Question: Legal scholars say the term reflects what?
About the article "Person of interest", section "Abstract".

Candidate passages:
"Person of interest" is a term used by U.S. law enforcement when identifying someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime.
It has no legal meaning, but refers to someone in whom the police are "interested", either because the person is cooperating with the investigation, may have information that would assist the investigation, or possesses certain characteristics that merit further attention.
While terms such as "suspect", "target", and "material witness" have clear and sometimes formal definitions, "person of interest" remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice.
"Unsub" is a similar term which is short for "unknown subject" (used often, for example, in the TV show "Criminal Minds").
Person of interest is sometimes used as a euphemism for "suspect", and its careless use may encourage trials by media.
With respect to terrorism investigations, Eric Lichtblau wrote in the "New York Times": "Law enforcement officials say that the term simply reflects the new tactics required to fight terrorism.
But some legal scholars say officials are trying to create a more benign public image, even as their power expands."
The term costume jewelry dates back to the early 20th century.
It reflects the use of the word "costume" to refer to what is now called an "outfit". 
Marlovians argue that if Frizer, Poley and Skeres could lie about what happened, they could just as easily have been lying about the identity of the corpse itself.
In other words, that although they claimed it was Marlowe's—and as far as we know they were the only ones there in a position to identify him—it was in fact someone else's body that the jury was called upon to examine.
If a death is to be faked, however, a substitute body has to be found, and it was David A.
More who first identified for Marlovians a far more likely "victim" than had been suggested earlier.
On the evening before their 10 a.m. meeting at Deptford, at a most unusual time for a hanging, John Penry, about a year older than Marlowe, was hanged (for writing subversive literature) just two miles from Deptford, and there is no record of what happened to the body.
Also of possible relevance is that the same William Danby would have been responsible for authorizing exactly what was to happen to Penry's corpse.
Those who reject the theory claim that there would have been far too many obvious signs that the corpse had been hanged for it to have been used in this way, although Marlovians say that Danby, being solely in charge, would have been able quite easily to ensure that such evidence remained hidden from the jury.
However, this remains a fringe view within academia.
In his "Shakespeare and Co.", referring to the documentation concerning Marlowe's death, Stanley Wells reflects the view of virtually all scholars that Marlowe did die then when he wrote: "The unimpugnable documentary evidence deriving from legal documents ... makes this one of the best recorded episodes in English literary history" and "Even before these papers turned up there was ample evidence that Marlowe died a violent death in Deptford in 1593."
Some scholars indicate difficulties trying to use Acts for strict chronological indications.
Collins and Harrington state that Luke's account may be a conflation of various traditions and not entirely accurate.
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor indicates that Acts 18 is "much less precise than appears at first sight."
The expulsion was from Rome, but Aquila and Priscilla came from Italy, so they may have stayed in Italy after the expulsion, how long "no-one can say".
He also questions the exactitude of what is meant by "recently"/"lately".
Working from a date prior to August AD 52 for the Gallio inscription, Ralph Novak considers the possibility that Gallio served for two years and calculates a possible range from late spring of AD 50 to early summer of AD 54 depending on whether the inscription reflects a date late in Gallio's consulship or early.
He then relies on the date of Orosius, i.e.
AD 49, as the date for the expulsion in Acts 18:2.
As seen below, many scholars reject the validity of the Orosius date.
Slingerland accepts a wide date range for Paul's trial similar to that of Novak for Gallio's consulship and states that Paul could have arrived in Corinth up to 18 months earlier than the earliest possible start of Gallio's term of office or a short time before the end of Gallio's latest date. 
Responsa (Latin: plural of "responsum", "answers") comprise a body of written decisions and rulings given by legal scholars in response to questions addressed to them.
In the modern era, the term is used to describe decisions and rulings made by scholars in historic religious law.