By Lauren Macovitz / Jambar Contributor
In courtrooms and classrooms alike, forensic science carries enormous weight. At Youngstown State University, students learn that weight can either strengthen a case or distort it to a dangerous degree.
Eric Laprocina, adjunct professor of forensic science and crime scene investigation at YSU and a detective sergeant with Warren Police Department, said forensic science is not designed to replace investigations.
“It’s used as a support mechanism, or a supporting role,” Laprocina said. “Our investigators run an investigation … and they rely both on physical and testimonial evidence to build that case, and to try and solve the crimes that they’re assigned.”
Forensic evidence includes traditional tools, such as latent prints and DNA, as well as digital data. Laprocina said digital investigations have “come to the forefront,” citing surveillance video, vehicle data and cellphones.
“Your cell phone is the digital wallet,” he said. “It reveals the entire pattern of life about who you are and what you do on a regular basis. By essentially accessing the cell phone, we’re able to see a treasure trove of data that could be very revealing.”
Laprocina said the two types of evidence are not treated equally.
“It’s really imbalanced,” he said. “They weigh a lot more on physical evidence than they do testimonial. Testimonial is fraught with problems.”
Laprocina said witness accounts can be influenced by memory gaps, personal bias or intentional deception, making physical evidence more reliable in many cases.
While technology has expanded what investigators can access, it has also raised concerns about interpretation and misuse. According to a 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences, several forensic disciplines lacked consistent standards and sufficient scientific validation.
The report called for stronger oversight, standardized protocols and independent research to ensure reliability.
Bite-mark analysis, once widely used in court, has been criticized for lacking a scientific foundation. In 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology concluded that bite mark comparison did not meet scientific standards for validity.
Bloodstain pattern analysis has also been questioned, particularly regarding subjective interpretation. Laprocina said some concerns stem from inconsistent terminology rather than flawed science.
“The math is sound,” he said. “It’s just how it’s being interpreted.”
Beyond methodology, misuse can occur when evidence is mishandled or withheld. Laprocina said bias poses one of the greatest dangers.
“You have to be objective in these cases,” he said. “You can’t let an opinion or an influence drive you, because that can ultimately be very damaging to a case.”
Laprocina said exculpatory lab results, evidence that excludes a suspect, are not shared with prosecutors or defense attorneys. He said such actions undermine the integrity of an investigation.
“The wrong people go to jail, plain and simple,” Laprocina said.
Wrongful convictions have reinforced those concerns. The Innocence Project reports that misapplied forensic science has contributed to a significant percentage of DNA exoneration cases nationwide. Many of those convictions occurred before standardized DNA testing was widely available. Since the organization’s founding in 1992, more than 375 people in the U.S. have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
To prevent errors, safeguards such as peer review, accreditation and clear policy are used. Laprocina said independent analysts reviewing the same evidence can help confirm conclusions and outside agencies can examine whether labs follow proper procedures.
“Transparency is absolutely a must,” he said. “If we’re able to convey all the principles behind what the evidence can show us and how we came to those conclusions, it’s worth its weight in gold.”
Laprocina teaches students the scientific framework before they ever step into the field, preparing future investigators to apply methods properly and ethically.
“Academically, it kind of builds the framework,” he said.
Forensic science remains a powerful tool in criminal investigations, shaping who is charged, prosecuted and potentially imprisoned. Laprocina said there are rewards in this line of work, but the responsibility investigators carry is immense.
“You essentially have the power to put somebody behind bars for an extended period of time, and if it’s not done correctly, that’s on you,” he said.
Despite that weight, Laprocina said professional development makes the work meaningful.
“As long as you are continually educating yourself and you are continually trying to develop, you can be very successful with it,” he said.