Forensic Science and the Administration of Justice: Critical Issues and Directions


Kevin J. Strom & Matthew J. Hickman

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Dedication

    For my Mom and Dad, my children, Charlotte and Jack, and of course my wife, Amy. Thank you for your ongoing love and support (and for putting up with me).


    For Orit and Emerson, you are my love and my life.



    View Copyright Page


    It's an exciting time in the forensic sciences; we are in an era of unprecedented growth and fascination with the seemingly endless applications of science to law. But it is also a time of serious introspection about the history, current status, and future of the field. Fundamental questions about the underlying science of some mainstay areas of the forensic sciences have been raised, not for the first time, but with renewed vigor and determination. At the same time, there are larger questions about the role of forensic science in the justice process. We decided to put this book together because, within the context of criminal justice, we saw a substantial gap between the social and physical sciences despite a rapidly growing body of social science research on the forensic sciences. While it is certainly important to study technical issues related to crime scene processing and the accuracy of forensic analysis, understanding more broadly how forensic evidence is being used and how it is impacting the justice system is also critical. We decided it was time to try and compile this research and make sense of it all. But why social science research on the forensic sciences? Why should we pay attention to this area of research?

    One of the central themes of this book is the idea that social science research can inform us about the utility of forensic science with respect to both criminal investigations and adjudication. For example, some research has shown that forensic evidence—including DNA evidence—appears to play little to no role in police investigations, which may in part be due to some investigators using DNA evidence as a “last resort” when all other forms of leads have been exhausted. Other studies have demonstrated the potential utility of forensic analysis for non-violent crimes such as burglary and motor vehicle theft, although there are questions about the cost of such practices given other forensic workload pressures. A related issue is the decision-making processes for using criminal justice resources for analyzing and storing growing amounts of forensic evidence. From a policy perspective, questions must be addressed with respect to the prioritization of resources for forensic analysis and improvements in efficiencies across each stage of criminal case processing.

    A second theme of this book concerns questions about the scientific underpinnings of forensic services, including the accuracy and scientific methods of certain forensic disciplines as well as the influence of external factors (such as potential biases that can be presented by analysts). The 2009 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, provided a thorough examination of the field of forensic science, the scientific methods applied to forensic practice, and the structure and operations of different components of the forensic system. The NAS report has served as a useful framework for social science research on the forensic sciences, and a number of scholars are pursuing research in these areas.

    A final theme of the book is the role of the crime laboratory in the American justice system. We know that crime laboratories have evolved over the years, in concert with technological advancements as well as increasing demands for laboratory resources. The editors argue that we can now begin to think of the laboratory as a decision stage in the criminal justice process, with crime laboratory actors exercising discretion regarding what types of cases to prioritize, how to meet the growing requirements for staff training and laboratory accreditation, and how to manage increasing pressures on productivity, proficiency, and accuracy. As such, these actors influence decision making at other decision stages in the criminal justice process.

    We have organized the book in five key sections: (1) essays exploring the demand for forensic services; (2) essays addressing the quality of forensic services; (3) essays on the utility of forensic services; (4) essays dealing with post-conviction forensic issues; and finally (5) essays exploring the future role of forensic science in the administration of justice. Within each section, we have recruited top-notch contributors including academic researchers, scientists, laboratory directors, and legal scholars, and those who have worn more than one of these hats at various times during their careers (be sure to read their biographies in the back of the book).

    Joseph L. Peterson, professor of criminal justice and criminalistics at California State University, Los Angeles, starts us off with a historical overview of the demand for forensic services. Peterson might be aptly titled the “Dean” of social science research on the forensic sciences, having contributed to this body of research over the past 40+ years. Next, Rachel Dioso-Villa, professor of criminology and criminal justice at Griffith University, examines the research evidence bearing on a particularly interesting source of demand for forensics, the so-called “CSI Effect.” Finally, the editors round out the demand section with a chapter exploring the current state of knowledge about forensic evidence backlogs.

    Among the writers on the quality of forensic services, we have Barry A. J. Fisher, retired crime laboratory director for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, writing on the prospects for a research culture in the forensic sciences; Reinoud D. Stoel, Charles E. H. Berger, Wim Kerkhoff, and Erwin J. A. T. Mattijssen of the Netherlands Forensic Institute, with Itiel E. Dror of University College London, writing on the sources and management of contextual bias; and Jay Siegel, emeritus professor of forensic science at Michigan State University, who takes the reader through a fascinating tour of various ethical issues in the forensic sciences.

    Next, on the utility of forensic services, we have included Sally Kelty and Roberta Julian of the University of Tasmania, with Robert Hayes of the Victoria Police, writing on how criminal justice actors use forensic services, and providing a framework for understanding critical decision points in investigations and identifying “leakage” points where evidence is not being used effectively; Michael D. White, professor of criminal justice, and Andrea R. Borrego, doctoral student, at Arizona State University, with David A. Schroeder, professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven, who examine the use of DNA in police investigations and, finding that DNA evidence was being used by detectives as a tool of last resort (after other investigative tools had been exhausted), offer an explanatory framework for understanding some of the barriers to more routine use of DNA evidence by investigators; and Nina W. Chernoff, professor at the CUNY School of Law, who examines how prosecutors use forensic evidence and, particularly, the potential implications of the 2009 NAS report for prosecutors' use of forensic evidence in the legal process and related decision making.

    Some critical post-conviction issues are taken up by John M. Collins Jr., a forensic policy and management advisor with RTI International and former director of forensic science for the Michigan State Police, who writes about the problems and challenges of evidence retention; and Kristen Skogerboe, professor of chemistry at Seattle University, who discusses confidence in forensic DNA testing and writes about the types and sources of error, quality assurance programs, proficiency testing, and research on forensic DNA testing.

    Finally, in the section dealing with the future role of forensic sciences in the administration of justice, Max M. Houck, director of the District of Columbia Consolidated Forensic Laboratories, and Paul J. Speaker, professor of finance and economics at West Virginia University, explore business models for the forensic sciences; the editors lay out their arguments that forensic laboratories and their personnel are properly recognized as criminal justice decision makers who influence decision making at other decision stages; and Walter F. Rowe, professor of forensic sciences at The George Washington University, examines some of the most pressing issues facing the forensic sciences that must be resolved in the next 20 years.

    We hope that you enjoy these readings and that, although some difficult issues are presented that may challenge what you know or believe about the forensic sciences, you will leave with a sense of optimism. This optimism should derive from the fact that such a rich and diverse body of research on understanding the role of forensic sciences in the administration of justice demonstrates that, if nothing else, there is progress in tackling many of these difficult topics head-on. If we continue this momentum, the field will be much the better for it.

    Kevin J.Strom, Ph.D. Research Triangle Park, NC
    Matthew J.Hickman, Ph.D. Seattle, WA


    SAGE gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following reviewers:

    • John Edward Coratti, Lamar State College–Orange
    • Aman Gill, George Mason University
    • Mary Juno, San Jose State University
    • Mike Kusluski, Wayne State University
    • Virginia M. Maxwell, University of New Haven
    • Cynthia L. O'Donnell, Marymount University
    • Katherine A. Roberts, California State University, Los Angeles
  • About the Editors

    Kevin J. Strom is a senior scientist at RTI International where his research activity is focused on the impact of forensic science on the criminal justice system, law enforcement responses to community violence and terrorism, and crime- and forensic data–reporting systems. His work has been published in peer-reviewed journals that include Criminology & Public Policy, Journal of Forensic Sciences, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and Crime & Delinquency. Dr. Strom has led numerous law enforcement–and forensic-related studies, including projects that have developed recommendations for increasing efficiency in forensic evidence processing. This research has included assessing how forensic evidence is collected, processed, used, and retained across law enforcement, crime laboratories, and prosecutors' offices. Dr. Strom has been an active member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Research Advisory Committee since 2009. Before joining RTI, he was employed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. He received his Ph.D. in criminology from the University of Maryland, College Park.

    Matthew J. Hickman is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Seattle University. He received his Ph.D. in criminal justice from Temple University. He previously worked for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice (2000–2007), where he specialized in national data collections relating to law enforcement agencies, forensic laboratory operations, and medicolegal death investigation systems in the United States. At Seattle University, he has an active research agenda focused primarily on issues in policing, quantitative research methodology, and the impact of forensic sciences on the administration of justice. His work has been published in numerous peer-reviewed journals including Criminology, Criminology & Public Policy, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of Forensic Sciences, Sociological Methods and Research, Crime & Delinquency, Police Quarterly, and Policing. Dr. Hickman is a member of the American Society of Criminology, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and the International Association of Crime Analysts.

    About the Contributors

    Charles E. H. Berger is principal scientist at the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) and professor of criminalistics at Leiden University. He specializes in criminalistics and specifically in subjects such as forensic interpretation and inference. At NFI, he is active in a number of areas such as education and research and development, about which he publishes internationally. He also supports the NFI experts, advises the institute's direction, and monitors scientific quality. He is currently involved in promoting logically correct reasoning and interpretation, through education, research, and international cooperation and standards. He enjoys the challenge of working at the interface of science, policing, and the law.

    Andrea R. Borrego is a third-year doctoral student in the Criminology and Criminal Justice Department at Arizona State University. She received her B.A. in psychology from the University of Notre Dame in 2009 and her M.S. in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Arizona State University in 2011. For her master's thesis, Andrea examined arrest-related deaths in the United States using information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and media reports. Her research interests include neighborhoods, policing, the intersection of these two topics, and LGBT victimization.

    Nina W. Chernoff is an associate professor at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law. Prior to joining CUNY's faculty, Nina was a staff attorney in the Special Litigation Division of the Public Defender Service (PDS) for the District of Columbia. In that capacity, she litigated systemic criminal justice issues, including prosecutorial misconduct, jury representation, and the reliability of forensic evidence. Prior to PDS, she was a staff attorney and Zubrow Fellow at the Juvenile Law Center, and served as a law clerk for the Honorable Thomas L. Ambro, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Nina graduated from Georgetown University Law Center magna cum laude in 2003, and received her B.A. in sociology from Bryn Mawr College in 1997, and her M.S. with distinction in justice, law, and society from the School of Public Affairs at American University in 2000.

    John M. Collins Jr. is a forensic science policy and management advisor at RTI International. With over 20 years in forensic science, he has worked in federal, state, and local crime laboratories, and is the former director of forensic science for the Michigan State Police, where he led its seven laboratories to their first-ever international accreditation. Collins is a 1992 graduate of the Michigan State University forensic science program, earned his M.A. degree in organizational management in 2006, and became formally certified as a Senior Professional in Human Resources through the Human Resource Certification Institute in 2008. Collins is an active writer and speaker on forensic science policies and practices. He has spoken to thousands of scientists, attorneys, investigators, and students about contemporary forensic science issues. In 2007, Collins testified before the special committee on forensic science convened by the National Academy of Sciences. His published work was also cited in the committee's final report in 2009. He currently resides near Lansing, Michigan.

    Rachel Dioso-Villa is an assistant professor at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University. She received her Ph.D. in criminology, law, and society from the University of California, Irvine, and her M.A. in criminology from the University of Toronto. Her broad research interests include the study of forensic science, law, and society. She examines the admissibility of forensic evidence in court, representations of crime and forensic science in the media, jury studies, and miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions. Dr. Dioso-Villa recently completed a comparative study on the admission of expert evidence in criminal and civil cases in the United States. She is also working on research in the area of forensic science and its role in wrongful convictions. Dr. Dioso-Villa has received grants and fellowships from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the American Society of Criminology, and the Canadian Foundation of University Women. Her work has appeared in the Stanford Law Review, Canadian Journal of Criminology, Law Probability and Risk, and the Wall Street Journal.

    Dr. Itiel E. Dror is a cognitive neuroscientist. Interested in how the brain and cognitive system perceives and interprets information, he got a Ph.D. at Harvard University in 1994. Dr. Dror's work focuses on the cognitive architecture that underpins expertise. He researches expert performance in the real world, examining medical surgeons, military fighter pilots, frontline police, and forensic analysts. Dr. Dror's research provides insights into the inherent trade-offs of being an expert. In the forensic domain, he has demonstrated how contextual information can influence the judgments and decision making of experts; he has shown that even fingerprint and DNA experts can reach different conclusions when the same evidence is presented within different extraneous contexts. He has published over 100 research articles and has been extensively cited in the American National Academy of Science Report on Forensic Science. He currently is working on a number of major research projects aimed at providing a better understanding of forensic experts and finding ways to make their judgments more reliable. Dr. Dror has been working with numerous police forces and agencies to implement cognitive best practices in evaluating forensic evidence. More information is available at

    Barry A. J. Fisher served as the crime laboratory director for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department from 1987 to 2009, and began his career at the lab in 1969. He is a distinguished fellow and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; a past president of the International Association of Forensic Sciences; a past president of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors; and a past chair of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors–Laboratory Accreditation Board. Fisher is co-author of three texts: Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation (2012, 8th ed.), Introduction to Criminalistics: The Foundation of Forensic Science (2009), and ForensicsDemystified (2007). He holds a B.S. degree in chemistry from the City College of New York, a M.S. degree in chemistry from Purdue University, and an M.B.A. from California State University, Northridge.

    Robert Hayes is research manager (crime scene) at the Victoria Police Forensic Service Department in Victoria, Australia. Robert has qualifications in chemistry/pharmacology and business management. He has operational experience as a forensic scientist in the drug analysis, pharmacology, and chemical trace evidence disciplines coupled with business/strategic services in risk management, quality, strategic planning, research management, and training/education. Outside of the forensic sector, Robert has considerable experience in the chemical industry, including research, product development, laboratory management, process re-engineering/improvement, field quality, and production. Robert was a Partner Investigator on the Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant–funded project, “The Effectiveness of Forensic Science in the Criminal Justice System” with the University of Tasmania/Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies, University of Technology Sydney, University of Canberra, and University of Lausanne, and plays a similar role in the ARC Linkage Grant–funded project, “Universal Immunogenic Reagents for the Detection of Latent Fingermarks” with University of Technology Sydney, University of Canberra, Northern Illinois University, and Flinders University. Robert is a member of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences and the Australian and New Zealand Forensic Society.

    Dr. Max M. Houck is an internationally recognized forensic scientist who has worked for the FBI Laboratory, at a medical examiner's office, in the private sector, and in academia. His casework includes the Branch Davidian Investigation, the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon, the D. B. Cooper case, and the West Memphis Three case, among hundreds of others. He served for six years as the chair of the Forensic Science Educational Program Accreditation Commission and serves on other committees, including for Interpol. Dr. Houck has published widely in books and journals. He is a founding editor of the journal Forensic Science Policy and Management and has also co-authored a textbook with Dr. Jay Siegel, Fundamentals of Forensic Science (2010, 2nd ed.). In 2012, he was in the top 1% of connected professionals on LinkedIn. Dr. Houck lives and works in Washington, DC as the Director of the DC Department of Forensic Sciences (

    Roberta Julian, Ph.D., is associate professor and director of the Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia, where she conducts research in policing and criminology. She also held this position as the inaugural director from 2003 to 2009. She is a sociologist with a particular interest in forensic science. Between 2002 and 2005, she was chief investigator for a series of projects (funded by the National Institute of Forensic Science) that examined knowledge and awareness of forensic science among police in three states in Australia: Tasmania, South Australia, and Victoria. She is currently the lead chief investigator in a five-year Australian Research Council Linkage Grant with Victoria Police, the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) that began in 2009. This project is examining the effectiveness of forensic science in the criminal justice system with a focus on police investigations and court outcomes. She is supervisor of two Ph.D. students within this project whose research focuses on “Lawyers and DNA: Understanding and Challenging the Evidence” and “Measuring the Impact of Forensic Science on Police Investigations and Court Trials.” Prof. Julian is also a chief investigator on a NIFS-funded project on “The Interfaces Between Science, Medicine and Law Enforcement” and a supervisor for an AFP-funded Ph.D. candidate whose project is on “Communicating Scientific Expert Opinion: What Do Forensic Scientists Say and What Do Police, Lawyers and the Jury Hear?” Prof. Julian is an editorial board member of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, a member of the Board of Studies of the Australian Institute of Police Management, an associate investigator with the Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security, a member of the Committee of Management of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology, and a past president of the Australian Sociological Association.

    Dr. Sally Kelty is an applied social and behavioral scientist with a management background. For the past 20 years, she has worked in research and program development within the health, disability, and criminal justice areas. She has worked in private industry, in university research centers, and in government departments. Her program work includes the development and evaluation of prison-based programs, programs for people with mild cognitive impairment, independent community living programs for adults with cognitive impairments, and the development of psychological test batteries in recruitment and criminal justice settings. Sally has worked on several longitudinal health projects with high-risk adolescent mothers and their children. Sally joined the Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies (TILES) in July 2009 as a research fellow working on a five-year project mapping the effective use of forensic science and expertise by policing and legal agencies in criminal investigations and court outcomes. In this project, Sally works with several police jurisdictions and has completed several applied projects including identifying the key attributes of Australia's top-performing crime scene examiners. More recently, she has been the lead program developer for a recruitment strategy and career-advancement program for forensic scientists within police agencies. Sally was the chief investigator on a National Institute of Forensic Science project exploring “The Interfaces between Science, Medicine and Law Enforcement,” which examined inter–justice agency communication and working relationships between four professions/professional groups (law enforcement, forensic medicine and health, forensic science, law). Sally supervises five Ph.D. students at TILES in the forensic studies research area. She is the inaugural president of the Tasmanian Branch of the Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.

    Wim Kerkhoff is a forensic firearms examiner. He joined the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) in 1990 and worked on firearms-related casework almost continuously. This casework often involves bullet and cartridge case comparison, which is largely a “manual,” non-automated forensic field. Mr. Kerkhoff is convinced that, apart from developing more objective techniques, effectively dealing with contextual information is a big and needed step forward in forensic science. Interested in developing the field of forensic firearms examination, he both initiated and assisted in a number of research projects at the NFI's Firearms Section.

    Erwin J. A. T. Mattijssen works as a forensic firearms examiner at the Netherlands Forensic Institute since 2010. After receiving a B.Sc. degree in biology at Leiden University (2007), he received a M.Sc. degree in forensic science at the University of Amsterdam (2009) and in teaching biology at Leiden University (2010). Since 2013, he also works as a lecturer for the course “Observer Based Techniques” within the master's forensic science program at the University of Amsterdam.

    Joseph L. Peterson, D.Crim., is a retired professor in the School of Criminal Justice and Criminalistics at California State University, Los Angeles. Over the past 40 years, Peterson's research and publications have monitored the evolution of the forensic sciences, documenting its growing potential as well as its shortcomings. His research has focused on the uses and effects of scientific evidence at key decision points in the judicial process (arrest, charging, determination of guilt or innocence, and sentencing). His work has also explored the quality of crime laboratory results via proficiency testing of examiners, problems associated with the location of crime laboratories within law enforcement agencies, and ethical dilemmas faced by forensic scientists practicing in an adversarial justice system. Peterson's 2002 and 2005 Census(es) of Publicly Funded Forensic Crime Laboratories for the Bureau of Justice Statistics have documented high caseloads, long backlogs, and severe budgetary and personnel needs. He recently completed two National Institute of Justice studies examining the role and impact of scientific evidence in the criminal justice process, and the results of DNA tests and their impact on sexual assault kits backlogged in the LASD and LAPD crime laboratories. Peterson received the Distinguished Fellow Award from the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 2008.

    Walter F. Rowe is professor of Forensic Sciences at The George Washington University. He has been a member of the faculty of the Department of Forensic Sciences since 1975. Dr. Rowe's forensic experience includes service in the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation laboratory as a forensic drug chemist and as a forensic serologist. He has a B.S. with highest honors in chemistry from Emory University and an A.M. and Ph.D. in chemistry from Harvard University. Dr. Rowe is a fellow in the Criminalistics Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He is also a member of ASTM Committee e30. Dr. Rowe is the author of more than 50 articles and book chapters dealing with forensic science.

    David A. Schroeder is an assistant professor in the Criminal Justice Department, and an assistant dean in the Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences at the University of New Haven. Dr. Schroeder began his career as a private investigator in Orange County, California, where he specialized in death penalty defense investigations. Dr. Schroeder also served as an investigator for the Orange County Alternate Defender's Office, specializing in homicide investigations. Dr. Schroeder completed his doctorate in 2007 from the CUNY Graduate School through John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Dr. Schroeder's other research interests include aberrant/episodic homicide, defense investigation, tolerance issues in law enforcement, and hostage negotiations. Dr. Schroeder has published in Police Quarterly and in the Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies.

    Jay Siegel holds a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from The George Washington University. He worked for three years at the Virginia Bureau of Forensic Sciences, analyzing drugs, fire residues, and trace evidence. He was then professor of chemistry and forensic science at Metropolitan State College for three years. From 1980 to 2004, he was professor of forensic chemistry and director of the forensic science program at Michigan State University in the School of Criminal Justice. In 2004, he moved to Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) to become director of the forensic and investigative sciences program, a position which he held until August of 2011. In 2008, he also became chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at IUPUI. He retired from IUPUI in 2012 and is now a consultant in forensic science. Dr. Siegel has testified over 200 times as an expert witness in 12 states, federal court, and military court. He is editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences and has over 30 publications in forensic science journals. He has co-authored a college textbook titled Fundamentals of Forensic Science (2010) for Elsevier and a high school forensic science textbook, Forensic Science: The Basics (2010), published by CRC. Both are in their second editions. His newest book, Forensic Science: A Beginner's Guide, came out in 2008. In February 2009, he was named distinguished fellow by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. In April 2009, he was given the Distinguished Alumni Scholar Award by his alma mater, the George Washington University.

    Kristen Skogerboe is a professor of chemistry at Seattle University. She holds a B.S. from Colorado State University (1982) and a Ph.D. from Iowa State University (1986). From 1986 to 1990, she held fellowships in laboratory medicine and molecular medical genetics at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and was board certified in clinical chemistry (DABCC) and molecular genetics (DABMG). She served as a clinical pathology laboratory director, establishing a molecular diagnostic program for viral, prenatal, and genetic disease diagnosis, and founding an AABB-accredited paternity testing laboratory. Since 1995, she has been a faculty member at Seattle University, teaching chemistry and forensic science, and serving as the chairperson of the chemistry department from 2002 to 2012. She is interested in the analysis of biomolecules and has numerous reports and professional publications. She has consulted with attorneys and law enforcement agencies related to forensic evidence, and has worked closely with the Seattle University Law School.

    Paul J. Speaker is a faculty member of the West Virginia University Department of Finance in the College of Business and Economics. He holds an M.S. and Ph.D. in economics from Purdue University, and a B.A. in economics from LaSalle College. Dr. Speaker also holds the position of chief executive officer of Forensic Science Management Consultants LLC, a firm that specializes in the business of forensics using the forensics of business. He serves as principal investigator for Project FORESIGHT, a National Institute of Justice–funded effort to provide a business approach to improve forensic laboratory efficiency and cost effectiveness. Dr. Speaker's research activity is concentrated in economic modeling, including regulated industries, business valuation, the role of not-for-profit institutions, and the business of forensics. His teaching areas include corporate finance, managerial economics, business valuation, and financial management.

    Reinoud D. Stoel was trained as a psychologist and received his doctorate in psychometrics in 2003. After obtaining his Ph.D., he had a position as assistant professor methods and statistics at the University of Amsterdam, and in 2008, he started as a forensic statistician. He is currently team leader of the statistics group of the Netherlands Forensic Institute. He has developed into a psychometrician and statistician with broad practical experience in both teaching and research (from psychology and behavioral genetics to forensics), with many publications in peer-reviewed international journals. In his current position, he provides teaching in statistics (interpretation of evidence) to experts, police officers, judges, and lawyers, as well as statistical consultancy in both forensic casework and research. His current main research interests are the development of methods that minimize cognitive bias and context effects in forensic casework, and conceptual issues in the interpretation of forensic evidence.

    Michael D. White is an associate professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University (ASU), and is associate director of ASU's Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. He received his Ph.D. in criminal justice from Temple University in 1999. Prior to entering academia, Dr. White worked as a deputy sheriff in Pennsylvania. Dr. White's primary research interests involve the police, including use of force, training, and misconduct. His recent work has been published in Justice Quarterly, Criminology and Public Policy, Crime and Delinquency, and Criminal Justice and Behavior.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website