ORGANIZATION OF SCIENTIFC AREA COMMITTEES

“THE” LEGAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE (LRC) 

Attorneys and Standards?

Hon. Christopher J. Plourd

Chair, LRC

Organization of Scientific Area Committees 

Gaithersburg, Maryland

June 5th, 2019
AND THE LAW

n SCIENCE IN THE COURTROOM
The OSAC LRC supports OSAC subcommittee’s and 

task groups with legal issues relating to the 

development and finalization of high quality Forensic 

Science standards.

LEGAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE

MISSION 
LEGAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE

(LRC)

n Judges.

n Prosecutors.

n Defense attorneys.

n Innocence network attorneys.

n Academic and Government representatives.
CHRISTOPHER J. PLOURD

LRC Chairman
JUDICIAL

RON REINSTIEN KENT CATTANI
PROCECUTION

LORI L. VARNELL ELIZABETH GEDDIS
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

JENNIFER FRIEDMAN JOHN ELLIS
GOVERNMENT

INNOCENCE NET WORK

LYNN ROBATELLI GARCIA BARRY SCHECK
ANDREA ROTH

ACADEMIA

JULES EPSTEIN
AFFILATES

TED HUNT LINDSEY HERF
AFFILATES

MATT REDLE DAVID KAYE
USE OF STANDARD BY LEGAL SYSTEM

n What is needed by the Legal Community

n Legal Obligations for Disclosure
WHAT DOES THE LEGAL RESOURCE 

COMMITTEE (LRC) DO? 

n Input to Scientific Area Committee (SACs) 

and Subcommittees.

n Maintain Open Dialog through liaisons.

n Evaluation of Standards.
LEGAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE

MISSION 

n The Legal Ramifications of Standards.

n Meaningful use of Forensic Science Standards by the 

Legal System.
n Does existing research or data support the 

standard? If so, where can these be found?

n To what extent and how has the technique been 

validated?

LRC QUESTIONS 
LRC QUESTIONS 

n Error rates associated with the technique.

n Uncertainty associated with measurements 

obtained by using a technique.
A LRC FOCUS IS COMMENTING ON 

REOCCURRING ISSUES IN THE 

DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS.

The use of the term “Meaningful difference”.
“A feature or property of a sample that does 

not fall within the variation exhibited by the 

comparison sample, considering the 

limitations of the sample or technique, and 

therefore indicates the two samples do not 

share a common origin.”

“Meaningful Difference”
“Meaningful Difference”:

“The use of this term does not imply the 

formal application of statistical tests.”
LRC COMMENT

“The definition of “meaningful difference” is 

circular. There appears to be no empirical 

evidence of how much variation is expected 

when the tape comes from the same source as 

opposed to difference sources.”
LRC COMMENT

“This definition essentially states that two samples came from 

the same source if there are no meaningful differences and 

there are no meaningful differences if the two samples came 

from the same source. In other words, the definition does 

nothing to standardize the technique and provides not 

guidance to the examiner.”

“Furthermore, there is no discussion of what limitations there are based 

on the sample or the technique used.”
LANGUAGE IN STANDARD:

LRC suggested Change:

5.2 A calculation of measurement uncertainty should always be 

performed and reported., even when its reporting is not always 

required.

5.2 A calculation of measurement uncertainty should always be 

performed, even when its reporting is not always required.
DOCUMENTATION

12.2 Photographs may be used to assist in documenting the 

following:

Why not require? Should photographs of the comparison be 

required rather than suggested?

LRC suggested Change:
SUGGESTED CHANGE

6.4 Observe the appropriate procedures for handling 

and documentation of all submitted samples, for 

example Practice E1492.
SUGGESTED CHANGE

Comment: “Define appropriate.”
SUGGESTED CHANGE

Comment: Define “appropriate,” perhaps by stating 

that examiners should follow procedures for 

documenting and handling submitted samples that 

conform to ASTM Practice E1492.
The LRC has also recently focused on 

assisting the OSAC Subcommittees by 

taking the lead on a recently Forensic 

Science Standards Board (FSSB) 

approved Virtual Subcommittee to 

develop a standard for minimum legal 

education requirements for forensic 

practitioners
LEGAL EDUCATION 

STANDARD

The document will address the gathering of evidence, testing, 

evidence preservation, and documentation.

Also covered will be rules of evidence related to expert 

testimony presented at per-trial hearings and trials.

The document will represent the consensus view of LRC, 

including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, legal 

academics and the members of the virtual subcommittee.
Is something bad about to happen?
QUESTIONS?

Christopher.Plourd@imperial.courts.ca.gov