Nov. 2016 Journal of Law and Biosciences article.
Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claimsRead More
// by Sarah Olson
Nov. 2016 Journal of Law and Biosciences article.
Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claimsRead More
// by Sarah Olson
Forensic Science International published a research article by Michael Cook in Nov. 2016. The study found that 85 percent of officers had 3-component GSR particles on their hands immediately following the start-of-shift handling of their firearms.
// by Sarah Olson
Article from US Pharmacist that addresses potential false-positives and false-negatives in urine screens.
// by Sarah Olson
In this research study, as many as 22 particles were found to have undergone tertiary transfer via a series of handshakes following a firearm discharge. Significant numbers of particles were also recovered from bystanders, with as many as 36 being detected on a sample taken from an individual who was in the proximity of a …
// by Sarah Olson
Explains possible cross-reactivities/false positives in urine drug screens. Full article available for download.
False-positive interferences of common urine drug screen immunoassays: a reviewRead More
// by Sarah Olson
2014 article by F. Riva and C. Champod in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. Addresses new solutions to decrease the subjective component of firearm/spent cartridge case comparisons.
// by Sarah Olson
Findings from this research study demonstrate that relatively large amounts of GSR can be transferred to an individual immediately after the discharge of the firearm, through contact with the hands of the shooter or handling of the gun. These findings suggest that the presence of GSR (especially in small quantities) may not always indicate that …
// by Sarah Olson
This 2013 document traces the development of forensic DNA analysis and its use by the NC State Crime Lab. It attempts to identify what technologies were available at what time. Information about the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory is not included.
// by Sarah Olson
Article by William A. Tobin and Peter J. Blau that argues that existing studies that are typically presented in court as support for firearm/projectile comparisons are fatally flawed and thus are of no value for validation of the techniques used. The authors offer a solution that would allow a scientifically defensible opinion to be proffered …
// by Sarah Olson
Article by Clifford Spiegelman and William A. Tobin that evaluates experiments used to justify conclusions of “individualization” or specific source attribution to “100% certainty” and “near-zero” rates of error claimed by firearm toolmark examiners in court testimonies and suggests approaches for establishing statistical foundations for this firearm and toolmark comparisons.
// by Alec Rees
UNC School of Government Criminal Law blog post by Jeff Welty from June of 2011 about the voluntary intoxication defense in North Carolina.
UNC School of Government Blog: Voluntary IntoxicationRead More
// by Sarah Olson
Radio program that covers challenges to the reliability of fingerprint evidence, including bias. Includes coverage of the Brandon Mayfield case (from Mar. 10, 2011).
// by Sarah Olson
by Steven A. Symes, Ph.D. et al. for the U.S. Department of Justice. Available through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (2010)
// by Sarah Olson
Shea Denning of the UNC School of Government discusses the adoption of Rule 702(a1) and the admissibility of HGN and DRE evidence. For additional information, contact Shea Denning. She is available as a resource on this topic.
// by Sarah Olson
by Jacqueline McMurtrie, , Utah Law Review, Vol 2010, No. 2. – addresses uniqueness, individualization and infallibility claims of fingerprint examination, the history of latent print individualization, recent legal challenges to latent print individualization, and the NAS report and its use in post-conviction claims based upon new developments in forensic science.
