Scientific & Technical Review

Panel Final Report for

OSAC 2022-S-0013

Standard Guide for Testimony in

Seized Drugs Analysis

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science
1

STRP Final Report

OSAC 2022-S-0013

Standard Guide for Testimony in Seized

Drugs Analysis

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensics Science

August 23, 2022

Disclaimer:

This report was produced by an independent Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP). The

views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S.

Government. Visit the OSAC website for more information on OSAC’s STRP process.

Scientific & Technical Review Panel Members

• Judge Kent Cattani, Arizona Court of Appeals

• Linda Jackson, Virginia Department of Forensic Science

• Karlie McManaman, Georgia Bureau of Investigation

• Jakeline Moral, Houston Forensic Science Center

• Aristides Passas, Georgia Bureau of Investigation

• Kimberlie Ross, United States Postal Inspection Service

• Barbara "Bobbie" Spellman, University of Virginia - School of Law
2

Report Summary:

The Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) for “Standard Guide for Testimony in Seized

Drugs Analysis” is an independent panel appointed by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST). A STRP is established with a range of experts to consider how well a

standard meets the needs of the forensic science, law enforcement, and legal communities, and to

recommend improvements to the standards under review. The STRP appreciates the efforts of

Charlene Rittenbach, Seized Drugs Subcommittee member and Claire Dragovich, Seized Drugs

Subcommittee Vice Chair, while serving as the subcommittee liaisons to this STRP during the

review process.

The STRP began its review process with a kickoff meeting on February 11, 2022, and concluded

with this STRP final report. The panel reviewed the draft standard and prepared comments for

the Seized Drugs Subcommittee.

Report Components:

The STRP reviewed this draft standard against OSAC’s STRP Instructions for Review which

include the following content areas: scientific and technical merit, human factors, quality

assurance, scope and purpose, terminology, method description and reporting results. The details

below contain a brief description of each reviewed content area and the STRP’s assessment of

how that content was addressed in the draft OSAC Proposed Standard.

1. Scientific and Technical Merit: OSAC-approved standards must have strong scientific

foundations so that the methods practitioners employ are scientifically valid, and the

resulting claims are trustworthy. In addition, standards for methods or interpretation of

results must include the expression and communication of the uncertainties in measurements

or other results.
1.1 Consensus View – Although this standard is not scientific in nature, the STRP

believes that it addresses the foundational specifications for a well-rounded

testimony program related to the analysis of seized drugs. Testimony is a type of

oral reporting. This standard includes a robust training program as well as

procedures for standardized, open communication and quality assurance.

1.2 Minority View – None.

2. Human Factors: All forensic science methods rely on human performance in acquiring,

examining, reporting, and testifying to the results. In the examination phase, some standards

rely heavily on human judgment, whereas others rely more on properly maintained and

calibrated instruments and statistical analysis of data.

2.1. Consensus View – The STRP believes that this draft standard adequately

addresses the relevant human factors issues related to testimony. Section 5.2.11

3

provides both a definition of cognitive bias (sec 5.2.11.1) and an explicit

mention of the biases most relevant to testimony (sec 5.2.11.2). The list does not

exclude other biases as being of possible relevance (by use of the word

“includes”). Section 6.5 addresses minimizing bias when interacting with

attorneys; section 7.1.3.1 reminds the Forensic Science Providers (FSPs) to be

aware of the biases that might arise in an adversarial environment; and sections

9.2.3 and 9.2.11 address the need to avoid the potential spread of biases from

newly learned task-irrelevant information by limiting when an FSP can add to,

or deviate from, results and opinions present in the original report.

2.2. Minority View – The minority believes that what is present in the standard is

good but not sufficient.

First, the two major types of bias of concern are those made explicit in the

standard in section 5.2.11.1 (i.e., various types of context biases) but also the

biases that result from being exposed to task-irrelevant information either

during analysis or during trial preparation. Warnings about the latter are hidden

in various sections (as noted in the Consensus View), but we believe should be

made more explicit. In particular, section 5.2.11.2 should include an

acknowledgment of biases due to exposure to task-irrelevant information when

preparing to testify and when testifying. Mentioning that problem in 5.2.11.2

would make clearer which biases should be of concern to the FSP when

engaging in pre-trial communications with other parties (sec 6.5) and why the

FSP should not add to or deviate from the original report (in secs 9.2.3 and

9.2.11). A brief mention of bias should also appear in sections 9.2.3 and 9.2.11.

Second, when preparing to testify, FSPs should be aware that they could be

asked questions about task-irrelevant information that they may have learned

during analysis. Section 5.2.11 states that FSPs should have an understanding of
bias in both testimony and analysis. The STRP surmises that information about

bias during analysis is unlikely to appear in the report; regardless, the FSP

should be prepared to testify about potential biases that arose during analysis.

Third, Section 11.1 provides ideas for ongoing training of FSPs. The STRP

believes that human factors issues should be included in the ongoing training, in

part because new research may reveal novel questions, or answers, as to how

human factors are relevant to seized drug analysis or testimony.

Fourth, as a technical comment, Footnote 1 is the source of the definition of

“cognitive bias” provided in sec 5.2.11.1, which is a direct quotation from the

source. So, the footnote should be provided at the end of that 5.2.11.1, not at

the end of 5.2.11.

3. Quality Assurance: Quality assurance covers a broad range of topics. For example, a

method must include quality assurance procedures to ensure that sufficiently similar results

4

will be obtained when the methodology is properly followed by different users in different

facilities.

3.1. Consensus View – The STRP believes that this draft standard specifies the

appropriate quality assurance requirements needed to create a robust testimony

program related to the analysis of seized drugs. The draft standard provides a

framework to develop a testimony monitoring and evaluation program or improve

a previously existing program that complies with accreditation

standards. Other quality assurance and quality control topics related to the

analysis of seized drugs such as method validation and control logs are properly

addressed in the draft standard.

3.2. Minority View – None.

4. Scope and Purpose: Standards should have a short statement of their scope and purpose.

They should list the topics that they address and the related topics that they do not address.

Requirements, recommendations, or statements of what is permitted or prohibited do not

belong in this section.

4.1. Consensus View – The STRP agrees that the scope and purpose are clearly

stated and accurately reflect the contents of this standard. The core topics

covered in this standard – testimony training, evaluation, and monitoring – are

each addressed. The title is consistent with the standard and scope, and the scope

clearly states when the standard should be used.

4.2. Minority View – None.
5. Terminology: Standards should define terms that have specialized meanings. Only rarely

should they give a highly restricted or specialized meaning to a term in common use among

the general public.

5.1. Consensus View – Terminology is well defined and does not use a lot of terms

that should have been defined. The definitions provided are succinct and easy to

understand. A good balance was struck in deciding when to define or not define

a term.

5.2. Minority View – None.

6. Method Description: There is no rule as to the necessary level of detail in the description of

the method. Some parts of the method may be performed in alternative ways without

affecting the quality and consistency of the results. Standards should focus on standardizing

steps that must be performed consistently across organizations to ensure equivalent results.

Alternatively, standards can define specific performance criteria that are required to be

demonstrated and met rather than specifying the exact way a task must be done. For example,

it may be enough to specify the lower limit for detecting a substance without specifying the

equipment or method for achieving this limit of detection.

5

6.1. Consensus View – The STRP agrees that the methods described and the

minimum content required by the draft standard for testimony training should

provide a uniform background and standardization for those who testify.

Additional sections regarding Trial Preparation, General Testimony

Qualifications – Voir Dire, and Technical Testimony provide examples of both

proper procedures and testimony as well as certain behaviors and assertions that

are inappropriate. Lastly, the methods described for Testimony Evaluation are

detailed in order to provide continuous improvement of technical and non

technical aspects of testimony.

6.2. Minority View – None.

7. Reporting Results: Methods must not only be well described, scientifically sound, and

comprehensive but also lead to reported results that are within the scope of the standard,

appropriately caveated, and not overreaching.

7.1. Consensus View – The STRP understands that this draft standard requires the

correct training and expertise to provide reliable and accurate testimony. It

demonstrates comprehensive instructions on how best to orally communicate

expert opinions clearly to the trier of fact. This standard provides sufficient

examples to effectively maintain neutrality in their FSP testimony.

7.2. Minority View – None.
6