Transcription

n s t i t u t eIN Y C L A - C L EForensic Evidence –Evidence in C riminal Trials :D emystifying the CSI E ffectPrepared in connection with a Continuing Legal Education course presentedat New York County Lawyers’ Association, 14 Vesey Street, New York, NYscheduled for December 2, 2010.Program Co-Sponsor:NYCLA Criminal Justice SectionM o d e r at o r :Mark B. Rosen, John Jay College of Criminal JusticeF ac u l t y :Steve Bojekian, former Chief Bergen County Sheriff’s DepartmentAdina Schwartz, John Jay College of Criminal JusticePeter Valentin, Detective, Connecticut State PoliceJack Walsh, retired captain NYPD and John Jay College of Criminal Justice3 TRANSITIONAL and Non-transitional MCLE CREDITS:This course has been approved in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Continuing Legal EducationBoard for a maximum of 3 Transitional and Non-Transitional credit hours: 1 Ethics; 1 Professional Practice.In addition to being accredited in the State of New York, this program has been approved by the Board of Continuing LegalEducation of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 3 hours of total CLE credit. Of these, 1 qualify as hours of credit forethics/professionalism, and 0 qualify as hours of credit toward certification in civil trial law, criminal trial law, workerscompensation law and/or matrimonial law.

Information Regarding CLE Credits and CertificationForensic Evidence in Criminal Trials: Demystifying the CSI EffectDecember 3, 20106:00PM to 9:00PMThe New York State CLE Board Regulations require all accredited CLE providers toprovide documentation that CLE course attendees are, in fact, present during the course.Please review the following NYCLA rules for MCLE credit allocation and certificatedistribution.i.You must sign-in and note the time of arrival to receive your course materialsand receive MCLE credit. The time will be verified by the Program Assistant.ii.You will receive your MCLE certificate as you exit the room atthe end of each day. The certificates will bear your name and will be arranged inalphabetical order on the tables directly outside the auditorium.iv.If you arrive after the course has begun, you must sign-in and note the time ofyour arrival. The time will be verified by the Program Assistant. If it has beendetermined that you will still receive educational value by attending a portion ofthe program, you will receive a pro-rated CLE certificate.v.Please note: We can only certify MCLE credit for the actual time you are inattendance. If you leave before the end of the course, you must sign-out andenter the time you are leaving.The time will be verified by the ProgramAssistant. If it has been determined that you received educational value fromattending a portion of the program, your CLE credits will be pro-rated and thecertificate will be mailed to you within one week.vi.If you leave early and do not sign out, we will assume that you left at themidpoint of the course. If it has been determined that you received educationalvalue from the portion of the program you attended, we will pro-rate the creditsaccordingly unless you can provide verification of course completion. Yourcertificate will be mailed to you within one week.Thank you for choosing NYCLA as your CLE provider!

New York County Lawyers’ AssociationContinuing Legal Education Institute14 Vesey Street, New York, N.Y. 10007 (212) 267-6646Forensic Evidence in Criminal Trials: Demystifying the CSI EffectDecember 2, 20106:00PM to 9:00PMProgram Chair:Mark B. Rosen, John Jay College of Criminal JusticeFaculty:Adina Schwartz, John Jay College of Criminal JusticePeter Valentin, Detective, Connecticut State PoliceSteve Bojekian, former Chief Bergen County Sheriff'sDepartmentJack Walsh, retired captain NYPD and John Jay College ofCriminal JusticeAGENDA5:30 PM –6:00 PMRegistration6:00 PM – 6:10 PMIntroductions and Announcements6:10 PM – 6:15 PMForensic Science Defined6:15 PM – 6:50 PMNational Academy of Sciences Report6:50 PM – 7:00 PMBREAK7:00 PM – 7:30 PMCrime Scene Typical Forensic Issues7:30 PM – 7:45 PMCross Examinations7:45 PM – 8:00 PMThe Fantasy of the CSI Genre on TV8:00 PM – 8:05 PMBREAK8:05 PM – 8:25 PMReal-Life Departmental, Command and Crime SceneForensic Issues8:25PM – 8:35 PMThe Lab8:35 PM – 8:55PMPracticum 911 Call8:55PM -Questions

New York County Lawyers’ AssociationContinuing Legal Education Institute14 Vesey Street, New York, N.Y. 10007 (212) 267-6646Forensic Evidence in Criminal Trials: Demystifying the CSI EffectThursday, December 2, 20106:00 PM – 9:00 PMTable of ContentsCross Examination OutlineSchwartz AffidavitDaubert ClarificationCSI TestOpinion EvidenceUS v St. Gerard

Mark B. Rosen, EsqMark B. Rosen , Esq. P.C.564 First AvenueSte 23LNew York, NY [email protected]

I.Personal informationa.Nameb.Home addressc.Business address(es)d.Current employer(s)i.Identity of employerii.Nature of employer’s business2

iii.iv.v.vi.How long employed thereJob title(s) and dutiesOrganizational chart (how many personnel, doing what)vii.viii.1.e.Employer’s affiliations with partiesExpert’s reporting relationships (up & down)Usual hourly rate billed by employer for expert’s servicesix.Same, paid by employer to expertx.Any document retention policies?Any document retention policies re litigation matters?Member of any professional organizations?3

II.Educationa.For each college and graduate institution:i.ii.iii.iv.v.vi.vii.Years attendedMajor or concentrationDegreeSubject of thesis or dissertationAny courses in computer forensics?Honors, prizes, fellowships, etc.Teaching work while attending (as graduate instructor,etc.)4

b.III.Licenses and certificationsa.Issuing authorityb.Any tests or training?c.Dates issuedd.Periodicity of renewale.Requirements for renewalf.IV.Professional seminars, continuing education, etc.Any disciplinary actions, revocations, etc.?Employment history5

a.For each position:i.ii.iii.iv.v.vi.vii.viii.ix.Identity of employerNature of employer’s businessEmployer’s affiliations with partiesHow hiredDates employed thereJob title(s) and dutiesOrganizational chartReporting relationshipsNature of compensation (salary, etc.)6

x.V.Why leftPublication historya.Does expert’s report list all publications in last ten years?b.Which publications from list are germane to expert’s work in this case?c.Any previous publications (before the last ten years) germane to expert’s workin this case?d.For each publication identified as pertinent:i.Did any other publisher or journal reject thepublication?7

ii.Was the publication peer-reviewed?1.By whom?2.Any comments during the peer-review process?3.Any revisions resulting from the peer-review?iii.iv.Drafts retained?Anything in the article that the expert would now want tochange or revise?1.If yes, has author done that? If not, why not?v.Identification, qualifications, roles of co-authors andother persons who assistedvi.What generated expert’s interest in area?8

vii.How would expert summarize the publication’s thesis orcontent?viii.1.Further research:Did publication identify the need for any?a.2.Was there, in any case, a need for any?a.3.Why or why not?Why or why not?Has any needed further research been done?a.If yes, identifyb.If no, why not?9

ix.x.xi.Does expert know how frequently publication is cited?Has anyone requested right to reprint?Is expert familiar with any literature expressing contraryviews or reaching contrary findings?1.Citations2.How and why does expert differ with literature expressingcontrary views?xii.VI.a.Any compensation for authoring the publication?Career as expert witDoes expert’s report identify all cases where expert has testified at trial or by deposition inlast four years?10

b.Any other cases in last four years where expert prepared report but did notend up testifying?c.Any previous cases (prior to the last four years) similar to this one?d.For each case:i.Subject matter of caseii.Subject matter of testimonyiii.For whom did expert testify?iv.v.vi.What law firm retained expert?Did expert prepare report?Who assisted?11

vii.viii.Did expert testify at trial?ix.x.VII.Was expert deposed?Any motions to exclude expert’s testimony?How was expert compensated?Expert’s retentiona.Date retained in this caseb.Persons making initial and subsequent contacts to retain expertc.Compensation arrangementsd.Expert’s understanding of expert’s assignment12

VIII.Expert’s opinionsa.What opinions has expert formed?b.For each opinion:i.ii.iii.iv.v.vi.vii.Who assisted expert?What advice or assistance did counsel offer?What data did expert review?How did expert decide what data to review?What data did expert end up relying on?If any data were not used, why?Does report include (not just “list”) all data considered?13

1.If not, were data retained?viii.Where did expert obtain data, and who assisted?ix.x.xi.1.What literature did expert review?On what literature does expert place reliance?For each publication on which expert relies:Who published?a.If a trade or industrial organization, e.g., explore itsinterests and constituencies2.Can expert summarize pertinent information, theory, ormethodology from publication? How did publication assistexpert?14

3.Is expert familiar with authors’ reputation, experience, etc.?4.Was publication peer-reviewed?xii.Can expert state every methodology relied upon informing opinion, whether or not covered in literature just described?xiii.1.For each such theory or method:Is the expert an expert in it?a.Any education, experience, etc.?2.Can expert identify any literature supporting it?3.Can expert summarize method or theory?4.Has method or theory been tested?15

5.Can method or theory be falsified (and how)?6.Does method or theory have a known error rate?7.Is method or theory generally accepted?8.Identify any standards controlling the method’s application9.Is expert aware of any dissenting views?a.Citations to literature10. How would expert respond to dissenting views?11. What is the context in which the theory or method is usuallyapplied?a.Litigation contexts16

b.Others12. Are there certain kinds of question that this theory or methodcannot answer (e.g., causation, fault)xiv.Has expert ever done work in this area outside thelitigation context?1.“Well, sir, how would you define [this area]?”xv.Would any theories or methods not used by expert bepotentially pertinent?1.Why did expert not employ these?xvi.Does report recite every step taken by expert to reachhis or her opinion? With enough specificity that another expert in samefield could duplicate results?17

xvii.Does report contain complete statement of all bases andreasons for opinion?xviii.xix.Were there any false trails or abandoned approaches?Anything in the report concerning this opinion that theexpert would want to change or revise?xx.xxi.Any further research desirable?What is the expert not opining on (liability, causation,etc.)?IX.X.Expert represented by counsel at deposition?Communications with attorneysa.Statement of expert’s assignment18

b.Any restrictions on assignmentc.Any communications re Daubert?d.Documents supplied to experte.Involvement of attorneys in drafting opinionf.Deposition preparation19

ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS1. What are the primary publications in your field?2. Which of those are peer reviewed?3. Have you submitted articles to any?4. Have they been accepted for publication?5. Do you have any state funded grants to support your work or research?6. Do you have any Federally funded grants to support your work or research?7. Have you ever submitted an application for a state or federal grant? IF YES a. Was the grant scored?b. Was the grant funded?c. What was the grant for?d. Did you perform the work?e. Did you close out the grant?f. Did you publish your findings?8. Do you know if any of your work has been cited by anyone else?a. Where20

b. How often?9. Do you know what the (ECR)EXPECTED CITATION RATE is for (whatever Journal the expert lists)?a. What is the ECR for your article?b. Do you know what an IMPACT FACTOR IS?c. What is the impact factor for (his/her article)21

STATE OF NEW YORKSUPREME COURT :COUNTY OF BRONXTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAFFIDAVIT-vsIndictment #: 4519-07DAJON GIVENS,Defendant.ADINA SCHWARTZ, being duly sworn, deposes and says:1.I am a Professor in the Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal JusticeAdministration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and in the Criminal Justice Ph.D Programof the Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY). John Jay College is the onlyliberal arts college in the United States devoted to criminal justice, and the CUNY CriminalJustice Ph.D. Program is the only Criminal Justice Ph.D. program in the country that has aforensic science track.2.As a faculty member at John Jay College, I teach many current and future lawenforcement agents and significant numbers of current and future forensic scientists and forensiccomputing investigators. My duties include teaching evidence law to undergraduates andCriminal Justice Masters students at John Jay College. I teach a course, “Science, Experts andEvidence in the Criminal Justice System,” for students in the forensic science track of the CUNYCriminal Justice Ph.D. Program.PUBLICATIONS3.I have published several articles on firearms and toolmark identification and,more generally, on the forensic identification sciences and on standards for the admission ofscientific evidence. My article, A Systemic Challenge to the Reliability and Admissibility of1

Firearms and Toolmark Identification (6 Columbia Science & Technology Law Review 1[March 28, 2005] [see http://www.stlr.org/cite.cgi?volume 6&article 2][hereinafter referred toas “A Systemic Challenge”]), was cited in United States v Mikos (539 F3d 706, 711 [7th Cir2008]) and United States v Mouzone (2009 WL 3617748 at *5 [D.Md. 2009][Magistrate’sReport and Recommendations]). The recommendations in regard to firearms identification wereadopted in United States v Willock (2010 WL 1233992 [D.Md. 2010]); United States v Monteiro(407 F Supp2d 351, 360-61 [D.Mass. 2006]); and United States v Green (405 F Supp 2d 104,122 n.33 [D. Mass. 2005]).4.A further article, Commentary on Nichols R.G., Defending the ScientificFoundations of the Firearms and Tool Mark Identification Discipline: Responding to RecentChallenges J. Forens. Sci. 2007 May; 52(3): 586-94 (52[6] Journal of Forensic Sciences1414[November 2007]), was cited in United States v. Mouzone (2009 WL 3617748 at 16). Anotherof my articles, A “Dogma of Empiricism” Revisited: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,Inc. and the Need to Resurrect the Philosophical Insight of Frye v. United States, 10 HarvardJournal of Law and Technology 149 (1997), was cited by the United States District Court for theCentral District of California, the Alaska and Minnesota Supreme Courts, and the Florida SecondDistrict Court of Appeals. The article was also cited in the two recent National ResearchCouncil reports that consider the scientific basis for firearms and toolmark identification:Committee to Assess the Feasibility, Accuracy, and Technical Capability of a National BallisticsDatabase, Ballistic Imaging (2008) (“NRC Ballistic Imaging Report”) and Committee onIdentifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Committee, Strengthening Forensic Science in theUnited States: A Path Forward (2009) (“NRC Forensic Science Report”).2

5.Links to A Systemic Challenge are posted on numerous websites, among them, thewebsite of the Scientific Working Group on Firearms and Toolmarks wpoints.htm, The Weekly Detail, the Internet Newsletterfor Latent Print Examiners, Detail206.htm, and the website of ballistics consulting company Athena Research &Consulting LLC, http://www.athenahq.com/News/News%20Home.htm.6.The SWGGUN website also includes links to my articles, A Challenge to theAdmissibility of Firearms and Toolmark Identifications: An Amicus Brief Prepared on Behalf ofthe Defendant in United States v. Kain, Crim. No. 03-573-1 (E.D. Pa. 2004), 4 Journal ofPhilosophy, Science &Law 1 (December 7, 2004), ain.html (“A Challenge”) and ChallengingFirearms and Toolmark Identification-Part One,” XXXII (8) The Champion 10 (Oct. 2008).7.Firearms and toolmark examiners Bruce Moran and John Murdock havedistributed and discussed A Challenge in workshops that they teach to firearms and toolmarkexaminers throughout the country.8.In their chapter, “Scientific Issues,” in 4 David L. Faigman, et. al, ModernScientific Evidence 592, 627 (2008-09), examiners Alfred Biasotti, John Murdock and Bruce R.Moran refer readers to the 2005 version of my since-updated chapter, “Firearms and ToolmarkIdentification,” in Jane Campbell Moriarty, Psychological and Scientific Evidence in CriminalTrials, West (2004 edition & ann. supp. 2006), Volume 2: 12-50 through 12-91, “[f]or a muchless sanguine view” of the scientific issues about firearms and toolmark identification.9.My articles, Challenging Firearms and Toolmark Identification-Part One,” supra,and Challenging Firearms and Toolmark Identification-Part Two,” XXXII (9) 443

(November/December 2008), were cited in SWGGUN’s response to the NRC Forensic ScienceReport’s call for the development of standardized protocols. SWGGUN SystemicRequirements/Recommendations for the Forensic Firearm and Toolmark Laboratory,http://www.swggun.org/systemic.htm.10.I have served as a defense expert or consultant on firearms and toolmarkidentification in forty-nine cases, and I have testified in both state and federal courts.11.A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A.FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC DOUBTS REGARDING THE ACCURACY ANDRELIABILITY OF FIREARM AND TOOLMARK EXAMINATION12.This affidavit is respectfully submitted in order to apprise the Court offundamental doubts as to the reliability of both the underlying premises and the methodology offirearms and toolmark identification, especially as voiced by two committees of distinguishedscientists in the recent National Research Council Reports on Ballistic Imaging and ForensicScience.13.This affidavit is submitted as well in order to inform the Court of significantdisagreements within the discipline of firearms and toolmark identification.14.Firearms identification, often improperly termed “ballistics,” is part of theforensic science discipline of toolmark identification. 1 An underlying assumption of toolmarkidentification is that a tool, such as a firearm barrel, leaves a unique toolmark(s) on an object,such as a bullet. An equally crucial premise is that toolmarks are reproducible. As the NationalResearch Council stated in its Report on Ballistic Imaging: “To be useful for identification, the1.Properly speaking, ballistics deals with the motions of projectiles. See Paul C. Giannelli, BallisticsEvidence: Firearms Identification, 27 Crim. L. Bull. 195,197 (1991).4

characteristic marks left by firearms must not only be unique but reproducible – that is, theunique characteristics must be capable of being deposited over the multiple firings so that theycan be found on recovered evidence and successfully compared with those on other items.”Committee to Assess the Feasibility, Accuracy, and Technical Capability of a National BallisticsDatabase, Ballistic Imaging (2008) (“NRC Ballistic Imaging Report”) at 72.15.The distinctions among various “classes” of toolmarks are key to understandingwhy firearms and toolmark examiners’ method for reaching identification conclusions isunreliable. Toolmarks are either “striated” toolmarks which consist of patterns of scratches orstriae produced by the parallel motion of tools against objects (e.g., the marks gun barrelsproduce on bullets), or “impression” toolmarks produced on objects by the perpendicular,pressurized impact of tools (e.g., firing pin impressions or breech face marks produced oncartridge cases by the firing pins or breech faces of guns). Both types of toolmarks have class,subclass, and individual characteristics.16.The distinctively designed features of tools are reflected in the classcharacteristics of the toolmarks produced by all tools of a certain type. For example, the riflingimpressions on bullets are class characteristics reflecting the number, width and direction of twistof the lands and grooves in the types of barrels that fired them.17.By contrast to class characteristics, microscopic individual characteristics (e.g.,the striations or lines within rifling impressions) are what are purported to be unique to thetoolmarks each individual tool produces and to correspond to random imperfections orirregularities on tool surfaces produced by the manufacturing process and/or subsequent use,wear, corrosion or damage.5

18.It is the isolation and identification of individual markings that theoreticallyallows a firearms and toolmark examiner to reach identification conclusions.19.Although firearms and toolmark examiners frequently state that every toolproduces toolmarks with unique individual characteristics, in addition to being scientificallyquestionable (see paras. 11-13 above), this statement is inconsistent with established knowledgewithin the discipline that not all manufacturing processes result in firearms or other tools withsuch differentiated surfaces that each tool produces toolmarks with unique, individualcharacteristics. Indeed, firearms and toolmark examiners themselves concede that some gunsand tools are not capable of producing unique toolmarks when they leave the assemblyline.20.Some manufacturing processes create batches of tools with similarities inappearance, size, or surface finish that set them apart from other tools of the same type. Thetoolmarks produced by tools in the batch have matching microscopic characteristics, calledsubclass characteristics, that distinguish them from toolmarks produced by other tools of thetype, but are common to all toolmarks produced by tools in the batch. The individualcharacteristics which firearms and toolmark examiners consider to be unique to the toolmarksproduced by individual guns or other tools may or may not also be present on the toolmarksproduced by newly manufactured tools in the batch. While wear and tear on some tools maycause the subclass characteristics on their toolmarks to be completely replaced by individualcharacteristics, in other tools, subclass characteristics may persist alongside individualcharacteristics. 22See, e.g., AFTE, Theory of Identification as it Relates to Toolmarks, 30(1) AFTE J. 86, 88(1998); Alfred A. Biasotti & John Murdock, “Criteria for Identification” or “State of the Art” ofFirearms and Toolmark Identification, 16 AFTE J. 16, 17 (1984); M.S. Bonfanti & J. DeKinder,The Influence of Manufacturing Processes on the Identification of Bullets and Cartridge Cases 6

21.Firearms examiners compare evidence toolmarks on ammunition componentsrecovered from crime scenes with test toolmarks that they produce on other ammunitioncomponents by firing or otherwise using a particular gun. If the same “class characteristics” arefound on both the evidence and test toolmarks (for example, the same rifling impressions on atest fired bullet and an evidence bullet recovered from a crime scene), a firearms and toolmarkexaminer uses a comparison microscope to compare the toolmarks’ “individual characteristics”(for example, microscopic striations within rifling impressions on the known and questionedbullets). The object is to determine whether the individual characteristics are so similar that oneand the same tool (for example, a particular gun barrel) must have produced both the test and theevidence toolmarks.22.Where a crime scene does not yield any gun whose class characteristics matchthose of the ammunition components recovered from the scene, firearms and toolmark examinerssometimes compare the class and individual characteristics on various ammunition componentsrecovered from the crime scene and/or other crime scenes or the suspect’s home or possessions.The object is to determine whether the individual characteristics are so similar that variousammunition components must all have been fired, or cycled through, the same gun.FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCILA Review of the Literature, 39 Science & Justice 3, passim (1999); The AFTE Committee for theAdvancement of Firearm & Toolmark Identification, The Response of the Association of Firearmand Tool Mark Examiners to the National Academy of Sciences 2008 Report Assessing theFeasability, Accuracy, and Technical Capability of a National Ballistics Database August 20,2008, 40 (3) AFTE J. 234, 244 (2008) (stating that “once subclass characteristics (if any) aretaken into account, toolmarks are unique”).7

23.In 2008, the National Research Council Committee to Assess the Feasibility,Accuracy, and Technical Capability of a National Ballistics Database found that the basicpremises of firearms and toolmark identification were not scientifically established. “Finding:The validity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearmrelated toolmarks has not yet been fully demonstrated” (see NRC Ballistic Imaging Report, at3, 81).24.According to the Committee, extensive research would be needed to validate theassumptions.Additional general research on the uniqueness and reproducibility of firearmrelated toolmarks would have to be done if the basic premises of firearmsidentification are to be put on a more solid scientific footing.***Fully assessing the assumptions underlying firearms identification would requirecareful attention to statistical experimental design issues, as well as intensivework on the underlying physics, engineering and metallurgy of firearms, but isessential to the long-term viability of this type of forensic evidence.(see NRC Ballistic Imaging Report, at 82). 325.Similarly, in 2009, the National Research Committee on Identifying the Needs ofthe Forensic Science Community found that:Although some studies have been performed on the degree of similarity that canbe found between marks made by different tools and the variability of marks3See also United States v. Mouzone (2009 WL 3617748 at 18 [D.Md. 2009][stating that the NRCBallistic Imaging Report “made clear [that] despite the many studies conducted by toolmarkexaminers” the basic premises of uniqueness and reproducibility had not been scientificallyestablished and major research was needed); see transcript of United States v. Damian Brown etal., (05 Cr. 538 at 13 [S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2008][statement by Judge Rakoff that “[t]wice in thatreport (NRC Ballistic Imaging Report) in bold face so that no one can miss it, the authors of thereport who appear to include quite a few notable scientists as well as others, state, ‘Finding: Thevalidity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearms-relatedtoolmarks has not yet been fully demonstrated.’ So, that goes to the most basic premise beforewe get into anything else, the most basic premise on which this, what you (the Assistant UnitedStates Attorney) call ballistic science is premised, yes?”]).8

made by an individual tool, the scientific knowledge base for toolmark andfirearms analysis is fairly limited. For example, a report by Hamby, Brundageand Thorpe includes capsule summaries of 68 toolmark and firearms studies. Butthe capsule summaries suggest a heavy reliance on the subjective findings ofexaminers rather than on the rigorous quantification and analysis of sources ofvariability.(see Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009[hereinafter “NRC Forensic Science Report”] at 155 & 155 n.68]. 426.These negative conclusions about the underlying premises of firearms andtoolmark identification are particularly worthy of note because the National Research Council isthe operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences, an independent body of distinguishedscientists that Congress established in 1863 for the purpose of advising federal governmentagencies on scientific and technical questions. 54Citing J.E. Hamby, D.J. Brundage, and J.W. Thorpe, 2009. The identification of bullets firedfrom 10 consecutively rifled 9mm Ruger pistol barrels – A research project involving 468participants from 19 countries. Available online at 0Barrel%20Article-%20a.pdf); see also id. at 154(quoting the NRC Ballistic Imaging Report’s findings that the fundamental premises of theuniqueness and reproducibility of firearms toolmarks have not been scientifically established).5See NRC Ballistic Imaging Report, supra, at iii; NRC, Welcome to the National ResearchCouncil, http://sites.nationalacademies.org/nrc/index.htm; National Academy of Sciences, Aboutthe NAS, http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename ABOUT main page. See alsoThomas L. Bohan, Review of Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A PathForward, 55(2) J. Forens. Sci. 560 (Mar. 2010) (explaining the significance of the NationalAcademy of Sciences and the relations between the National Academy of Sciences and the NRC,and stating that the NRC Forensic Science Report “is not a pronouncement from the ivorytower, but rather the product of a multi-year study by a diverse group of legal scholars andscientists selected by the country’s most respected scientific organization: the National Academyof Sciences”). NRC committees are staffed by top scientists and professionals who work on avoluntary basis. See NRC, Welcome to the National Research Council, supra. The appointmentprocess is designed to ensure that committee members have an “appropriate range of expertisefor the task” and bring “a balance of perspectives” to a project. See Committee AppointmentProcess,9

27.It is crucial to recognize that even if the necessary research were

Forensic Evidence in Criminal Trials: Demystifying the CSI Effect December 2, 2010 6:00PM to 9:00PM Program Chair: Mark B. Rosen, John Jay College of Criminal Justice Faculty: Adina Schwartz, John Jay College of Criminal Justice Peter Valentin, Detective, Connecticut State Police Steve