IDEALLY A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE CAN AFFORD ALL THE FORENSIC EXPERTISE NEEDED. BUT THE MIDDLEOR LOW-INCOME CLIENT WHO CAN BARELY PAY COUNSEL MUST DEPEND ON COUNSEL'S KNOWLEDGE OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE. SUCH DEFENDANTS ARE IN EFFECT RELYING ON THE PROSECUTION'S CRIME LABORATORY AND ARE FORTUNATE IF DEFENSE COUNSEL KNOWS ENOUGH ABOUT THE FORENSIC SCIENCES TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE STATE'S EVIDENCE EXCEPT BE AWED BY IT. PROBLEMS SURROUNDING THE USE OF FORENSIC SERVICES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HAVE A COMMON THREAD: LACK OF EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND AWARENESS ON THE PART OF ALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PERSONNEL WITH REGARD TO WHAT THE FORENSIC SCIENCES CAN DO TO INCRIMINATE OR EXCULPATE PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIMES. FOR THE DEFENSE, THE TENDENCY OF POLICE INVESTIGATORS TO IGNORE OR MISUSE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO FIT THEIR THEORY OF A CASE PRESENTS SPECIAL PROBLEMS. THERE IS A NEED TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE EDUCATION OF JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND POLICE AUTHORITIES IN THE FORENSIC SCIENCES. THERE SHOULD BE SEPARATE CRIME LABORATORIES, PERHAPS IN STATE OR PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES, AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE BAR. THESE LABORATORIES SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT OF POLICE AND PROSECUTORIAL AGENCIES AND SHOULD HAVE FEE STRUCTURES THAT DO NOT PRECLUDE THEIR USE BY INDIGENT AND MIDDLE-INCOME DEFENDANTS. THERE IS ALSO A NEED FOR A DIRECTORY OF FORENSIC EXPERTS. THESE AND OTHER STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE INTERESTS OF EXPANDING THE USE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS INDICATING THAT OPTIMUM ASSESSMENT OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE MAY SOON BE A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT. (LKM)