8127/frame/fm

 
3.
Elements of Review
You will not be surprised to see the same concepts that we have discussed
throughout this book return in this section. Because review is part of estab-
lishing validity and reliability, we include it in this chapter. In the next chapter,
we will backtrack and discuss some of the same issues in the context of the
actual analysis. Consider this a preview. In the following summary, we high-
light aspects of the work product that the internal reviewer or independent
expert might approach differently.
 
a.
What’s the Question?
This juncture provides yet another opportunity to review 
 
the Question
. Does
the scientific question follow from the legal question? Were the appropriate
tests performed? In particular, the internal reviewer should ask if the analyses
performed reasonably address the questions asked, or if more work needs to
be done.
The independent expert may have questions different from those posed
by the original analyst. The defense may have an alternate hypothesis in mind
and, consequently, may consider the results of the analysis with a different
scenario in mind. They may have information that the prosecution does not
have, and they certainly have a different goal. For example, the defendant
may have named an accomplice or alternative suspect to the defense attorney,
but the prosecution may not have this information. Consider the following
real-life scenario:
An individual (Suspect 1) had confessed and been tried and convicted for
the murder of a woman. Afterward, he named the woman’s ex-boyfriend
as an accomplice (Suspect 2), claiming he had committed the crime under
duress from the ex-boyfriend. Several others close to the case named yet
another suspect (Suspect 3). Suspect 3 claimed to know nothing of the crime
and to have no relationship with the woman. Physical evidence had been
8127/frame/ch09 Page 234 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:44 AM

---

Good Laboratory Practice — Establishing Validity and Reliability
235
collected in the case, but very little of it had been analyzed after the original
suspect confessed. Suspect 2 was subsequently charged, and the attorney
representing him was interested in whether the physical evidence might put
Suspect 3 at the scene of the crime. Because the prosecution had never heard
of Suspect 3, they couldn’t have even asked this question, nor would they
have had the reference samples with which to answer it.
Either reviewer will also consider if pertinent questions exist that the tests
did not or couldn’t answer.