• About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
    • Foundations of Forensics
    • Arson
    • Bite Mark
    • Blood & Bodily Fluids
    • Child Abuse Allegations
    • Crime Scene Investigation
    • Death Investigation
    • Detection Dogs
    • Digital Evidence
    • DNA
    • Drug Analysis
    • Drug Recognition Experts
    • Eyewitness ID
    • Fingerprints
    • Firearms
    • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
    • Measurement Uncertainty
    • Mental Health
    • Toxicology
    • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
    • Forensic Consultations
    • Books
    • Cases
    • Featured Articles
    • Legislation
    • Motions and Briefs
      • Discovery Motions
      • Funding for Experts
      • Motions for Appropriate Relief
      • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
      • Motions for Independent Testing
      • Motions to Preserve Evidence
      • Motions to Suppress
      • Analyst Certification Motions
    • Reports & Publications
    • Trainings
    • Websites
    • Forensic Terminology
    • Online Research Tools
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
    • Find a Private Investigator
  • Subscribe
  • Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Forensic Resources

North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

Header Right

MENUMENU
  • About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
        • Foundations of Forensics
        • Arson
        • Bite Mark
        • Blood & Bodily Fluids
        • Child Abuse Allegations
        • Crime Scene Investigation
        • Death Investigation
        • Detection Dogs
        • Digital Evidence
        • DNA
        • Drug Analysis
        • Drug Recognition Experts
        • Eyewitness ID
        • Fingerprints
        • Firearms
        • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
        • Measurement Uncertainty
        • Mental Health
        • Toxicology
        • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
        • Forensic Consultations
        • Books
        • Cases
        • Featured Articles
        • Legislation
        • Reports & Publications
        • Trainings
        • Websites
        • Forensic Terminology
        • Online Research Tools
        • Motions and Briefs
          • Discovery Motions
          • Funding for Experts
          • Motions for Appropriate Relief
          • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
          • Motions for Independent Testing
          • Motions to Preserve Evidence
          • Motions to Suppress
          • Analyst Certification Motions
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
    • Find a Private Investigator
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Crime Labs / “Putting the Science in Forensic Science” Editorial

“Putting the Science in Forensic Science” Editorial

August 3, 2011 //  by Sarah Olson//  2 Comments

AmStat News, the monthly newsletter of the American Statistical Association, published an editorial, “Putting the Science in Forensic Science: Helping Congress and the administration do what is possible” on August 1, 2011. The editorial, written by Clifford Spiegelman, Adina Schwartz, and Kate Philpott, presents recommendations of how to implement forensic science reform proposals that have been pending since at least the 2009 NRC report: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.

Their first recommendation is transparency. The writers suggest that all federal laboratories and all other laboratories that receive federal funds or grants or use federal databases (which would include the NC SBI lab) make the following available on the Internet, free of charge: all validation studies, laboratory protocols (e.g., standard operating procedures, quality assurance manuals, methods for estimating uncertainty, and standards for documentation), proficiency testing of the laboratory’s analysts over the past five years, and audit findings with regard to the laboratory’s performance over the past five years.

The NC Department of Justice stated in its press release yesterday, that it is “[d]eveloping a process for making all lab policies, procedures, training materials and accreditation information available to the public online.” According to the SBI lab, the original expected completion date for posting the policy and procedure manuals used by the various sections of the laboratory was April 1, 2011. No procedures have been posted to date. I have posted all policies and procedures that I have access to here; however, I cannot guarantee that they are complete or up to date. Until they are posted by the DOJ, if you need lab policies and procedures for a case you’re working on, I suggest requesting them through the discovery process or you can try contacting the Department of Justice. Please let me know if you find an efficient means of accessing them.

Click here to read the rest of the authors’ recommendations regarding the need for forensic science research and education.

Category: Crime Labs

Previous Post: « New Research on Shaken Baby Syndrome
Next Post: Texas court upholds exclusion of unreliable scent-lineup evidence »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Sarah Rackley

    August 5, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Today the policies and procedures for most sections of the SBI lab were posted on the DOJ website (www.ncdoj.gov).
    Here is a link:
    http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/673acad5-c9f2-4f40-a392-b7a8786a312b/Crime-Laboratory-Documentation.aspx

    Reply
    • Frederic Whitehurst

      August 5, 2011 at 4:19 pm

      I went to the DOJ cite and called up the protocol for the FTIR under the drug section. The FTIR willl be “calibrated” monthly with polystyrene substastandard and then three controlled substances will be run and if their spectra “substantially” agree the instrument will remain in service. “Substantially” is not further defined and offers a serious vulnerability to this protocol. When the polystyrene standard is run its peaks must agree within plus or minus .5 cm-1. And yet when a controlled nce is run there is no defined standard other than “substantially.” Why?

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Site Footer

The Forensic Resource Counsel provides assistance to North Carolina attorneys litigating scientific evidence issues.
Information provided on this website is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Copyright © 2023 · Office of Indigent Defense Services · All Rights Reserved · Website by Tomatillo Design

Copyright © 2023 Forensic Resources · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Mai Theme