8127/frame/fm

 
E.
Review
The review of work product may take several different forms, each for a
different purpose. The first level of review is performed within the laboratory,
before a case is formally signed and released. This laboratory is most fre-
quently the one retained by the prosecution, but it could also be a laboratory
performing analysis or reanalysis at the request of the defense. Another type
of review may be performed by an independent expert on behalf of opposing
counsel. Finally, case review is also performed as part of laboratory accred-
itation. Although the mechanics of the process and the material examined
are virtually the same for all these types of review, the reviewer may look at
the material with different questions in mind. Below, we discuss the some-
times contrary perspectives of an internal reviewer and an independent
reviewer. A review in the context of accreditation is similar to an internal
review except that the inspectors are drawn from other working laboratories.
We follow with a brief description of the review process and some specific
case examples.
 
1.
Internal Review
It is to the analyst’s advantage for a qualified peer or supervisor to review
the entire case file, including the notes and report, before it leaves the labo-
ratory. The main objective of this technical review is to confirm that the data
support the conclusions. It also provides a last-ditch opportunity to verify
that the data were recorded correctly, that the controls worked as expected,
that any calculations or statistics are correct, and to check for clerical errors.
Because only someone with technical expertise is likely to catch a clerical
error involving data, this is actually part of the technical review. Sometimes
laboratories separate an administrative review — are all the pieces of the
report present and are the pages numbered and in order? — from the tech-
nical review. An administrative review could also be done by someone with-
out specific technical expertise.
An internal review is to be welcomed, not avoided. Wouldn’t you rather
have your conclusion and its basis questioned by your colleague, whose
intention is to help you put out the best work product possible, than chal-
lenged for the first time by opposing counsel on the stand? In our collective
experience in performing technical reviews, we frequently find careless errors
8127/frame/ch09 Page 232 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:44 AM

---

Good Laboratory Practice — Establishing Validity and Reliability
233
that are easily corrected. No reason exists for a report to go out with that
kind of ammunition readily available. More important, however, we invari-
ably find that discussing the data and proposing alternative hypotheses leads
to a more complete understanding of the case and provides the analyst with
the confidence that no obvious errors were missed. A forensic analysis is not
a closed book exam; the more people you talk to and the more opinions you
solicit, the better job you will be doing. As we discussed in Chapters 1 and
2, the criminalist has traditionally been both territorial and fiercely indepen-
dent. This attitude does not foster a position of strength for either the indi-
vidual or the community. We support and encourage the positive trend
toward discussion and review.