by Michael Dean Thompson

When the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (“AAFS”) announced its lineup of workshops for a recent conference, Ted Hunt, a senior policy advisor to the FBI’s crime lab, demanded that references to the FBI be removed from two sessions. Hunt also urged AAFS representatives, including its board president, to de-platform a specific presenter, Tiffany Roy, according to sources familiar with the matter. Hunt warned that the FBI’s regular attendees would boycott the annual meeting if the AAFS did not comply.

One of the targeted workshops, titled Expert Witness: Discrediting Document Examiners Who Violate Acknowledged Standards or Binding Laboratory Policies or Who Express Handwriting Opinions with Low Levels of Certitude, included a 20-minute lecture by D. Michael Risinger, a law professor and expert on legal evidence. The lecture, How the FBI Has Failed to Enforce Its Own Explicit Standards Applicable to Handwriting Comparison and Improperly Restricts the Use of Blind Verification in Handwriting Cases, scrutinized the FBI’s practices in forensic document examination.

The second workshop, Unmasking the Evidence: How Defense Experts Prevented Wrongful Convictions, drew even more of Hunt’s ire. It featured a 45-minute talk titled Taking on the FBI, which aimed to address concerns about the credibility of evidence presented by the FBI. The workshop was designed to help legal professionals, who often lack scientific backgrounds, understand the limitations of forensic evidence and the role of defense experts in preventing wrongful convictions.

Hunt’s objections centered largely on Tiffany Roy, a full member of the AAFS and a prominent DNA expert. During a December 16, 2024, phone call with Kevin Kulbacki, chair of the AAFS conference workshop program, Hunt expressed displeasure with remarks Roy had made at a previous conference in Denver. Roy had suggested that meaningful forensic science reform would require a generational shift within the FBI, as older practitioners clung to outdated techniques. Hunt also took issue with a LinkedIn post in which Roy criticized the testimony of an FBI DNA analyst in a case where she served as a defense expert. (The prosecution ultimately decided not to use the analyst’s testimony.)

Hunt and Roy represent starkly different approaches to forensic science. Hunt, a former prosecutor in Kansas City, Missouri, served on the National Commission on Forensic Science (“NCFS”) but opposed even modest reforms, such as limiting the language analysts use in reports and testimony to avoid overstating their findings. After the Trump administration disbanded the NCFS in 2017, Hunt was appointed head of the FBI’s forensic science working group. Roy, by contrast, is an attorney, DNA expert, and author who serves on the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (“NIST”) Research Triangle Institute Expert Working Group on Human Factors in DNA Interpretation. She has advocated for reforms to mitigate human bias in forensic analysis, as outlined in the NIST report Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors.

During the call, Hunt reportedly expressed resentment toward Roy’s efforts to hold the FBI accountable to NIST’s standards. While Roy has dedicated her career to ensuring the accuracy of forensic evidence, Hunt has been criticized for prioritizing prosecutorial interests over scientific rigor.

The AAFS board ultimately voted unanimously—with one member absent—to ask workshop organizers to censor their presentations or face cancellation. Two board members even suggested the Academy should apologize to the FBI. This decision has raised concerns about the AAFS’s independence. “They’re operating as a trade union for prosecutors and law enforcement, and less like the scientific organization they’re supposed to be,” said Andrew Sulner, an attorney and document examiner who co-organized the Expert Witness workshop.

The FBI has denied Kulbacki’s account of the call, claiming it did not discuss the NIST report or request censorship. However, multiple sources have corroborated the details in Kulbacki’s memo. In a statement, the FBI asserted that it had merely pointed out that references to the FBI in the workshops violated the AAFS’s bylaws, specifically its Code of Ethics, which prohibits public statements that appear to represent the Academy’s position without prior approval. This argument overlooks the fact that the workshops had already been vetted by the AAFS, which routinely issues disclaimers stating that presenters’ views do not necessarily reflect the Academy’s position.

As a result of the pressure, both Risinger and Roy removed their presentations from the workshops. Roy sees the incident as emblematic of a broader issue: “Control over forensics and crime labs is largely left in the hands of law enforcement agencies, like the FBI, with little to no independence, which hinders efforts to ensure fidelity to science comes first.” In an email to The Intercept, she added, “Science beholden to an adversarial entity is a pawn in a game with no winners.”  

Source: The Intercept

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login