8127/frame/fm

 
2.
Independent Review
In academic science, the results of an experiment are generally not considered
conclusive until they have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and
reproduced independently by another investigator. Forensic science can
approach this model in the optimization and validation phases of developing
a new technique. However, because of the limitations inherent in testing
actual evidence, both independent verification and publication become prob-
lematic. The adversarial nature of the court system and the expectation of a
certain degree of confidentially prevent formal publication until after a case
is adjudicated. Sometimes the opposing side will reexamine a sample, but
this may be precluded if the sample is consumed in the initial analysis. In
this situation, if an independent expert has already been retained, he might
witness the testing of the sample. This is less of a problem for comparison
evidence in which the sample is not altered or consumed in the examination
process. Nevertheless, because the legal burden of proof is on the prosecution,
it may not necessarily be advantageous to the defense to reexamine any
evidence. Finally, except in a small number of high-profile cases, the defense
is notoriously underfunded and has access to far fewer resources than the
prosecution. Even in a case where retesting is desirable and possible, it may
be unfeasible because of a lack of monetary resources. For all of these reasons,
independent review of the entire case file must often suffice to determine if
the work is reliable and the data support the conclusions drawn.
We emphasize here that a truly competent review should be performed
by a qualified expert — someone who has experience in a forensic laboratory,
and fully appreciates the peculiarities and limitations of forensic samples. In
spite of the fact that “experts” with fancy academic degrees abound, and
many have been consecrated by the courts, we do not sanction the represen-
tation that a Ph.D. automatically qualifies one as a forensic expert. An inter-
esting litmus test is whether the expert works only for the defense. It is hard
to imagine how one can truly understand a discipline if one’s persistent and
8127/frame/ch09 Page 233 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:44 AM

---

234
Principles and Practice of Criminalistics
enduring goal is to discredit its work product. The mate to this pair is that
scientists who have only worked in government laboratories, despite their
best intentions, may fail to appreciate both the necessity and, frequently, the
difficulty of performing an independent review. In our ideal world, the well-
rounded forensic scientist would be required to experience both environ-
ments; in reality, this may be impractical.
A competent review is comprehensive and covers not only the specifics
of the analysis, but also the forensic context within which the analysis is set.
The independent expert will address all the same questions the analyst and
internal reviewer have, bringing to the effort a fresh mind and perhaps a
different perspective.