Excellent document. I only have two comments:

1. Reports and Testimony should be separated into two distinct areas. There are differences in what should always be stated as the  basis for the final reported conclusion (opinion) and what is testified to in the court of law as a result of questioning by either party. Reports could not possibly contain everything that is generally solicited by the adversaries during the course of a trial and, therefore, they should completely and sufficiently state the true results of scientific analysis.

Expert witness testimony is usually much broader and its implications should have additional safequards against misintepretation, misguided conclusions and untrustworthiness.

2. In Section 4.2.4 determination of what is "legally relevant" should be left to legal profession although forensic scientists should ensure that their clients can properly interpret reported scientific facts.

John Thornton wrote: The code draft defines a forensic scientist as, among other qualifications, as someone who will "testify in a court of law as an expert witness in forensic science," and specifically includes anyone "consult, advise, research, or teach in forensic science." (sic), and then goes on to demand certification in order to testify.

  Research?  Advising?  Teaching?  Consulting?  How would you enforce this?  The foremost expert in wood anatomy in this solar system is a professor in the Department of Forestry at UC Berkeley.  Would you want to exclude him from taking the stand in a case involving the identification of a wood splinter?  And settle for not just the second best, but in all probability the 999th best person to address the jury?

The code does not countenance the capable expert who doesn't think of himself or herself as a forensic scientist, but nevertheless has credentials that a court is likely to accept -- perhaps the wood anatomist that I have used here as an example, or a diesel mechanic, or an accountant, or the community college teacher that had a group of students do a sterling research project.  It's pretty lame to say, "well, they are excluded because they aren't really forensic scientists."  But they are if the definition of a forensic scientist is as the draft states, someone who will testify in a court of law as an expert witness.

I'm all in favor of certification.  But I believe it would be a mistake for the CAC to back something where we would ultimately get beaten down on it.

Just wanted to point out a missing word on page 2 of 5.  Near the bottom of the page, it reads "... evaluation by all who a legal right to them" instead of "evaluation by all who have a legal right to them".

Thank you to all who have contributed to this document.  It is very much appreciated.

Nothing to add at this point, except that this is another minor error at the end of the second paragraph on page 2: "New developments should be presented to the profession. In order to continually improve the profession. Research and training should be encouraged."

Were the last two sentences meant to be one sentence?

Thanks.