SPOTLIGHT

Bridging the Gap with Expert Witnesses
Brian Cochran, Crime Scene Investigator, Boone County, Kentucky

Why the Gap?
There has been an increased demand from the prosecution for forensic evidence and for experts to present that evidence. That demand has been driven by the public’s expectation for more and higher quality forensic evidence that in turn, has influenced juries to expect the same. Interest in the OJ Simpson trial and fictional television shows depicting crime scene investigations have led to real life expectations of forensic evidence in a wide range of cases.

In response to this demand, the number of crime scene units and other forensic services grew rapidly. Due to this rapid growth there was little standardization of methodology and terminology. Numerous professional organizations recognized this and made significant strides in standardization within forensic disciplines but widespread standardization has not been established. This rapid growth also attracted the attention of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). NAS published “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: a Path Forward.” This report widely criticized the lack of standards within the forensic science community and called for actions to address them. As a result, forensic science experts are being challenged more frequently by the defense. Full paper

What Scientists Need To Know About The “Legal Method”: Two Examples
Judge Roderick Kennedy, New Mexico Court of Appeals, Director, American Academy of Forensic Sciences (Jurisprudence)

Not long ago I helped teach a class at a police forensic laboratory about changing practices in the legal world, and getting along better with the court system. As we were asking the lab directors what they most wanted us to talk about, the answer was universally, “do NOT talk about that !#@$%&!! National Academy of Sciences report!” [1] Forensic scientists apparently feel beaten to death with that little book, and are tired of lawyers harping on research, validation, and standardized testing and reporting. As the judge among the instructors, I was immune from any sense of obligation or propriety directed at those around me. Of course, I began my presentation with a quote from the NAS report. Full paper

Trends in Forensic Equipment to Watch
Victor W. Weedn, MD, JD, George Washington University, Professor & Chair, Department of Forensic Sciences

This article discusses four trends that Dr. Weedn predicts are areas students will need preparation in for the future. He has identified these areas/trends as follows: Instrumental Specialization, Field Portable Instrumentation, Quantification and Uncertainty Measurement, and Chemical Imaging. He writes, "Of course, I, nor anyone else, have a crystal ball, and others will come up with their own lists, but I am placing my bets on these trends!" Full paper

FROM THE RESEARCH DESK...
Diana Botluk, Director of Research

Check out the NCSTL exclusive forensic videos created by NCSTL Research Team: Diana Botluk, Kevin Paget, and Ellen Canon Mizio: Forensics of Firearms and History of Fingerprints.

Visit the NCSTL's Special Collections. Borrow from the collections.

TECHNOLOGY AND DISTANCE EDUCATION NEWS
Susan Zucker, PhD, Director Technology & Distance Education and Publisher and Editor of It's Evident

The new NCSTL-LEIC online self-study course, "Locating, Evaluating, and Selecting Expert Witnesses" will be released in Spring, 2015. The course focuses on the process and details of working with expert witnesses. The use of video and demonstrations rather than the common lecture method will be showcased. CLE for attorneys, POST credits for law enforcement professionals, and CE credits for forensic scientists are being sought. NCSTL.org will feature easy access to the course as will the University of Tennessee's site.