of DNA analysis. This technique has played a central role in exonerating individuals
wrongly convicted of crimes (Garrett & Neufeld, 2009). However, as DNA technology has
evolved, it has also revealed the limitations of older forensic methods, such as hair microscopy
and bite mark comparisons, which have been linked to numerous wrongful convictions (Morgan,
2023b). These methods were initially adopted by the CJS under the assumption of their scientific
validity. Yet, over time, flaws in these techniques became apparent, leading to their eventual
discredit. Hair microscopy, for instance, was once a fundamental method used to connect
suspects to crime scenes. It was later found to be unreliable, contributing to many wrongful
convictions before being phased out (Morgan, 2023b). This highlights the importance of ongoing
scrutiny and improvement of forensic methods to uphold justice.
Additionally. DNA offers significant improvements; however, this method is not without
limitations. DNA evidence, while often considered the most reliable form of forensic evidence,
can be subject to misinterpretation, particularly in cases involving degraded, mixed, or trace
samples. A notable example is the R v Grant case, where the interpretation of DNA evidence was
contested due to the poor quality of the sample, highlighting that even DNA evidence can be
open to misinterpretation (Frederiksen, 2011). This issue underscores a broader challenge in
forensic science: while some techniques, such as DNA analysis, have been scientifically
validated, many others still lack empirical backing and standardized validation.

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

9

Moreover, despite the advancements in technology, many forensic specialties continue to
face issues related to reproducibility and consistency. The failure to implement standardized
operating procedures and validation protocols across forensic laboratories contributes to these
challenges. As a result, ensuring the reliability of forensic evidence remains difficult (Giannelli,
2007). Although molecular techniques like DNA analysis have significantly improved forensic
reliability, many specialties still lack the scientific rigor necessary to minimize error. This lack of
rigor increases the potential for inconsistencies in forensic findings. Consequently, the risk of
wrongful convictions remains a significant concern.
Misinterpretation of Forensic Evidence and Cognitive Bias
One of the central issues in wrongful convictions is the misinterpretation of forensic
evidence, often worsened by cognitive bias. Rajapakse (2024) emphasizes that legal
professionals, including judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, often lack the specialized
scientific knowledge required to critically evaluate forensic testimony. This knowledge gap can
lead to misapplications of forensic evidence, particularly when presented with vague or overly
presumptive language. Terms like consistent with or matches are commonly used by forensic
experts, but they can result in jurors overestimating the confidence level in the evidence,
potentially leading to wrongful convictions (LaPorte, 2018). Addressing these issues requires
greater scientific literacy among legal professionals and stricter guidelines for the presentation of
forensic evidence to prevent misinterpretations that could lead to wrongful convictions. In
addressing these challenges, Rajapakse (2024) proposed a novel framework called the Egg
Analogy. This framework categorizes forensic evidence into layers of reliability, helping judges
and attorneys differentiate scientifically validated methods from those that are less credible or

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

10

unproven. The analogy provides a structured way to understand the varying degrees of certainty
that forensic evidence can present, thereby assisting in its proper application in court.
Cognitive bias plays a significant role in the misinterpretation of forensic evidence.
Forensic experts, like all practitioners, are susceptible to biases that influence their judgments.
Scherr and Dror (2021) discuss how experts may unconsciously align their conclusions with law
enforcement expectations, leading to confirmation bias and compromised forensic outcomes.
Additionally, the problem of contextual bias further complicates forensic evidence interpretation.
Experts may be influenced by case-related information, such as details of the investigation,
which they would otherwise be insulated from, resulting in misleading conclusions. Garrett and
Neufeld (2009) also highlight how contextual factors, such as pressure from law enforcement or
the nature of the investigation, can lead to biased forensic conclusions, thereby increasing the
risk of wrongful convictions. These biases can distort the interpretation of forensic findings and
contribute to miscarriages of justice.
The adversarial nature of the legal system also worsens this issue. Both the prosecution
and defense attorneys may seek to frame forensic outcomes in ways that benefit their clients.
This can lead to selective interpretation or even evidence manipulation. The case of Guy Paul
Morin, whose wrongful conviction was influenced by misinterpreted fiber testing, demonstrates
this problem (Savage, 2023). This stresses the need for increased scrutiny of forensic evidence
within the courtroom, ensuring that legal professionals are adequately trained to understand and
interpret forensic data accurately.
Systemic Failures of Forensic Governance
A significant contributor to wrongful convictions is the lack of regulatory oversight in
forensic science. Canada's decentralized forensic system means there is no national standard for

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

11

accrediting forensic labs. This leads to varying levels of forensic quality across provinces. As
Roach (2009) points out, this lack of a unified regulatory body means forensic practices differ
from province to province, making it difficult to ensure uniform standards for accuracy and
reliability. This decentralization also limits accountability, which is problematic given the
potential for errors in forensic analysis.
The lack of oversight is particularly concerning in jurisdictions where forensic analysts
work closely with law enforcement agencies. This raises concerns about bias and conflicts of
interest. For instance, the Motherisk drug-testing scandal highlights how flawed forensic testing
led to improper convictions. This case further emphasizes the need for independent forensic
laboratories. It also highlights the importance of robust regulatory systems (Roach, 2009;
Morgan, 2023b). Without effective oversight, forensic science risks becoming a tool used to
secure convictions, rather than an impartial process for truth-seeking.
Legal Reforms to Improve Forensic Reliability
To enhance the reliability of forensic evidence, it is crucial to ensure that only
scientifically validated methods are admitted in court. The Daubert standard serves as a guide for
assessing the admissibility of forensic evidence. However, its application has been controversial.
Some argue that the Daubert standard is too rigid. They suggest it may exclude forensic practices
that have not been extensively tested but could still be valuable in criminal investigations
(MacFarlane, 2014). This raises important questions about balancing scientific rigor with the
practical needs of the legal system.
Another key issue is the use of vague language in forensic reports, such as might have
been involved. These terms, while technically accurate, often give jurors the impression that the
forensic evidence is more conclusive than it is (LaPorte, 2018). This misrepresentation can lead

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

12

to wrongful convictions. Such misleading interpretations can significantly impact case outcomes.
Although these concerns will be revisited in later sections regarding judicial reform, they
highlight an important challenge in presenting forensic evidence. Ensuring clarity and equity in
forensic testimony is essential for sound legal decision-making.
Divergent Views and Debates
Experts disagree on the primary causes of wrongful convictions in forensic science and
the best solutions. Some argue that the issue lies mainly with the forensic techniques themselves,
calling for stricter controls, standardized procedures, and more scientific validation (Giannelli,
2007; Roach, 2009). These researchers contend that methods such as bite mark comparison and
hair analysis are scientifically unreliable and could lead to wrongful convictions if misused.
Others, however, focus on the misuse of forensic science by the judiciary. Rajapakse (2024)
suggests that the problem is less about the techniques and more about the lack of critical review
of forensic data by legal professionals. The manipulation of forensic evidence can warp legal
decisions, highlighting the need for better education and training for legal professionals in
forensic science.
The application of the Daubert standard to filter forensic evidence is another contentious
issue. While some, like MacFarlane (2014), believe that the Daubert standard ensures only
scientifically valid methods reach the courtroom, others argue that this standard could exclude
useful forensic approaches that have not been thoroughly tested but could be pivotal in solving
cases. The challenge is to balance scientific integrity with the practical demands of the
courtroom. Lastly, there are divergent opinions regarding the need for centralized forensic
oversight. Some experts advocate for a unified national regulatory body to standardize and
oversee forensic practices (Roach, 2009; Hamer & Edmond, 2019), while others argue that

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

13

reform should focus on improving procedural aspects of the legal system, such as enhancing
judicial training to improve the interpretation of forensic evidence (Savage, 2023).
Gaps in Current Literature
Despite extensive research on forensic errors and miscarriages of justice, there remain
significant gaps in the literature, particularly in the Canadian context. Much of the existing
research is based on U.S. case studies, which may not be fully applicable to the Canadian system
(MacFarlane, 2014). Furthermore, many high-profile cases of wrongful convictions receive
considerable media attention. However, empirical research on forensic science practices in
Canada is limited. More data is needed to assess the role of forensic science in routine legal
processes and identify systemic issues that contribute to wrongful convictions.
Additionally, emerging fields such as digital forensic science and probabilistic
genotyping have not been extensively studied, despite their growing importance in modern
criminal investigations (Frederiksen, 2011). These disciplines introduce new challenges related
to reliability and admissibility, yet they remain underexplored in the literature. There is also
limited research on the effectiveness of forensic education, despite its emphasis in theoretical
literature. Furthermore, Canada lacks a comprehensive database of wrongful convictions, which
makes it difficult to identify patterns and implement targeted reforms (Schuller et al., 2021).
Addressing these gaps is critical to ensuring that forensic science remains a reliable and effective
tool in securing justice.
Methodology
This research adopts pragmatism as an overall worldview, dealing with resolving or
issuing an improvement on one real-world problem at hand, wrongful convictions in Canada,
through increased forensic science and legal reforms. Pragmatism emphasizes practical solutions,

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

14

integrating scientific and legal perspectives to develop evidence-based recommendations
(Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). Within this framework, the paper identifies problems in current
practices in the field of forensic and legal practice and seeks to obtain recommendations that
would improve justice outcomes. The goal is not to prove absolute truths in forensic science, but
rather to develop actionable solutions, for example, improved forensic methodologies and
judicial training, as well as policy changes. To achieve these objectives, a secondary research
design is employed.
A secondary research design allows case analyses, academic literature, and forensic
science reports to be reviewed on a broad scale and to provide context and supporting evidence
in the wrongful convictions caused related to forensic errors in Canada. The main resources
utilized included the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC) Library (EBSCO Database) and
Google Scholar. The advantage of the JIBC Library was its advanced filtering capabilities, to
allow users to make searches by geography, publisher, language, and source type. This leaves no
room for doubt in terms of academic consistency. Google Scholar complemented this by using
its cited-by feature to find other relevant sources not available through JIBC. These methods
provide a holistic approach to ensure that there is a complete understanding of the literature.
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
A systematic search process was implemented to refine the scope of the study. The first
search involved broad keywords including forensic errors, wrongful convictions, and
misinterpretation of law in Canada. Table A1 outlines the initial keywords used. A refined search
was thereafter conducted after involving both the inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure not
just relevance but also reliability. This is outlined in Table A2. The study examines forensic
science practices, wrongful convictions, and legal misinterpretations in the Canadian legal

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

15

system. Inclusion criteria include literature published after 2000, peer-reviewed journals, case
studies, and legal inquiries addressing errors in forensic science and legal reforms. Articles
published before 2000 are excluded except for pivotal wrongful conviction cases like Guy Paul
Morin, and David Milgaard, which were catalysts for changes in forensic science, concerning
DNA testing. Eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, non-peer-reviewed articles, and
unrelated legal reforms are excluded, focusing on forensic errors, legal misinterpretations, and
reforms to prevent wrongful convictions.
Initial Article Assessment and Selection
Following the refined search process, relevant articles were systematically selected by
first reviewing titles and abstracts. The selection criteria focused on studies addressing forensic
science in wrongful convictions, forensic errors, and potential reforms. Sixteen articles were
chosen for abstract reviews to assess relevance. Several works highlight issues with unvalidated
forensic methods contributing to wrongful convictions. These include flawed analysis by
Cunliffe and Edmond (2021), fingerprint and bite mark analysis by Olaborede and Meintjes-Van
der Walt (2020), and underfunding and misuse as per Pollanen (2014).
To ensure a comprehensive analysis, the final selection included studies covering key
themes in forensic reliability and legal oversight. Research by Eastwood and Caldwell (2015)
examines misleading forensic testimony, while Scherr and Dror (2021) explore cognitive bias
among forensic experts. The need for better regulation is argued by Hamer and Edmond (2019),
whereas Schuller et al. (2020) focus on national oversight and database implementation. Morgan
(2023a) categorizes forensic errors and emphasizes judicial scrutiny. Additionally, government
reports such as Innocence at Stake (PPSC, 2019) address misidentification and false confessions.
Judicial training and scrutiny are covered by Rajapakse (2024) and Roach (2009), while Savage

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

16

(2023) discusses the Daubert standard. Validation and oversight concerns are presented by
Frederiksen (2011) and MacFarlane (2014). Finally, DNA testing and exonerations are analyzed
by Garrett and Neufeld (2009) and LaPorte (2018). By incorporating these sources, the study
ensures a well-rounded examination of forensic science challenges and judicial review
improvements aimed at preventing wrongful convictions in Canada.
Final Article Evaluation and Selection
To ensure reliability, accuracy, and validity, articles were assessed based on their
relevance to the study’s focus. The quality of analysis and the expertise of the authors were also
considered. The selection process prioritized peer-reviewed publications. It also focused on
research conducted by experts in forensic science, law, and criminal justice. In total, nine articles
were chosen for full review, as they provided critical insights into flawed forensic methods,
DNA testing, and regulatory oversight. The evaluation considered not only the findings
presented in each study but also the strength of their methodologies, the transparency of data
interpretation, and the consistency of their conclusions with broader forensic research.
In addition to methodological rigor, the credibility of the sources was carefully examined
to minimize the influence of potential biases. Forensic science literature can sometimes be
shaped by institutional priorities, funding sources, or legal perspectives, which may impact the
framing of research conclusions. To address this concern, the selected studies were crossreferenced with other high-quality sources to ensure that claims were well-supported by
empirical evidence. Furthermore, studies that provided historical context, comparative analyses,
or recommendations for policy reform were given consideration, as they offered a more
comprehensive view of the challenges facing forensic science. By applying these rigorous
selection criteria, this research establishes a strong and balanced foundation for analyzing the

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

17

role of forensic evidence in wrongful convictions and identifying potential improvements in
forensic practices and judicial oversight.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations are crucial in ensuring objective data analysis. This is especially
important when considering the impact of wrongful convictions on individuals and communities.
The research will ensure proper attribution to original researchers and avoid selective reporting.
The study will remain relevant to current forensic science practice and the Canadian legal
framework. Given that wrongful convictions deeply affect individuals, families, and public
confidence in the justice system, the study takes care to present findings respectfully. Selective
reporting is avoided to maintain research integrity, thus ensuring the study’s ethical
thoroughness.
Results
The findings of the study provide an extensive understanding of how faulty forensics and
misconstrued legal matters contribute to wrongful convictions in Canada. The results present
extensive research that brings to the forefront some of the major themes. Appendix B gives an
overview of these major themes.
Flawed Forensic Methods
Misstatements in forensic reports, where experts overstate the certainty of their
conclusions, are identified as a significant issue. These misstatements greatly mislead courts and
juries into thinking that forensic evidence is some kind of infallible evidence. It does not,
however, talk about the limitations and uncertainties that all forensic types entail. These refer to
subjective forensic analysis methods such as the much-publicized bite mark analysis or
microscopic hair comparison, where the conclusions can be exceedingly shaky (Morgan, 2023a;

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

18

Garrett & Neufeld, 2009; LaPorte, 2018). Once again, a good example is manipulation by
fingerprint evidence which can be used to convict people wrongly. In such cases, the
manipulation usually results from wrong identifications or misclassifications for which
subsequent DNA evidence has exonerated (Rajapakse, 2024; Roach, 2009; Hamer & Edmond,
2019). Addressing these issues is crucial for improving the accuracy and reliability of forensic
evidence in the criminal justice system.
Misinterpretation of Forensic Evidence
The overconfidence displayed in expert testimonies, often the result of pressure from law
enforcement agencies to present compelling evidence, has also been highlighted as a factor that
contributes to the wrongful use of forensic evidence. Exaggerated presentations of the
conclusiveness of expert opinion sometimes reinforce the perception that forensic science can
deliver irrefutable proof of guilt (Savage, 2023; Frederiksen, 2011). Moreover, problems in
evidence handling and reporting, such as failure to maintain an appropriate chain of custody,
contamination of forensic evidence, and selective reporting of evidence, all contribute
significantly to wrongful convictions (MacFarlane, 2014; Schuller et al., 2021). These
deficiencies expose systemic flaws within the forensic and judicial systems, highlighting that
forensic blunders are not solely the result of flawed methodologies or cognitive bias but also
stem from inadequate regulatory oversight (Morgan, 2023b). This broader perspective challenges
the assumption that forensic errors arise only from individual mistakes rather than deeper
structural issues within the system.
Cognitive Bias in Forensic Analysis
Legal professionals often lack adequate scientific literacy. They frequently misinterpret
forensic evidence due to cognitive biases and statistical misinterpretations (Rajapakse, 2024).

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

19

One clear example is the prosecutor's fallacy. In this, forensic evidence is incorrectly presented
as definitive proof of guilt, even when the probability of a match is overstated (Cunliffe &
Edmond, 2021). This misrepresentation of forensic certainty has contributed to wrongful
convictions across generations, particularly in cases where prosecution arguments relied too
heavily on inconclusive forensic evidence (Cunliffe & Edmond, 2021; Rajapakse, 2024). These
issues highlight the urgent need for improved scientific education for legal professionals. There
is also a need for more rigorous standards for presenting forensic evidence in court.
The adversarial nature of the legal system also intensifies these problems. Forensic
evidence is often selectively presented to support the prosecution's narrative. Instead of being
evaluated impartially and objectively, the evidence is used to favor one side (Hamer & Edmond,
2019). In the same vein, Scherr and Dror (2021) revealed that cognitive biases in forensic
testimonies are largely responsible for wrongful convictions. Forensic analysts may unknowingly
align their findings with the theory of the case proposed by law enforcement. This creates tunnel
vision and leads to biased conclusions. As a result, judges and jurors tend to accept expert
testimony as definitive, despite their often inadequate understanding of the underlying scientific
principles. This makes forensic evidence interpretation inherently probabilistic.
Misinterpretation of forensic evidence as conclusive proof rather than probabilistic
generates wrongful convictions. These convictions are based on flawed scientific assumptions
(Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015; PPSC, 2023). One such novel framework dealing with this issue is
the Egg Analogy proposed by Rajapakse (2024). This analogy categorizes forensic evidence into
layers of reliability. It helps judges and attorneys distinguish scientifically validated methods
from less credible or unproven ones. By introducing this framework, the goal is to prevent the

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

20

misinterpretation of forensic evidence as definitive proof of guilt. This method allows for a more
detailed and accurate evaluation of forensic evidence.
Lack of Regulatory Oversight
Perhaps the most pressing hurdle to achieving the reliability of forensic evidence in
Canada remains the absence of a cohesive and national forensic regulation framework. Because
of the decentralized nature of forensic services in Canada, there are differences in how
techniques are applied and quality standards, and the monitoring of provinces all amounts to
substandard reliability of forensic evidence used by the courts (Pollanen, 2014; Roach, 2009;
Savage, 2023). Canada lacks such a body, unlike the United Kingdom (UK) and the United
States (US), where centralized forensic regulatory bodies impose standards and do regular
evaluations. Such a lack of a centralized body permits the use of discredited forensic techniques
in legal proceedings. Methods like bite mark analysis, microscopic hair comparison, and voice
spectrography that have been discredited scientifically, still find their way into the legal arena,
eventually leading to possible wrongful convictions (Hamer and Edmond, 2019; Morgan, 2023a;
Olaborede & Meintjes-Van der Walt, 2020). The entry of DNA tests brought these fallibility
issues to the front, signaling an urgent need for stricter validation protocols before admitting the
forensic technique in court.
Limited Forensic Literacy Among Legal Professionals
The justice system continues to apply forensic techniques that may become discredited as
new scientific methods emerge. As forensic science evolves, it becomes apparent that some
previously accepted methods may no longer meet the rigorous standards of reliability required
for accurate criminal investigations. Convictions based on such obsolete techniques would need
to be revisited in light of prevailing scientific knowledge to ensure that miscarriages of justice

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

21

are corrected. For example, forensic hair comparison once considered a reliable method for
linking a suspect to a crime scene, was later found to be highly prone to error and
misinterpretation, leading to numerous wrongful convictions (MacFarlane, 2014). Similarly,
flawed forensic pathology, which was once deemed authoritative, has been discredited over time
for its lack of scientific rigor and contributed to the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals
(Taylor-Baer & Anderson, 2023). The Goudge Inquiry, for instance, highlighted that forensic
pathologists often struggled to quantify the level of certainty in their opinions regarding the
cause of death, which has contributed to wrongful convictions (Roach, 2009). These cases
illustrate how the justice system’s reliance on outdated forensic techniques can perpetuate errors,
especially when these methods are not properly re-evaluated against modern scientific
advancements. As such, forensic evidence must be constantly assessed and updated to reflect the
latest research, ensuring that it serves as a tool for justice rather than a source of potential harm.
Relying solely on forensic evidence without any corroborative information has been
widely criticized as a dangerous and flawed practice, particularly given that error rates for certain
forensic disciplines, such as pattern matching, are already well-documented (National Institute of
Justice [NIJ], 2023; Olaborede & Meintjes-Van der Walt, 2020). Additionally, forensic experts
may be susceptible to collaborative bias, interpreting their findings as more conclusive or
exonerative than they truly are. This further contributes to the risk of wrongful convictions
(MacFarlane, 2014; Scherr & Dror, 2021). It also highlights that systemic biases and professional
cultures within forensic science also play a crucial role in perpetuating the acceptance of
unreliable forensic evidence in criminal trials. These issues, alongside challenges related to the
technical reliability of forensic methods, showcase the need for a more cautious and evidencebased approach to the use of forensic evidence in legal proceedings.

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

22

Reforms to Enhance Forensic Evidence Reliability
To address these systemic issues, a comprehensive reform approach is necessary. First
and foremost, there needs to be an increased validation and regulation of forensic methods to
enhance their credibility. Rigorous empirical validation of forensic fields, so that they are
thoroughly tested scientifically before being admitted as evidence in court, would be a step in
making sure forensic practice meets similar standards of scrutiny as applied to DNA testing
(Garrett & Neufeld, 2009; Frederiksen, 2011). To ensure the consistent application of these
standards, an independent oversight body should be established. The establishment of such a
body would enable forensic methodology to be standardized across Canada, investigate errors in
forensic practice, and prevent forensic misconduct (Morgan, 2023b; Pollanen, 2014; Roach,
2009). It would also help restore public trust in the forensic science system.
In addition, legal professionals would benefit from education and training in forensic
science. With the necessary knowledge, judges and lawyers would be better equipped to
understand the complexities of forensic evidence. This includes understanding statistical
reasoning and the role of probability in forensic analysis. By gaining a deeper understanding,
they would be able to more thoroughly evaluate forensic findings and avoid misinterpretations
stemming from uncertain conclusions. Such training would enable legal professionals to
critically assess forensic evidence and ensure its proper application in the courtroom (LaPorte,
2018; Rajapakse, 2024). Ensuring equal access to forensic expertise is also critical to reforming
wrongful convictions.
Due to financial and systemic limitations, defense challenges to forensic evidence are
often weakened, making it difficult to counter prosecutorial claims effectively. This lack of
access to independent forensic expertise increases the risk of wrongful convictions by allowing

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

23

prosecution-driven forensic evidence to go unchecked (Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015). The
disparity in resources between the defense and prosecution highlights a significant issue within
the justice system. To correct this imbalance, mandatory funding for expert witnesses in criminal
trials should be introduced (PPSC, 2023). This ensures that both the defense and prosecution
have equal access to independent forensic expertise.
This reform should also include standards that are innovated regarding forensic
testimony. Forensic experts should be able to include guidelines in their reports on error rates
and any methodological limitations as they present forensic evidence with appropriate caution
and scientific rigor (Garrett & Neufeld, 2009; Savage, 2023). Scherr and Dror (2021) and
Morgan (20232a) suggested introducing blind forensic testing to account for the cognitive bias
involved in forensic conclusions and diminish wrongful convictions on biased forensic grounds.
In this way, forensic analysts would know neither the theories of law enforcement nor the
identities of the suspects. This approach would help ensure that forensic conclusions are based
solely on empirical evidence rather than external influences, ultimately enhancing the objectivity
and reliability of forensic testimony in court.
Discussion
The research conducted on forensic errors and legal misinterpretations contributing to
wrongful convictions in Canada offers valuable insights. However, it is not without its strengths
and weaknesses. One of the primary strengths of this research lies in its reliance on a
comprehensive secondary research methodology. By utilizing a wide range of peer-reviewed
journal articles, legal reports, and case studies, the study effectively highlights systemic issues
within forensic science and the legal system. For example, the inclusion of high-profile wrongful

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

24

conviction cases and legislative reviews provides a sufficiently rounded view to facilitate an
analysis of the real-life implications of these issues.
Another major strength is the assessment of cognitive biases in forensic science and law.
In assessing these interrelationships, this study successfully integrates psychological insights
with forensic analysis. It sheds light on how forensic experts, legal professionals, and jurors may
unknowingly contribute to wrongful convictions through confirmation bias and misinterpretation
of probabilistic forensic evidence (Scherr & Dror, 2021). Hamer and Edmond (2019) support this
view by showing that the combative nature of legal processes often elicits forensic experts to
adapt their testimony in favor of the prosecution's narrative, thus deviating from scientific
objectivity. Overall, the credibility associated with such findings is amplified by this
interdisciplinary approach.
The fact that actual courtroom cases, such as the Guy Paul Morin case and the Motherisk
drug testing scandal, are blended with theoretical discussions in this context further strengthens
the discipline. Concrete instances of how forensic errors and legal misinterpretations occur in
real courtroom settings are provided (Morgan, 2023b; Savage, 2023). These instances
demonstrate the significant consequences of such errors in legal proceedings. Notably, the
forensic pathology failures outlined in the Goudge Inquiry (Roach, 2009) investigated wrongful
convictions. The inquiry examined cases resulting from improper expert testimony in Ontario.
These cases further stress the critical need for reform in forensic science practices and illustrate
the effects of wrongful forensic practices.
Despite its strengths, the study has certain limitations. One such limitation is its reliance
on secondary data. While secondary research provides a comprehensive understanding of
forensic errors and legal misinterpretations, it does not offer firsthand empirical data, such as

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

25

qualitative interviews with forensic experts and legal professionals. Such data would provide
deeper insights into the practical issues discussed (Rajapakse, 2024). Additionally, forensic
analysts and researchers have found that forensic science is often perceived as more exonerating
than it truly is, which can introduce bias within the forensic community. This misconception can
distort forensic testimony and contribute to wrongful convictions (Scherr & Dror, 2021). While
secondary data offers valuable analysis, integrating firsthand accounts would enhance the study
by providing a more holistic view of the challenges facing forensic science today.
A second weakness of the study is the heavy reliance on U.S.-based forensic literature.
While the research includes some focus on Canada, most forensic studies and wrongful
conviction investigations draw from U.S. legal cases and research institutions (MacFarlane,
2014). While these sources offer valuable insights, they may not adequately address the unique
aspects of the Canadian legal and forensic landscape. This reliance on international literature
introduces a potential gap in addressing forensic errors and legal misinterpretations specific to
Canadian jurisdictions. Furthermore, as noted by Roach (2013) and Schuller et al. (2021),
Canada lacks a centralized forensic science regulatory body, which leads to disjointed wrongful
conviction research across provinces and independent inquiries.
Another gap in the study is the limited coverage of forthcoming forensic technologies and
their relevance to current investigations. While this study does not delve deeply into emerging
fields like probabilistic genotyping and digital forensics (Frederiksen, 2011), these technologies
are worth noting for their potential impact on reducing wrongful convictions. For example,
Morgan (2023a) mentions that advanced forensic methods, including AI-driven forensic analysis
and high-resolution DNA testing, could significantly mitigate wrongful convictions. However,
these methods are still in the early stages and require thorough validation and precise

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

26

implementation before being widely adopted in the legal system. As these technologies continue
to evolve, they could offer crucial tools for ensuring greater accuracy in forensic investigations,
provided they are subjected to rigorous testing and legal scrutiny. Thus, while not a central focus
of this study, the potential of these technologies warrants future research to assess their impact
on the justice system.
Limitations of the Research
While the research methodology included rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, some
challenges arose in selecting relevant sources. One such limitation is having few Canadian
wrongful conviction data. Unlike the U.S., Canada does not maintain a centralized database for
wrongful convictions, which would allow researchers to examine patterns and trends in forensic
errors and legal misinterpretations systematically (Schuller et al., 2021). Although peer-reviewed
journals and government reports were preferred for their credibility, the field of forensic science
is continually evolving, with ongoing debates and emerging research. This makes it possible to
speculate that many of the studies included in this research might become outdated as forensic
methodologies advance, hence stressing the need for airtight updates of the forensic system.
Additionally, the research was conducted within a limited 3-month period, restricting the
depth of analysis. This limitation affected the ability to incorporate broader datasets or emerging
studies. With more time, a more focused examination of particular forensic specialties such as
fingerprinting, forensic pathology, and bite-mark analysis might have strengthened this study.
Future work could benefit from investigating which forensic techniques in particular give rise to
errors that lead to wrongful convictions. The works of LaPorte (2018) stress that forensic
methods are often not uniformly reliable between disciplines. This introduces variability that

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

27

could impact the accuracy of forensic evidence in court, an element of inconsistency into the
treatment of forensic evidence.
Recommendations
To enhance the reliability of forensic evidence and prevent wrongful convictions, a series
of systemic reforms must be implemented in Canada. These reforms should address gaps in
forensic data collection, the impact of emerging technologies, interdisciplinary collaboration,
legal education, and equitable access to forensic expertise. This section outlines key areas for
improvement and proposes concrete measures to strengthen forensic science within the justice
system.
One critical reform is the establishment of a national wrongful conviction data bank,
which would enable researchers to track trends, identify recurrent forensic errors, and make
specific policy recommendations based on empirical knowledge (Roach, 2009). In Canada, the
lack of systemic tracking of wrongful convictions limits the ability to implement policy changes
based on empirical data. By creating a central warehouse for forensic malpractice and wrongful
conviction cases, attorneys and forensic scientists could more easily identify recurrent issues and
ensure that corrective measures are taken. This would facilitate better data-driven decisions in
addressing forensic errors. Moreover, more work should be done to encourage Canadian forensic
error studies, particularly those that focus on unsourced findings from the U.S., to provide a
more comprehensive and localized understanding of forensic malpractices.
Another area in need of reform is the integration of emerging technologies in forensic
science. While DNA testing has proven to be an invaluable tool, technologies like probabilistic
genotyping, digital forensics, and artificial intelligence-driven forensic analysis raise questions
about their reliability and applicability (MacFarlane, 2014; Morgan, 2023a). Research should be

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

28

conducted to evaluate the reliability of these methods, establish best practices for their use in
legal proceedings, and set clear guidelines for their legal admissibility. This will help prevent
courts from prematurely adopting unvalidated techniques. Additionally, forensic validation
studies should focus on real-life scenarios, ensuring that new methods are reliable across various
crime scenes and laboratory conditions.
To better understand how forensic errors occur and how they are interpreted in the legal
system, qualitative research involving interviews and surveys with forensic analysts, legal
practitioners, and exonerees should be prioritized. This approach would provide deeper insights
into the practical challenges faced by forensic experts and the impact of systemic biases on
judicial decision-making (Rajapakse, 2024). Furthermore, longitudinal studies tracking the
success of forensic reforms could help assess whether changes in policies lead to measurable
improvements in forensic reliability. Comparative research across different jurisdictions could
shed light on best practices for avoiding forensic misinterpretations in the courtroom.
Interdisciplinary collaboration is crucial for addressing wrongful convictions. Forensic
science, legal scholarship, psychology, and policymaking must work together to develop
comprehensive solutions. These solutions should span legal reforms, scientific advancements,
and psychological insights (Scherr & Dror, 2021). Increased judicial education in forensic
science, as advocated by Eastwood and Caldwell (2015), is essential. This education is necessary
to ensure the proper interpretation of forensic evidence. Additionally, training in Bayesian
statistics should be incorporated into legal education to enhance the understanding of
probabilistic forensic evidence.
Several essential reforms must be made to improve the validity of forensic evidence in
Canada. One key measure is ensuring that forensic science methodologies, laboratory

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

29

accreditation, and expert witness attestations are standardized nationally (Hamer & Edmond,
2019). Additionally, forensic evidence should be scientifically validated beyond a reasonable
doubt before being accepted in legal proceedings, similar to the Daubert standard used in the
USA (Savage, 2023). Forensic disciplines with high error rates, such as bite mark analysis and
microscopic hair comparison, should be inadmissible in court until modern scientific methods
can validate their reliability.
The training and education of legal professionals must also be improved. Mandatory
forensic science training for judges, lawyers, and law enforcement would enhance their
understanding of forensic methodologies and statistical probabilities (LaPorte, 2018). The
creation of forensic evidence review panels within the court system could further ensure that
forensic findings are accurately assessed during criminal trials (Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015).
Increased funding for forensic research and training initiatives would help bridge the gap
between scientific advancements and their application in the courtroom. This investment is
crucial for improving the overall quality of forensic evidence used in legal proceedings. By
improving training and review processes, the justice system can prevent wrongful convictions
and promote more accurate legal outcomes.
Ensuring equal access to forensic expertise is a vital reform to prevent wrongful
convictions. Defense counsel must have access to independent forensic experts, enabling them to
challenge prosecution evidence effectively. Government-funded forensic expert consultations
should be made available to ensure that both sides of the legal system have equal access to
forensic testimony (PPSC, 2023). This would help level the playing field and prevent the misuse
of forensic evidence. By implementing these reforms, Canada can improve the reliability of

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

30

forensic evidence. These changes would significantly reduce the occurrence of wrongful
convictions and strengthen the fairness of the legal system.
Conclusion
In summary, this research highlights the critical role of forensic science in wrongful
convictions in Canada. It exposes significant flaws in forensic methodologies, legal
interpretations, and systemic oversight. Despite technological advancements, wrongful
convictions persist due to unreliable forensic techniques. Cognitive biases and misinterpretations
of probabilistic evidence by legal professionals also play a major role. Additionally, the absence
of a forensic regulatory body allows scientifically inferior evidence to cloud the integrity of
justice. Furthermore, the limited knowledge of forensic matters among judges, attorneys, and
jury members leads to the overstatement of forensic evidence certainty, making it harder to
accurately assess evidence in the courtroom.
Resolving these problems will require a multifaceted approach. First, a national wrongful
conviction database should be established to track cases and identify trends. Additionally, a
better process for validating forensic practices needs to be developed. This will allow the legal
community to adequately assess forensic evidence during criminal trials. More effective
regulations concerning forensic science should include an independent forensic review panel.
Standardized admissibility criteria and equal access to forensic expert testimony for the defense
are also necessary steps to improve fairness in the justice system.
The preservation of forensic integrity is paramount for preventing miscarriages of justice.
With these changes, Canada may redeem forensic evidence as justice, rather than a vehicle of
wrongful conviction. A system with a strong regulatory framework, scientific advancement, and
legal education will create a more credible criminal justice system. This will reduce wrongful

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

31

convictions and promote public trust in forensic science. By ensuring proper training and
oversight, Canada can foster a more just and fair legal system. Ultimately, these reforms will
contribute to greater public confidence in the justice process and its outcomes.

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

32

References
Cunliffe, E., & Edmond, G. (2021). Justice without science? Judging the reliability of forensic
science in Canada. Canadian Bar Review, 99(1), 65–112.
https://cbr.cba.org/index.php/cbr/article/view/4659/4494
Eastwood, J., & Caldwell, J. (2015). Educating jurors about forensic evidence: Using an expert
witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science
testimony. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(6), 1523–1528.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12832
Frederiksen, S. (2011). The national academy of sciences, Canadian DNA jurisprudence and
changing forensic practice. Manitoba Law Journal, 35(1), 111–142.
https://doi.org/10.29173/mlj797
Garrett, B. L., & Neufeld, P. J. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful
convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1–97.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3861/
Giannelli, P. C. (2007). Wrongful convictions and forensic science: The need to regulate crime
labs. North Carolina Law Review, 86, 163-235.
https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol86/iss1/4/
Hamer, D., & Edmond, G. (2019). Forensic science evidence, wrongful convictions and
adversarial process. University of Queensland Law Journal, 38(2), 185–236.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3494630
Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. A. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for
social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9), 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

33

LaPorte, G. (2018). Wrongful convictions and DNA exonerations: Understanding the role of
forensic science. National Institute of Justice Journal, 279, 10–21.
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/wrongful-convictions-and-dna-exonerationsunderstanding-role-forensic-science
MacFarlane, B. A. (2014). Wrongful convictions: Determining culpability when the sand keeps
shifting. UBC Law Review, 47(2), 597-672.
https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/ubclawreview/vol47/iss2/9/
Mason, R. (2020, September 23). Wrongful convictions in Canada. Library of Parliament.
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/202077E
Morgan, J. (2023a). Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 68(3), 908–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15233
Morgan, J. (2023b). Wrongful convictions and forensic science errors: Case studies and root
causes (1st ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003202578
National Institute of Justice. (2023, November 28). The impact of false or misleading forensic
evidence on wrongful convictions. https://ojp.gov/library/publications/impact-false-ormisleading-forensic-evidence-wrongful-convictions
Olaborede, A. O. & Meintjes-van der Walt, L. (2020). The dangers of convictions based on a
single piece of forensic evidence. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 23.
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2020/v23i0a6169
Pollanen, M. S. (2014). Forensic science in Canada: Report of a multidisciplinary discussion.
Canadian Journal of Pathology, 6(1), 23–27. https://www.crime-sceneinvestigator.net/forensic-science-in-canada.html#google_vignette

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

34

Public Prosecution Service of Canada. (2019, April 25). Innocence at stake: The need for
continued vigilance to prevent wrongful convictions in Canada. https://www.ppscsppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/is-ip/ch6.html
Rajapakse, R. (2024). Between science and subjectivity: An assessment of the misinterpretation
of forensic evidence by legal professionals in Canada and beyond. [Capstone Project,
Justice Institute of British Columbia]. The Vault.
https://jibc.arcabc.ca/islandora/object/jibc%3A3541?solr_nav%5Bid%5D=31c5d530cb69
8084ac53&solr_nav%5Bpage%5D=0&solr_nav%5Boffset%5D=0
Roach, K. (2009). Forensic science and miscarriages of justice: Some lessons from comparative
experience. Jurimetrics, 50(1), 67–92.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228156897_Forensic_Science_and_Miscarriage
s_of_Justice_Some_Lessons_from_Comparative_Experience
Roach, K. (2013). Wrongful convictions in Canada. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80(4),
1465–1526. https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol80/iss4/19/
Savage, S. (2023). The reliability of expert evidence in Canada: Safeguarding against wrongful
convictions. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, 3(1), 82–93.
https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr69
Scherr, K. C., & Dror, I. E. (2021). Ingroup biases of forensic experts: Perceptions of wrongful
convictions versus exonerations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(1), 89–104.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1774591
Schuller, R. A., Clow, K. A., & Erentzen, C. (2020). Twenty years or nothing: An exploration of
wrongful convictions in Canada. Criminal Law Quarterly, 69(1), 110-148.

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

35

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346023742_Twenty_years_for_nothing_An_ex
ploration_of_wrongful_convictions_in_Canada
Taylor-Baer, C. & Anderson, G. (2023). Plagues in our criminal justice system: An analysis of
wrongful conviction in Canada and other countries. The Wrongful Conviction Law
Review, 4(3), 191–224. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr103

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

36

Appendix A
Search Methodology
Table 1
Initial Keyword Search and Hits
Database

Search Term(s)

# of results

Google Scholar

Wrongful Convictions and Forensic Science in Canada

24700

Google Scholar

Forensic Science and Miscarriages of Justice in Canada

18500

JIBC Library (EBSCO)

Wrongful Convictions AND Forensics

945

JIBC Library (EBSCO)

Miscarriage of Justice AND Forensics

503

JIBC Library (EBSCO)

Forensics AND Reliability AND Canda

489

Note. This table demonstrates the initial search process conducted to obtain articles for
the research paper. It includes broad search terms that returned a large number of results.
Table 2
Secondary Keyword Search and Hits
Database
Google Scholar

Search Term(s)
Wrongful Convictions and

# of results
19700

Forensic Science in Canada
Google Scholar

Forensic Science and

Reason for Revision
Added date range filter
(2000-2024)

17200

Miscarriages of Justice in

Added date range filter
(2000-2024)

Canada
JIBC Library

Wrongful Convictions AND

(EBSCO)

Forensics AND Canada

86

Added ‘Canada’ to narrow
the scope

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
JIBC Library

Miscarriages of Justice AND

(EBSCO)

Forensics AND Canada

56

37
Replaced ‘wrongful
convictions’ with
‘miscarriages of justice’

JIBC Library

Miscarriages of Justice AND

(EBSCO)

Forensics AND Canada

16

Filtered by date range
(2000-2024) and peerreviewed journals

JIBC Library

Wrongful Convictions AND

(EBSCO)

Forensics AND Canada

JIBC Library

Wrongful Convictions AND

(EBSCO)

Forensics AND Canada

JIBC Library

Wrongful Convictions AND

(EBSCO)

Forensics AND Canada AND

82

Filtered by date range
(2000-2024)

30

Filtered by peer-reviewed
journals

3

Added the keyword
‘Reliability’

Reliability
JIBC Library

Miscarriage of Justice AND

2

Replaced ‘wrongful

(EBSCO)

Forensics AND Canada AND

convictions’ with

Reliability

‘Miscarriage of Justice’

Note. This table shows the narrowing process through various stages. Initially, broader terms
yielded large results, which were progressively refined by adding filters for location (Canada),
date range (2000-2024), and peer-reviewed sources to focus on the most relevant articles for the
research.

FORENSIC SCIENCE & WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

38

Appendix B
Overview of Major Themes
Figure 1
Forensic Errors Leading to Wrongful Convictions in Canada

Note. The diagram highlights key forensic errors leading to wrongful convictions in Canada. It
includes flawed forensic methods, misinterpretation of evidence, cognitive biases, weak
regulatory oversight, and limited forensic literacy among legal professionals. These cover issues
such as discredited techniques, overstated certainty, inconsistent forensic standards, lack of
scientific training etc., all of which contribute to increasing the risk of wrongful convictions. The
figure was created by using Canva software.