STATEMENT OF THE OSAC LEGAL TASK GROUP

COMMENT TASK GROUP on ANSI/ASB STANDARD 053 - Standard for

Report Content in Forensic Toxicology

TO: OSAC

FROM: Legal Task Group (LTG) - CTG (Ron Reinstein, Lori Varnell, Kate Philpot, Andrea

Roth, Chris Plourd)

DATE: November 2, 2020

RE: ANSI/ASB Standard 053 - Standard for Report Content in Forensic Toxicology

The LTG Comment Task Group consisting of Ron Reinstein, Lori Varnell, Kate Philpot, Andrea

Roth, and Chris Plourd) has reviewed this standard for comment. While the group is not

recommending that the standard be withheld from the registry, we submit these comments in the

hope that they will be considered in later revisions to the standard.

Comments Regarding Section 4

"Elements of a Laboratory Report" section (sec 4); methods/techniques used and "possible

sources of error and limitations in the method" should be required elements. (Nat’l Comm’n on

Forensic Sci., Recommendation to the Attorney General Documentation, Case Record, and

Report Contents (Sept. 13, 2016), available at

https://www.justice.gov/archives/ncfs/page/file/905536/download). There is a requirement to

include "technique(s) of analysis" in this standard, but it appears under the section on reporting

lab results (sec 5). There are requirements related to limitations scattered throughout the

standard (secs. 4.4, 4.5, 5.1(c)). It would be better to have them all addressed in the "elements"

section and to include a b road phrase to cover any limitation or potential source of error. For

example, potential contamination during testing would not seem to fall under any of the

discrete limitations sections referenced above. Sections 4.4, 4.5, and 5.1 could be replaced by a

single, broader requirement to include possible sources of error and limitations in the method,

with limitations described in §§ 4.4, 4.5 and 5.1(c) as examples.

Comments Regarding Section 5.1

Further re: 5.1(c), reporting limit/limit of detection should be in the report. At very least, the

report should state exactly where this information can be found in the case file.
Sec 5.5 essentially makes reporting uncertainty associated with quantitative results optional.

For example, a lab could structure its protocols to avoid the uncertainty. We feel this reporting

should be required, but if such reporting is not required, the laboratory should be required at

least to include in the report that the uncertainty is unknown (NCFS Recommendation, supra.

Comments Regarding Section 7.3

We feel this section fails to address the forensic practitioner’s obligations regarding exculpatory

evidence as it relates to paragraph 7.3. Specifically, when an issued report is being corrected:

1. The standard should provide guidance for the practitioner related to when corrective

reports should and must be issued and should include a “shall” statement as to when a

report must be restated. For example, “If a prior report falsely states a conclusion

included in paragraphs 5.2-5.6 or if a report has been issued that creates a false

impression in the user’s mind as to the identified results, the practitioner shall issue an

amended report. If the practitioner learns that information in a prior report should be

clarified in order to fairly state the outcome of forensic testing, the practitioner shall issue

an amended report.”

2. The standard should provide guidance for setting up protocols for tracking and issuing

amended reports. This guidance should include standards for limiting the circulation of

the original uncorrected report and for notice to the users of the report as to the

correction. These should be “shall” statements since they touch on the exculpatory

obligations of the practitioner.

3. The standard should provide guidance related to when additional information “shall” be

included in an amended report, such as when the issue that gave rise to the needed

correction is indicative of a larger problem that would bring into question the process

used, the contamination of the evidence, or when further investigation into the lab or its

personnel is required.

Comments Regarding Section 8

Sec 8, second paragraph. We recommend the word “shall.” This section is imperative.

Alternatively, in section 8(c), if citations are not included in the report, the report itself should

state that the citations are available upon request. Generally, the report should state something

along the lines of (taken from NCFS Recommendation), "the report does not contain all of the

documentation associated with the work performed. In order to understand and evaluate all

the work performed, and independently analyze and interpret the data and draw conclusions, a

review of the case record is required.”

2