Quality Assurance and Peer Review

Abstract The introduction of the methodologies of science into the evaluation of data in the legal arena has taken place over a period of many years and has resulted in providing the opportunity to evaluate evidentiary items with objectivity and accuracy. While, in theory, the individual conducting the forensic evaluation should be free to function as an objective independent scientist gathering and impartially evaluating the evidence, this freedom from outside influences and pressures is too often nonexistent—particularly in cases wherein a potential, or actual, conflict of interest exists. The result of this can be the introduction of bias, either deliberate or unintentional, into the ultimate analysis and interpretation of that evidentiary data. To ensure a professionally acceptable level of scientific credibility, the forensic community needs to implement ethical standards and review mechanisms to ensure that the information presented to the triers of fact (the members of the jury), conform to those standards. The problems and potential remedies will be the subject of this chapter, including several demonstrative case studies.