• www.ncstl.org’s “one-stop-shop” database has grown to over 68,000 records and continues to develop and consolidate forensic-based information;
  
  
• The NCSTL receives regular media coverage. On May 14, I was interviewed by Mark Feil, editor of Forensic Teacher Magazine. Click here for the interview. On April 1, 2008 I recorded a podcast on the “CSI Effect” for Law Enforcement Technology Magazine;
  
  
• I participated in the NIJ Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems Interoperability Experts Panel, April 28, 2008;
  
  
• To inform NCSTL’s constituency, which includes law enforcement, legal professionals, scientists, engineers, educators, and technologists, NCSTL representatives make presentations and offer training on a multitude of topics. On May 9, 2008, I presented “New Developments in Scientific Evidence and the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law” at Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki. On May 3, I presented “NCSTL and Teaching Resources” at Forensic Science Education Conference-Florida Gulf Coast University.

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

NCSTL ACTIVITIES and PRESS: Find out where NCSTL staff has been and what we’ve been doing, as well as information about our publications, professional associations, and the press coverage we have received.

Television crime dramas in recent years have included increasing amounts of forensic science. As a result of this exposure, jurors may be under the mistaken belief that they are educated about forensic science and investigation procedures. They often expect forensic examinations similar to what is depicted on television, including techniques that may not exist in real life. Such jurors may interpret testimony from technologically unsophisticated investigations as the reasonable doubt necessary to acquit a defendant. Full Paper

Forensic linguistics provides two functions: determining what text means and who wrote it.¹ Experts in this field assist with investigations and have worked with attorneys in this capacity for over 20 years.² The 1993 Daubert decision holds that trial judges must conduct a two-pronged test of admissibility by evaluating proffered expert witness testimony to determine both relevancy and reliability. Since that decision, the need for forensic linguistic expert testimony has increased and has made it imperative to prove scientific reliability of forensic linguistic findings.³ These experts are now being called to the witness stand to analyze spoken words and handwritten or computer-generated documents. Full Paper