It is their obligation to know of the law enforcement agency having responsibility for a site regardless of whether a disturbance has occurred. Once a disturbance is observed and reported, the role of the archaeologist remains centered on the site. Site stabilization or curation of artifacts and later a damage assessment all fall within the scope of the archaeologist's domain. As a case is readied for trial, the reason for the rigid separation of function becomes apparent. An archaeologist who has been asked to prepare a site damage assessment for trial will find their credibility sullied to the point of rendering their testimony useless if they are perceived to have become zealously involved in nabbing the defendant.
Facts are to be related without speculation or embellishment.
Such testimony might not go beyond statements as originally given to investigating agents. Experts are allowed to give opinions to be considered as evidence in a trial, based on their specialized training and expertise. It is the obligation of the scientist to project their sense of professionalism in work product as well as demeanor. In the federal system, the archaeologist will always gain access to the prosecuting attorney through the law enforcement agent. Again, the personal contacts that are created may cement the team and allow a more open flow of communication.