"The [Justice Department] review found that F.B.I. testimony was fundamentally flawed in 257 of those cases � a stunning 96 percent of the total."

"Of those defendants, 33 received the death penalty and nine have been executed so far. Although the errors don�t necessarily mean the defendants are innocent � other evidence might have supported conviction � the F.B.I. plans to notify prosecutors and prisoners of the findings. The problem is not limited to hair analysis...."

From an op-ed in the NYT by Eric S. Lander, director of the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard and co-chairman of the President�s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

It is now abundantly clear that an expert�s opinion is not a reliable basis for drawing connections between evidence samples and a particular person. No expert should be permitted to testify without showing three things: a public database of patterns from many representative samples; precise and objective criteria for declaring matches; and peer-reviewed published studies that validate the methods.

Obviously, this is also an argument against the death penalty. Once a person has been put to death, it is impossible to bring him back, no matter how clear once-imperceptible errors have become. Years spent in prison are also irretrievable, but as long as the convict is alive, we can take action at the point when we are able to see that action is morally required.

Related: Here's an excellent New Yorker article, "The Price of a Life/What�s the right way to compensate someone for decades of lost freedom?"

The prosecution�s case rested heavily on Volpe�s report to the district attorney, which noted a significant piece of evidence recovered from Restivo�s van: two strands of hair found on the floor which appeared to have come from Fusco�s head....