text: Questions about certain areas of forensic science, such as fingerprint evidence and the assumptions behind these disciplines have been brought to light in some publications including the New York Post. The article stated that "No one has proved even the basic assumption: That everyone's fingerprint is unique." The article also stated that "Now such assumptions are being questioned—and with it may come a radical change in how forensic science is used by police departments and prosecutors." Law professor Jessica Gabel said on NOVA that forensic science "lacks the rigors, the standards, the quality controls and procedures that we find, usually, in science".
  The National Institute of Standards and Technology has reviewed the scientific foundations of bite-mark analysis used in forensic science. Bite mark analysis is a forensic science technique that analyzes the marks on the victim's skin compared to the suspects teeth.   NIST reviewed the findings of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2009 study. The National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted research to address the issues of reliability, accuracy, and reliability of bitemark analysis, where they concluded that there is a lack of sufficient scientific foundation to support the data. Yet the technique is still legal to use in court as evidence. NIST funded a 2019 meeting that consisted of dentists, lawyers, researchers and others to address the gaps in this field. 
  In the US, on 25 June 2009, the Supreme Court issued a 5-to-4 decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts stating that crime laboratory reports may not be used against criminal defendants at trial unless the analysts responsible for creating them give testimony and subject themselves to cross-examination.  The Supreme Court cited the National Academies of Sciences report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States in their decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the National Research Council report in his assertion that "Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation."
  In the US, another area of forensic science that has come under question in recent years is the lack of laws requiring the accreditation of forensic labs.  Some states require accreditation, but some states do not.  Because of this, many labs have been caught performing very poor work resulting in false convictions or acquittals.  For example, it was discovered after an audit of the Houston Police Department in 2002 that the lab had fabricated evidence which led George Rodriguez being convicted of raping a fourteen-year-old girl.  The former director of the lab, when asked, said that the total number of cases that could have been contaminated by improper work could be in the range of 5,000 to 10,000.
  The Innocence Project database of DNA exonerations shows that many wrongful convictions contained forensic science errors. According to the Innocence project and the US Department of Justice, forensic science has contributed to about 39 percent to 46 percent of wrongful convictions.  As indicated by the National Academy of Sciences report Strengthening Forensic Sciences in the United States, part of the problem is that many traditional forensic sciences have never been empirically validated; and part of the problem is that all examiners are subject to forensic confirmation biases and should be shielded from contextual information not relevant to the judgment they make.
  Many studies have discovered a difference in rape-related injuries reporting based on race, with white victims reporting a higher frequency of injuries than black victims. However, since current forensic examination techniques may not be sensitive to all injuries across a range of skin colors, more research needs to be conducted to understand if this trend is due to skin confounding healthcare providers when examining injuries or if darker skin extends a protective element. In clinical practice, for patients with darker skin, one study recommends that attention must be paid to the thighs, labia majora, posterior fourchette and fossa navicularis, so that no rape-related injuries are missed upon close examination.