Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 1-328

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85024125203     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.17226/12589     Document Type: Book

References (171)

1. K. Inman and N. Rudin. 2002. The origin of evidence. Forensic Science International 126:11-16.
2. M.R. Durose. 2008. Census of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2005. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bj s/pub/pdf/cpffcl05.pdf.
3. National Institute of Justice. 2006. Status and Need^ of Forensic Science Service Providers: A Report to Congress. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/213420.htm.
4. J.L. Peterson and M.J. Hickman. 2005. Cens'us of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories, 2002. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpffd02.pdf.
5. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Genetic Witness: Forensic Uses of DNA Tests. OTA-BA-438. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, NTIS order #PB90-259110.
6. National Research Council. 1992. DNA Technology in Forensic Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, p. 55.
7. National Research Council. 1996. The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence: An Update. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. 2004. 180 Day Study: Status and Needs of U.S. Crime Labs. p. 7, table 2.
9. S.A. Cole. 2002. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification. Boston: Harvard University Press; Epstein, op. cit.
10. M.J. Saks and J.J. Koehler. 2005. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 309:892-895.
11. W.J. Bodziak. 1999. Footwear Impression Evidence-Detection, Recovery, and Examination. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
12. M.R. Bromwich. 2007. Final Report of the Independent Investigator fo-r the Houston Police Department Crime Laboratory and Property Room. Available at www. hpdlabinvestigation.org.
13. R.B. Stacey. 2005. Re-port on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case. Available at www.fbi. gov/hq/lab/fsc/current/special_report/2005_special_report.htm.
14. N. Benedict. 2004. Fingerprints and the Daubert standard for admission of scientific evidence: Why fingerprints fail and a proposed remedy. Arizona Law Review 46:519
15. D.L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M.J. Saks, and J. Sanders. 2002. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. St. Paul, MN: Thompson/West.
16. M. Houck and B. Budowle. 2002. Correlation of microscopic and mitochondrial DNA hair comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47(5):964-967
17. N.J. Schweitzer and M.J. Saks. 2007. The CSI Effect: Popular fiction about forensic science affects public expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics 47:357.
18. S.A. Cole and R. Dioso-Villa. 2007. CSI and its effects: Media, juries, and the burden of proof. New England Law Review 41(3):435.
19. M.J. Hickman, K.A. Hughes, K.J. Strom, and J.D. Ropero-Miller. 2007. Medical Examiner and Coroners' Offices, 2004. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/meco04.pdf.
20. National Research Council. 1928. The Coroner and the Medical Examiner. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21. R. Hanzlick and D. Combs. 1998. Medical examiner and coroner systems: History and trends. Journal of the American Medical Association 279(11):870-874.
22. R. Hanzlick. 1996. Coroner training needs. A numeric and geographic analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 276(21):1775-1778.
23. P. Komarinski. 2005. Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems. Boston: Elsevier Academic Press, p. 145.
24. L.C. Chelko, Director, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory. "Department of Defense Forensic Capabilities." Presentation to the committee. September 21, 2007.
25. C.L. Cooke Jr., Office of the Deputy Director for Strategy & Evaluation, National Counterproliferation Center. "Microbial Forensics: Gaps, Opportunities and Issues." Presentation to the committee. September 21, 2007.
26. J.I. Thornton. 2006. Crime reconstruction-ethos and ethics. In: W.J. Chisum and B.E. Turvey (eds.). Crime Reconstruction. Boston: Elsevier Science, pp. 37-50.
27. W.S. Becker, W.M. Dale, A. Lambert, and D. Magnus. 2005. Letter to the editor-Forensic lab directors' perceptions of staffing issues. Journal of Forensic Sciences 50(5):1255-1257.
28. American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. 2004. 180-Day Study Report: Status and Needs United States Crime Laboratories. Available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/ grants/213422.pdf.
29. K. Pyrek. 2007. Forensic Science Under Siege: The Challenges of Forensic Laboratories and the Medico-Legal Investigation System. Burlington, MA: Academic Press (Elsevier), p. 448.
30. P.C. Giannelli. 1993. "Junk science": The criminal cases. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 84:105, 111, and n.35.
31. P.J. Neufeld. 2005. The (near) irrelevance of Daubert to criminal justice: And some suggestions for reform. American Journal of Public Health 95(Supp. 1):S107, S110.
32. A. Liptak. 2003. "Houston DNA Review Clears Convicted Rapist, and Ripples in Texas Could Be Vast." New York Times. March 11, at A14
33. R. Tanner. 2003. "Crime Labs Stained by a Shadow of a Doubt." Los Angeles Times. July 13, at 18.
34. B.S. Weir. 2007. The rarity of DNA profiles. Annals of Applied Statistics 1(2):358-370
35. E. Lichtblau. 2006. "U.S. Will Pay $2 Million To Lawyer Wrongly Jailed." New York Times. November 30, at A18.
36. J.L. Mnookin. 2008. The validity of latent fingerprint identification: Confessions of a fingerprinting moderate. Law, Probability and Risk 7(2):127
37. K. Inman and N. Rudin. 2002. The origin of evidence. Forensic Science International 126:11-16
38. R. Cook, I.W. Evett, G. Jackson, P.J. Jones, and J.A. Lambert. 1998. A hierarchy of propositions: Deciding which level to address in casework. Science and Justice 38:231-239.
39. NAS. 2005. The Sackler Colloquium on Forensic Science: The Nexus of Science and the Law, November 16-18, 2005.
40. C. Aitken and F. Taroni. 2004. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
41. M.J. Saks, D.M. Risinger, R. Rosenthal, and W.C. Thompson. 2003. Context effects in forensic science: A review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Science and Justice 43(2):77-90.
42. C. Guthrie, J.J. Rachlinski, and A.J. Wistrich. 2001. Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review 86:777-830.
43. R.B. Stacey. 2004. A report on the erroneous fingerprint individualization in the Madrid train bombing case. Journal of Forensic Identification 54:707.
44. I.E. Dror and D. Charlton. 2006. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 56(4):600-616.
45. M.K. Chen. 2008. Rationalization and Cognitive Dissonance: Do Choices Affect or Reflect Preferences? Available at www.som.yale.edu/Faculty/keith.chen/papers/CogDisPaper. pdf.
46. I.E. Dror, D. Charlton, and A.E. Peron. 2006. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International 156:74-78
47. I.E. Dror, A. Peron, S. Hind, and D. Charlton. 2005. When emotions get the better of us: The effects of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology 19:799-809
48. B. Schiffer and C. Champod. 2007. The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of fingerprint individualization. Forensic Science International 167:116-120.
49. I. Sato, M. Sagi, A. Ishiwari, H. Nishijima, E. Ito, and T. Mukai. 2002. Use of the "SMITEST" PSA card to identify the presence of prostate-specific antigen in semen and male urine. Forensic Science International 127(1-2):71-74.
50. W.C. Thompson, F. Taroni, and C.G.G. Aitken. 2003. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences 48(1):47-54.
51. T.R. Moretti, A.L. Baumstark, D.A. Defenbaugh, K.M. Keys, J.B. Smerick, and B. Budowle B. 2001. Validation of short tandem repeats (STRs) for forensic usage: Performance testing of fluorescent multiplex STR systems and analysis of authentic and simulated forensic samples. Journal of Forensic Sciences 46(3):647-660.
52. B. Leclair, R. Shaler, G.R. Carmody, K. Eliason, B.C.Hendrickson, T. Judkins, M.J. Norton, C. Sears, and T. Scholl. 2007. Bioinformatics and human identification in mass fatality incidents: The World Trade Center disaster. Journal of Forensic Sciences 52(4):806-819.
53. A. Salas. 2008. GEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mtDNA: Reflections about interpretation, artefacts and DNA mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics 2(2):126- 133
54. A. Salas, L. Prieto, M. Montesino, C. Albarrán, E. Arroyo, M. Paredes-Herrera, A. Di Lonardo, C. Doutremepuich, I. Fernández-Fernández, A. de la Vega. 2005. Mitochondrial DNA error prophylaxis: Assessing the causes of errors in the GEP'02-03 proficiency testing trial. Forensic Science International 148(2-3):191-198.
55. DNA Advisory Board. 2000. Quality assurance standards for forensic DNA testing laboratories. Forensic Science Communications 2(3). Available at www.bioforensics. com/conference04/TWGDAM/Quality_Assurance:Standards_2.pdf.
56. National Research Council. 1996. The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence: An Update. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
57. J. Vanderkolk. 2004. ACE-V: A model. Journal of Forensic Identification 54(1):45-52
58. R.A. Huber. 1959-1960. Expert witness. Criminal Law Quarterly 2:276-296.
59. L. Haber and R.N. Haber. 2008. Scientific validation of fingerprint evidence under Daubert. Law, Frobability, and Risk 7(2):87-109.
60. I.E. Dror and D. Charlton. 2006. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 56(4):600-616.
61. E. Gutiérrez, V. Galera, J.M. Martinez, and C. Alonso. 2007. Biological variability of the minutiae in the fingerprints of a sample of the Spanish population. Forensic Science International 172(2-3):98-105.
62. C. Champod, C.J. Lennard, P.A. Margot, and M. Stoilovic. 2004. Fingerprints and other ridge skin impressions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
63. D.A. Stoney. 2001. "Measurement of Fingerprint Individuality." In: H.C. Lee and R.E. Gaensslen (eds.). Advances in Fingerprint Technology. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; pp. 327-387.
64. T. Busey and J. Vanderkolk. 2005. Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configurai processing in fingerprint experts. Vision Research 45:431-448.
65. I.W. Evett and R.A. Williams. 1996. A review of the sixteen points fingerprint standard in England and Wales. Journal of Forensic Identification 46(1):49-73.
66. J.L. Mnookin. 2008. The validity of latent fingerprint identification: Confessions of a fingerprinting moderate. Law, Probability and Risk 7:127.
67. C. Champod. 2008. Fingerprint examination: Towards more transparency. Law Probability and Risk 7:111-118.
68. F. Galton. 1892. Fingerprints. New York: MacMillan
69. A. Hale. 1952. Morphogenesis of volar skin in the human fetus. The American Journal of Anatomy 91:147-173
70. J. Raser and E. O'Shea. 2005. Noise in gene expression: Origins, consequences, and control. Science 39:2010-2013.
71. C. Neumann, C. Champod, R. Puch-Solis, N. Egli, A. Anthonioz, and A. Bromage- Griffiths. 2007. Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint identification for configurations of any number of minutiae. Journal of Forensic Sciences 52(1):54-64
72. N.M. Egli,C. Champod, and P. Margot. 2007. Evidence evaluation in fingerprint comparison and automated fingerprint identification systems-Modelling within finger variability. Forensic Science International 167(2-3):189-195.
73. M. Liukkonen, H. Majamaa, and J. Virtanen. 1996. The role and duties of the shoeprint/ toolmark examiner in forensic laboratories. Forensic Science International 82:99-108.
74. W.J. Bodziak. 1999. Footwear Impression Evidence-Detection, Recovery, and Examination. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2nd ed., p. 329.
75. H. Majamaa and Y. Anja. 1996. Survey of the conclusions drawn of similar footwear cases in various crime laboratories. Forensic Science International 82:109-120.
76. A.S. Fawcett. 1970. The role of the footmark examiner. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 10:227-244.
77. Identification Committee report. 1992. Journal of the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners 24:336-340.
78. A.A. Biasotti. 1959. A statistical study of the individual characteristics of fired bullets. Journal of Forensic Sciences 4:34
79. A.A. Biasotti and J. Murdock. 1984. "Criteria for identification" or "state of the art" of firearms and tool marks identification. Journal of the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners 16(4):16
80. J. Miller and M.M. McLean. 1998. Criteria for identification of tool marks. Journal of the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners 30(1):15
81. J.J. Masson. 1997. Confidence level variations in firearms identification through computerized technology. Journal of the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners 29(1):42.
82. A. Schwartz. 2004-2005. A systemic challenge to the reliability and admissibility of firearms and tool marks identification. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 6:2.
83. R.G. Nichols. 2007. Defending the scientific foundations of the firearms and tool mark identification discipline: Responding to recent challenges. Journal of Forensic Sciences 52(3):586-594.
84. National Research Council. 2008. Ballistic Imaging. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, p. 3.
85. P.D. Barnett and R.R. Ogle. 1982. Probabilities and human hair comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences 27(2):272-278.
86. M.M. Houck and R.E. Bisbing. 2005. Forensic human hair examination and comparison in the 21st century. Forensic Science Review 17(1):7.
87. Scientific Working Group on Materials Analysis (SWGMAT). 2005. Forensic human hair examination guidelines. Forensic Science Comm'unications 7(2). Available at www.fbi. gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2005/standards/2005_04_standards02.htm.
88. B.D. Gaudette and E.S. Keeping. 1974. An attempt at determining probabilities in human scalp hair comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences 19(3):599-606.
89. B.D. Gaudette. 1976. Probabilities and human pubic hair comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 21(3):514-517.
90. P.D. Barnett and R.R. Ogle. 1982. Probabilities and human hair comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences 27(2):272-278.
91. B.D. Gaudette. 1978. Some further thoughts on probabilities and human hair comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 23(4):758-763
92. M.S. Verma, L. Pratt, C. Ganesh, and C. Medina. 2002. Hair-MAP: A prototype automated system for forensic hair comparison and analysis. Forensic Science International 129:168-186.
93. C.G.G. Aitken and J.A. Robertson. 1986. A contribution to the discussion of probabilities and human hair comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 32(3):684-689.
94. M.M. Houck and B. Budowle. 2002. Correlation of microscopic and mitochondrial DNA hair comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47(5):964-967.
95. R.A. Wickenheiser and D.G. Hepworth. 1990. Further evaluation of probabilities in human hair comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 35(6):1323-1329.
96. P.C. Giannelli and E. West. 2001. Hair comparison evidence. Criminal Law Bulletin 37:514.
97. R.R. Bresee. 1987. Evaluation of textile fiber evidence: A review. Journal of Forensic Sciences 32(2):510-521.
98. M. Grieve and J. Robertson. 1999. Forensic Examination of Fibres. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd.
99. S.N. Srihari and G. Leedham. 2003. A survey of computer methods in forensic document examination. Proceedings of the Hth International Graphonomics Society Conference, pp. 278-281. Available at www.ntu.edu.sg/sce/labs/forse/PDF/docExam_7.pdf.
100. R.A. Huber and A. M. Headrick. 1999. Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
101. M. Kam, G. Fielding, and R. Conn. 1997. Writer identification by professional document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences 42(5):778-786
102. J. Sita, B. Found, and D. Rogers. 2002. Forensic handwriting examiners' expertise for signature comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47:11-17.
103. S.N. Sargur, S.-H. Cha, H. Arora, and S. Lee. 2002. Individuality of handwriting. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47(4):1-17.
104. SWGMAT. 1999. Forensic paint analysis and comparison guidelines. Forensic Science Communications 1(2). Available at www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999/painta.htm.
105. SWGMAT. 2002. Standard guide for using scanning electron microscopy/X-ray spectrometry in forensic paint examinations. Forensic Science Communications 4(4). Available at www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2002/bottrell.htm.
106. S.G. Ryland and R.J. Kopec. 1979. The evidential value of automobile paint chips. Journal of Forensic Sciences 24(1):140-147
107. J.A. Gothard. 1976. Evaluation of automobile paint flakes as evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences 21(3):636-641.
108. C.F. Tippet. 1968. The evidential value of the comparison of paint flakes from sources other than vehicles. Journal of the Forensic Sciences Society 8(2-3):61-65.
109. American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors International. 2006. Supplemental Requirements for the Accreditation of Forensic Science Testing Laboratories, p. 20. See www. ascld-lab.org/international/indexinternational.html.
110. J.A. Kieser. 2005. Weighing bitemark evidence: A postmodern perspective. Journal of Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology 1(2):75-80.
111. I.A. Pretty. 2003. A Web-based survey of odontologists' opinions concerning bite mark analyses. Journal of Forensic Sciences 48(5):1-4.
112. C.M. Bowers. 2006. Problem-based analysis of bite mark misidentifications: The role of DNA. Forensic Science International 159 Supplement 1:s104-s109.
113. I.A. Pretty and D. Sweet. 2001. The scientific basis for human bitemark analyses-A critical review. Science and Justice 41(2):85-92.
114. P. Pizzola, S. Roth, and P. DeForest. 1986. Blood drop dynamics-II. Journal of Forensic Sciences 31(1): 36-49.
115. H.C. Lee; T. Palmbach and M.T. Miller. 2005. Henry Lee's Crime Scene Handbook. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, pp. 281-298.
116. W.G. Kruse and J.G. Heiser. 2001. Comp'uter Forensics: Incident Response Essentials. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
117. G.R. McLain, Jr., 2007. United States v. Hill: A new rule, but no clarity for the rules governing computer searches and seizures. George Mason Law Review 14(4):1071-1104
118. D. Regensburger, B. Bytes, and B. Bonds. 2007. An exploration of the law concerning the search and seizure of computer files and an analysis of the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 97(4)1151-1208.
119. I.E. Dror and D. Charlton. 2006. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 56 (4):600-616
120. I.E. Dror, D. Charlton, and A Peron. 2006. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International 156(1):74-78
121. D.E. Krane, S. Ford, J.R. Gilder, K. Inman, A. Jamieson, R. Koppl, I.L. Kornfield, D.M. Risinger, N. Rudin, M.S. Taylor, and W.C Thompson. 2008. Sequential unmasking: A means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53(4):1006-1007
122. L.S. Miller. 1987. Procedural bias in forensic science examinations of human hairs. Law and Human Behavior 11(2):157-163.
123. D.M. Risinger, M.J. Saks, W.C. Thompson, and R. Rosenthal. 2002. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review 90:1-56
124. I.W. Evett, G. Jackson, J.A. Lambert, and S. McCrossan. 2000. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science and Justice 40(4):233-239.
125. I.W. Evett. 1990. The theory of interpreting scientific transfer evidence. Forensic Science Progress 4:141-179.
126. P.C. Giannelli. 2001. Scientific evidence in civil and criminal cases. Arizona State Law Journal 103:112.
127. F.P. Smith, R.H. Liu, and C.A. Lindquist. 1988. Research experience and future criminalists. Journal of Forensic Sciences 33(4):1074-1080.
128. L. Haber and R.N. Haber. 2008. Scientific validation of fingerprint evidence under Daubert. Law, Probability and Risk 7(2):87-109.
129. J.L. Peterson and P. Markham. 1995. Crime laboratory proficiency testing results, 1978-1991, I: Identification and classification of physical evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(6):994-1008
130. J.L. Peterson and P. Markham, 1995. Crime laboratory proficiency testing results, 1978-1991, II: Resolving questions of common origin. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(6):1009-1029.
131. European Network of Forensic Science Institutes. 2005. Guidance on the Conduct of Proficiency Tests and Collaborative Exercises Within ENFSI. Available at www.enfsi.eu/ uploads/files/QCC-PT-001-003.pdf.
132. T. Ortelli. 2008. Characteristics of candidates who have taken the Certified Nurse Educator: CNE examination: A two-year review. Nursing Education Perspectives 29(2):120
133. P. Nowak. 2008. Get IT-certified: Having employees with the right certifications can help dealers and integrators qualify for business and gain access to IT networks. Network Technology 38(3):123
134. S. Space. 2007. Investigator certification. Issues in Clinical Trials Management 8(2):73.
135. M. Hansen. 2000. Expertise to go. ABA J. 86:44-45
136. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. 2005. Review of the Office of Justice Programs' Forensic Science Improvement G-rant Program, Evaluation and Inspections Report I-2006-002. Available at www.usdoj.gov/oig/semiannual/0605/ojp.htm.
137. H.C. Luegenbiehl. 1983. Codes of ethics and the moral education of engineers. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 2:41-61
138. D.G. Johnson (ed.). 1991. Ethical Issues in Engineering. 1991. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 137-154.
139. M. Davis. 1991. Thinking like an engineer: The place of a code of ethics in the practice of a profession. Philosophy and Public Affairs 20(2):150-167
140. R.E. Gaensslen. 2003. How do I become a forensic scientist? Educational pathways to forensic science careers. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 376:1151-1155.
141. R. Almirall and K.G. Furton. 2003. Trends in forensic science education: Expansion and increased accountability. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 376:1156-1159.
142. J.A. Siegel. 1988. The appropriate educational background for entry level forensic scientists: A survey of practitioners. Journal of Forensic Sciences 33(4):1065-1068.
143. K.M. Higgins and C.M. Selavka. 1988. Do forensic science graduate programs fulfill the needs of the forensic science community? Journal of Forensic Sciences 33(4):1015-1021.
144. K.G. Furton, Y.L. Hsu, and M.D. Cole. 1999. What educational background is required by crime laboratory directors? Journal of Forensic Sciences 44:128-132.
145. J.L. Peterson, D. Crim, and P.R. De Forest. 1977. The status of forensic science degree programs in the United States. Journal of Forensic Sciences 22(1):17-33.
146. D.A. Stoney. 1988. A medical model for criminalistics education. Journal of Forensic Scences 33(4):1086-1094.
147. L. Kobilinksy and F.X. Sheehan. 1984. The desirability of a Ph.D. program in forensic science. Journal of Forensic Sciences 29(3):706-710.
148. L.W. Bradford. 1980. Barriers to quality achievement in crime laboratory operations. Journal of Forensic Sciences 25(4):902-907
149. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 2006. De-partment of Justice Releases Interactive Training Tool on Principles of Forensic DNA. Available at www.ojp.usdoj. gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2006/NIJ06036.htm.
150. T. Eisenberg, P.L. Hannaford-Agor, V.P. Hans, N.L. Mott, G.T. Munsterman, S.J. Schwab, and M.T. Wells. 2005. Judge-jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven & Zeisel's The American Jury. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 2:171-206.
151. W.C. Thompson and E.L. Schumann. 1987. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behavior 11:167-187
152. W.C. Thompson. 1989. Are juries competent to evaluate statistical evidence? Law and Contemporary Problems 52:9-41.
153. J.J. Koehler. 2001. When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior 25:493-513
154. D.A. Nance and S.B. Morris. 2002. An empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively large and quantifiable random match probability. Jurimetrics Journal 42:403-448
155. J. Schklar and S.S. Diamond. 1999. Juror Understanding of DNA evidence: An empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively small random-match probability. Journal of Legal Studies 34:395-444.
156. Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2003. Medicolegal Death Investigation System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, p. 8.
157. J.M. Hickman, K.A. Hughes, K.J. Strom, and J.D. Ropero-Miller. 2004. Medical Examiners and Coroners' Offices, 2004. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ216756.
158. V. Weedn. "Legal Impediment to Adequate Medicolegal Death Investigation." Presentation to the committee. June 5, 2007.
159. R. Hanzlick. "An Overview of Medical Examiner/Coroner Systems in the United States- Development, Current Status, Issues, and Needs." Presentation to the committee. June 5, 2007.
160. K.B. Nolte, S.L. Lathrop, M.B. Nashelsky, J.S. Nine, M.M. Gallaher, E.T. Umland, J.L. McLemore, R.R. Reichard, R.A. Irvine, P.J. McFeeley, R.E. Zumwalt. 2007. "Med-X": A medical examiner surveillance model for bioterrorism and infectious disease mortality. Human Pathology 38:718-725.
161. R. Hanzlick. 2006. Medical examiners, coroners, and public health. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 130:1247-1282.
162. P.C. Giannelli. 2007. Wrongful convictions and forensic science: The need to regulate crime labs. 86 N.C. L. Rev. 163 (2007)
163. B. Schmitt and J. Swickard. 2008. "Detroit Police Lab Shut Down After Probe Finds Errors." Detroit Free Press. September 25.
164. J.J. Koehler. Fingerprint error rates and proficiency tests: What they are and why they matter. 59 Hastings L.J. 1077 (2008)
165. L. Haber and R.N. Haber. 2008. Scientific validation of fingerprint evidence under Daubert. Law, Probability and Risk 7(2):87
166. J.L. Mnookin. 2008. The validity of latent fingerprint identification: Confessions of a fingerprinting moderate. Law, Probability and Risk 7(2):127.
167. I.E. Dror, D. Charlton, and A.E. Péron. 2006. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International 156:74, 77.
168. I.E. Dror and D. Charlton. 2006. Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification 56(4):600
169. P.J. Neufeld. 2005. The (near) irrelevance of Daubert to criminal justice: And some suggestions for reform. American Journal of Public Health 95(Supp.1):S107.
170. P. Giannelli and E. Imwinkelried. 2000. Scientific evidence: The fallout from Supreme Court's decision in Kumho Tire. Criminal Justice Magazine 14(4):12, 40.
171. Institute of Medicine. 2003. Workshop on the Medicolegal Death Investigation S'ystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.