Guest Blog Post From Dr. Frederic Whitehurst PhD JD: Forensic Science “Matches”-The Case of Black Powder

Guest Blog Post From Dr. Frederic Whitehurst PhD JD: Forensic Science “Matches”-The Case of Black Powder

On February 16, 2012, in Arson, Chemistry, Contextual Bias, Crime Scene Investigation, Identification, In The Courtroom, by Justin J. McShane

Forensic Science “Matches”-The Case of Black Powder By:  Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. [1] While reviewing case opinions in criminal matters involving forensic examinations one is often presented with various adjectives of comparison such as “matches,” “consistent with,” and “identical to.” Counsel seeing these adjectives in forensic reports may be elated if legal theories are supported […]

Why not stipulate to a forensic science result?

Why not stipulate to a forensic science result?

On February 14, 2012, in Chemistry, Contextual Bias, Equipment, Ethics, Ethics: Lawyer, General Information, In The Courtroom, by Justin J. McShane

I was recently asked a question which is basically this: “Justin, why don’t you stipulate to any forensic science result ever?” My answer is simple. I haven’t found a single analytical test or a single forensic science result that does not have some area of legitimate inquiry whether it is in the data (the test […]

Guest Blog Post From Dr. Frederic Whitehurst PhD JD: “Matches” An Over inference of Data? A Giglio Obligation? The case of Paint Examination

Guest Blog Post From Dr. Frederic Whitehurst PhD JD: “Matches” An Over inference of Data? A Giglio Obligation? The case of Paint Examination

On February 9, 2012, in Chemistry, Contextual Bias, Ethics, Ethics: Scientist, Identification, In The Courtroom, Paint Analysis, Trace Evidence, by Justin J. McShane

“Matches” An Over inference of Data? A Giglio Obligation?: The case of Paint Examination By:  Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. [1] and Darlene R. Brezinski, Ph.D.[2] Forensic chemical analyses of complex matrices such as plastics, paints, or paper products, may lead to inconclusive results without analysts or reviewing counsel aware of the failing of the analyses. Complex […]

Quality Control in GC-FID: Teaching the machine right from wrong

Quality Control in GC-FID: Teaching the machine right from wrong

On February 7, 2012, in Chemistry, Equipment, Ethics, Ethics: Scientist, GC-FID & GC/MS, Identification, In The Courtroom, Laboratory Procedure, Metrology, Standards, by Justin J. McShane

It is shocking but very true statement that most sophisticated instruments such as a Gas Chromatograph (GC) with various detectors whether it is a mass spectrometer (MS) or flame ionization detector (FID) when produced and manufactured are incapable of producing meaningful results “straight out of the box.” These machines have to be “taught” what it […]

Guest Blog Post From Dr. Frederic Whitehurst PhD JD: Mr. Fletcher vs. Mr. Daubert A Journey into the Surreal

Guest Blog Post From Dr. Frederic Whitehurst PhD JD: Mr. Fletcher vs. Mr. Daubert A Journey into the Surreal

On February 2, 2012, in Chemistry, Contextual Bias, Identification, In The Courtroom, Laboratory Procedure, Solid Drug Dose, by Justin J. McShane

Mr. Fletcher vs. Mr. Daubert: A Journey into the Surreal   By:  Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Many a defense attorney has looked in amazement at the courtroom “identification” of Cannabis Sativa L. by a law enforcement officer sporting a gilded pot metal badge and a high school diploma who has written a report that would […]

The myth of specific identification of Marijuana in criminal court Part 7: Is there a better way to test for marijuana?

The myth of specific identification of Marijuana in criminal court Part 7: Is there a better way to test for marijuana?

On January 31, 2012, in Chemistry, Equipment, Ethics, Ethics: Scientist, Identification, In The Courtroom, Solid Drug Dose, by Justin J. McShane

Throughout this series of posts we have examined the Thorton-Nakumura protocol that is used throughout the United States for the prosecution of illegal possession marijuana. A fair examination of the question reveals that there is no validity to the notion that the 3 test regimen produces a valid conclusion that the unknown examined in fact […]

The myth of specific identification of Marijuana in criminal court Part 6: Is the combination of all three tests create a “good” testing scheme?

The myth of specific identification of Marijuana in criminal court Part 6: Is the combination of all three tests create a “good” testing scheme?

On January 26, 2012, in Chemistry, Identification, In The Courtroom, Solid Drug Dose, by Justin J. McShane

The modern day prosecution for the unlawful possession of marijuana is based upon a three test regime involving microscopic morphological examination, modified Duquenois-Levine colorimetric testing, and Thin Layer Chromatography. Each of these three tests are non-specific for THC which is the pharmacodynamically active ingredient which makes marijuana illegal. The question becomes is this three test […]

The myth of specific identification of Marijuana in criminal court Part 5: What is Thin Layer Chromatography? Is it a “good” test?

The myth of specific identification of Marijuana in criminal court Part 5: What is Thin Layer Chromatography? Is it a “good” test?

On January 24, 2012, in Chemistry, Equipment, Identification, Solid Drug Dose, by Justin J. McShane

All prosecutions for the unlawful possession of marijuana requires as an essential element of the crime for the government to advance proof that the unknown submitted for testing is in fact marijuana (contains THC). Can the government actually do that based upon its typical testing method? In this series of posts we are going to […]

The myth of specific identification of Marijuana in criminal court Part 4: What is the modified Duquenois-Levine test? Is it a “good” test?

The myth of specific identification of Marijuana in criminal court Part 4: What is the modified Duquenois-Levine test? Is it a “good” test?

On January 19, 2012, in Chemistry, Identification, Solid Drug Dose, by Justin J. McShane

In this series of posts we are going to examine this seemly simple question: What is the goal and the purpose of testing of unknowns generally? How do we best design a test for marijuana? How is most marijuana testing conducted in the United States? What is microscopic morphological examination? Is it a “good” test? […]

The myth of specific identification of Marijuana in criminal court Part 2: How is most marijuana testing conducted in the United States?

The myth of specific identification of Marijuana in criminal court Part 2: How is most marijuana testing conducted in the United States?

On January 12, 2012, in Chemistry, Identification, In The Courtroom, Laboratory Procedure, Solid Drug Dose, by Justin J. McShane

In 2006, more than 829,000 people were arrested in this country for marijuana-related offenses alone. Since 1937 with the passage and adoption of the Marihuana Tax Act, marijuana has been effectively prohibited in the United States. Literally millions upon millions of people have been accused of possessing marijuana. The question becomes are these convictions scientifically […]

First, let’s educate all of the lawyers

First, let’s educate all of the lawyers

On January 3, 2012, in Chemistry, Ethics, Ethics: Lawyer, Identification, Laboratory Procedure, Lectures, by Justin J. McShane

The great Bard once penned: All: God save your majesty! Cade: I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord. Dick: The first thing we do, let’s […]