Back to Basics

This past weekend I attended a martial arts seminar taught by the amazing Grand Master Steve Shover. At one point during the seminar I was actually stunned. Not from something flashy or complicated, but by something so simple and based on our timeless mantra, "where the head goes, the body will follow."

After trying the technique I laughed and asked my partner "Why didn't I ever think to do that?" In ten years of doing martial arts and facing that exact attack in the dojo, I had never once thought to counter it in that manner. Part of the problem is the noted ten years of training. We try to complicate things and do something fancy and we forget that sometimes the simplest way is the best way.

As scientists we are notorious for doing the same thing. (There is nothing in this universe more complicated than getting a group of scientists together for a social gathering.) I've had many head slap moments in the laboratory when my troubleshooting turned out to be something very simple. The problem is the same as mine in the martial arts context. We have enough experience to try to make it complicated. We start looking at ramp temperatures or replacing parts before realizing the gas isn't turned on or the needle is bent. We forget the basics in our focus on the details.

I found myself having to remind myself of the same thing on the stand. When you could recite a treatise on the question it's difficult to pull yourself back and focus on what the examiner is truly asking. It's excellent practice however and can help you to focus back on the basics. After all, going off on tangents to fully explain the question as we would in a scientific community is not useful in the court setting and defeats our purpose as an expert witness, which is to clarify the information for a layman. I truly believe that every chemist should go through a mock exam before launching into courtroom testimony. As scientists we have a hard time focusing on the basics and simply answering the question, but that is what's necessary to be an effective expert witness. Not only that but focusing on the basics can also help your troubleshooting abilities in the laboratory.

In martial arts, the best way to understand a technique is to teach it. This is because when you explain it to someone without experience (the fact finder) as opposed to when you discuss it with another of equal rank (the scientific community), you have to focus on the basics and in doing so you remember the basic principles involved and it allows you to apply those principles to the complicated stuff. The same applies for science. Keeping the basics, front and center, and keeping in mind simplicity, not only helps your testimony in the courtroom, but also keeps them in front when you are troubleshooting or developing a new method in the laboratory.

Lost in Translation: Science Speak vs. Legal Speak

One day not too long ago, I sat on the stand going back and forth with opposing counsel.

There was no major disagreement. Actually, there was no real disagreement at all. The problem was that we were speaking in different terms. At one point, opposing counsel smiled with a sigh, clearly giving me that look that said he knew I was never going to agree with him because he was the "opposition." I smiled back knowing what he was thinking and knowing that he was wrong.

I wasn't trying to be difficult. I usually try to be fairly pleasant when I'm testifying...I know, shocker right? Although I will admit that when counsel becomes hostile my testimony can become rather short. Kind of like this wonderful scene from "Better off Ted."

Female Lawyer: Were you involved in the development of this product? 
Veronica: Yes. 
Female Lawyer: And how would you summarize the company's reaction when they found out that the women who used this product were savagely attacked by insects? 
Veronica: Ouch. 
Female Lawyer: Will you elaborate on that, please?
Veronica: No. 
Female Lawyer: Can you describe your job? 
Veronica: Yes. 
Female Lawyer: How would you describe your job? 
Veronica: Cleverly

Anyways, I digress.

In normal life when you are trying to explain science to your friends or family and they say something back that shows that they understood the gist of what you said, then you agree that they are correct. Close enough, right? That can never be the case in the courtroom, because if you agree to something as "close enough," then you will immediately have to backtrack with the follow-up questions, because you've essentially agreed to something that wasn't accurate in the first place.

And this was our issue at that particular moment. What he was saying was indeed "close enough," but it wasn't quite right.

Part of the problem is that scientists and lawyers speak different languages. Truly. It's like American English versus British English. It's all English, but if a Brit asks for a fag in the US...well, you see the problem. There is a communication issue. Our problem at that moment was that one phenomenon was actually first pass metabolism and not elimination. Yes, it's "eliminated" from the body, but it's not exactly what we're talking about when we discuss elimination rates. He was frustrated that I wouldn't agree, and I was frustrated that he was just repeating the same questions.

The especially frustrating thing about this situation (that I and others have been in many, many times) is that it can all be cleared up by one word: "Why?" If he had simply asked "Why is that not the same thing?" I could have launched into a description that may have clarified the situation and made clear to him that I was not trying to avoid his questioning, but that we had a difference of terms.

I don't know why that question is never asked. Perhaps it's because attorneys are used to factual witnesses or perhaps they simply don't want to ask the question when they don't know the answer. This is actually why direct testimony tends to be easier. They ask open ended questions and essentially allow you to drive the bus, since they know what your testimony will be. Opposing counsel wants to keep your answers as short as possible to avoid you driving the bus in a direction they don't want to go. The result though is that you argue over minutia and terms as opposed to substance.

I actually have an answer to this. Ready?

Depose the expert.

Yeah, that's it. If you depose the expert you will have some idea of what their testimony will be and you won't be afraid of the "whys." It sounds obvious. It is obvious! Yet, though the cases I have provided testimony in number in the thousands, the number of times I've been deposed only number in the dozens. I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps their clients don't want to increase the billable hours. Perhaps the science is intimidating or maybe they think there is no point because the expert will provide testimony like my example above. Perhaps my attorney friends can elucidate.

A good expert witness will seek to clarify not obfuscate. As I've said before, the expert witness is speaking for the science. They should be making sure that the attorneys, judge and jury all understand what the science means. Having disagreements simply because one party is speaking British English and the other is speaking American English is counterproductive. Ask why. If you're concerned about the expert driving the bus then ask the why's during deposition. The witness may not be trying to be difficult.

There are many words where this language barrier appears. In many cases, myself and my science colleagues have become accustomed to the legal definition of the word and simply agree if it is being used in a legal context. There are many words where the communities have different definitions, but one of the most common words tends to be "accurate." It is a given that when scientists use the word accurate, that they mean within the accepted uncertainty for that test. When lawyers use the word accurate they mean that the value is exactly (to whatever decimal place it is) the number. Part of the language barrier comes in because either party doesn't realize that there is a language barrier.

Perhaps a translation dictionary would be helpful, but until that dictionary is written, it's probably just a good idea to not be afraid to ask the questions.

The CSI effect

I've recently gotten into the show Dexter. Yeah, I'm years behind the curve, but in getting into the show I'm breaking one of my tv watching rules. You see Dexter is a forensic scientist.

Of course he's also a serial killer but that's besides the point.

Now as a forensic scientist myself you may wonder why I would avoid watching tv shows that feature my occupation. Well, I'll tell you. I watch TV for entertainment, as a relaxing end to the day. Watching forensic shows on TV are not relaxing because I spend most of my time scoffing or variously yelling at the screen.

This quote really sums it up. "If you really portrayed what crime scene investigators do," said Jay Siegel, a professor of forensic science at Michigan State University, "the show would die after three episodes because it would be so boring." Yup, forensics in the real world is boring.

On shows like CSI the people involved seem to do everything in the case. They investigate the scene, they do all the laboratory testing in the blink of an eye, arrest the suspects and practically argue the cases in court. Of course, this whole time they are only working on one case at a time. In the real world, forensic scientists may actually not know much about the case they have in their hands. It's a number. It's one of many that have to be processed.

I found that when asked about cases I was involved in on the laboratory side of things, people were often surprised how little I knew about the details of the case. All I focused on was the sample number and what the sample was to be tested for. That's typical. There is simply no time to be that heavily involved in all aspects of the case, but it makes for good TV if you could be.

Beyond the unrealistic expectation of how deeply involved forensic scientists are in a case there is a deeper problem with shows like CSI. CSI shows laboratory instrumentation as definitive and more universal than it actually is. The scientist simply places a drop of blood in a high tech piece of equipment and you suddenly have every drug the person was on, the full DNA spectrum and oh, here's a picture and their criminal record! Let's get 'em!

In the real world, there are a variety of methods, a variety of instrumentation and all have their limitations.

I often encountered officers or attorneys who didn't understand why we couldn't simply check the blood for everything present. How do you explain that some drugs are basic, some are acidic and they require different different extractions, different methods, a lot of time and oh yeah, hope you don't run out of blood; when CSI has shown them how easy it is? I've encountered jurors who expected the blood alcohol sample to be tested for DNA. How do explain it's not necessary and a huge waste of resources when CSI shows them that it's easy and is done in every case?

There are some good things about shows like CSI. Jurors do have some idea of what forensics is so the evidence can be explained with perhaps less detail then if they had never heard of it. And of course, it gets generations of new forensic scientists coming on board who hopefully aren't disappointed with the realities of the work.

Courts have actually started studying the "CSI effect" and so far the results are undecided. Hopefully people can realize and remember that these shows are fiction. Just as cop shows don't show the officers driving around aimlessly on a slow day, so too do forensic shows not show scientists fighting with their machines, working their way through a backlog of nameless samples or watching the clock for quitting time. Neither make good TV.

DUI by Vanilla Extract

Some people seem to believe that as long as the alcohol doesn't come from the standard beer, wine or liquor, that it somehow doesn't count. They try to blame the cough syrup or NyQuil for the breath test. Now the problem with that logic is that the alcohol in Nyquil is the same, chemically speaking, as the alcohol in a drink. It's all ethanol. It's all the same stuff. Whether you sat down and had a six pack or chugged a bottle of NyQuil, the impairment is the same and is addressed by the same law. (Things get twitchy with rubbing alcohol since that is not the same alcohol that is addressed by most DUI laws.)

This is the first time I've ever seen DUI by vanilla extract though. The woman in question was found slumped over the wheel with partially empty vanilla extract bottles that she had been mixing with coke. That sounds vastly more appealing than drinking rubbing alcohol, but when you consider that a cookie recipe require one teaspoon of vanilla and she was drinking it by the ounce...maybe not so appealing anymore. The woman in question didn't take a test so the rest is all speculation, but an interesting academic exercise none-the-less.

The vanilla extract in the car was 35% alcohol by volume and the woman purchased two eight ounce bottles. Both were partially empty according to the officer, but we don't now how much was missing. So how high could you get off of vanilla? Let's assume the woman in question was 150 pounds. For each ounce of vanilla she would gain a 0.020 blood alcohol concentration. Without elimination she could reach 0.160 on each bottle of vanilla extract. Of course the longer she drank, the lower the result would be because she would be eliminating alcohol at the same time.

Either way, could you get yourself intoxicated off of vanilla extract? YES. Would you want to? That is a very different question.

Four Loko: A very bad idea...

After so long of review processing forms for DUI offenses it is always surprising when a drink is mentioned that I've never heard of. Obviously, this leads to further investigation. How is there a drink I don't know about? I must learn more!

This was the case the other day with the drink Four Loko. For those like myself just learning about this drink, Four Loko is a 24 ounce energy drink containing 12% alcohol.

Yes, let me repeat that.

A 24 ounce serving of 12% alcohol.

To put that into perspective a regular beer is typically a 12 ounce can of 5% alcohol. Certainly those too can be served in 24 ounce cans, but they still only contain 5% alcohol. Using Widmark, for a woman my size, if I were to consume an entire Four Loko, my blood alcohol concentration would be 0.167. For one drink...

Now, obviously this is assuming no elimination, so in reality it wouldn't be that high. However, in order for a woman my size to drink one Four Loko and remain below the legal limit for driving, I would have to consume this drink over the span of SIX hours.

The drink comes in a variety of fruit flavors and although the website does have a very nice "drink responsibly" section, lets be honest: A 24 once carbonated beverage in a pop top implies one serving, whether that's what is on the label or not, we know that to be true. Someone buying a 24 ounce soda would not drink one serving and then leave the drink to lose it's carbonation for later consumption.

Additionally the drink contains caffeine and all the other typical ingredients in a standard energy drink.  Here's a nice description of drinking the beverage.It's essentially a Red Bull and Vodka on crack.


The drink is starting to get some press. However, in my opinion they are focusing on the wrong things. The press is the typical press that has continued since the start of Red Bull and vodka drinks, the combination of alcohol and caffeine.

The real danger of Four Loko is back to basics. It's a 24 ounce serving of 12 % alcohol!

Now just to make all of you out there do a Homer Simpson impression, here's the best news: The drink is sold for $2.50 at 7 Eleven. Pause a minute and think about that. A $2.50 bottle of wine, with stimulants served in a one serving size container. In Europe, it will even contain absinthe for you. Although we could debate the pharmacological activity of today's wormwood, this addition does seem to just give the drink a little something else.

My prediction is that we're going to be seeing this more in driving under the influence cases and more ominously, it will be incorporated into the college scene. This in itself is a scary thing. College, where funneling and keg stands are already tradition, you're going to add a beverage that will take an average size woman to more than double the legal limit in one sitting. Now change that to a 110 pound, naive drinking female and you get a blood alcohol concentration of a 0.233. When you consider that the average BAC level attributed to death by alcohol intoxication alone is a 0.250, this is reason to be concerned.

The drink is tailor-made for that crowd with the energy aspect, the low cost, high alcohol and fruit flavors. It is sure to become very popular. One can only hope that they will show better judgment than college students are known to display.

State Experts vs. Defense Expert: Us versus Them

The most heated seminar I have ever attended was one at an annual meeting of NEAFS. (The Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists for those not in the know) The seminar was titled "Debating the science in Forensic Science" and featured a panel of both state and defense experts as well as a few college instructors. This is clearly a recipe for high tempers!

One person on the panel was an academic...a very outspoken academic...who had not actually performed the work she was passing judgment on. As one can imagine, this was not well received by those in the audience. The effect of her speech (whether she intended it that way or not) was that crime lab staff were biased towards the state and that their work was not held to the same scientific level that research is held to. I would argue that neither of those statements are necessarily true.

Over the years of going to conferences I have found that there are two real constants in the forensic community. One is the passion involved in the work. No one enters forensics for the money! Every single one of them is passionate about what they do. The other constant is the duality of us versus them. "Us" being state, federal, or municipal employees and "them" being (dramatic music) defense experts.

The unfortunate fact is that there are defense experts who will simply testify to anything for the paycheck. Their science changes based on the case and what is convenient to say at the time. They lack credibility and no matter how credible the other side, there is a taint to having a "battle of the experts" with someone who will say anything for the right amount of money.

The role of an expert witness is simply to explain the science as objectively as possible in terms that a lay person would be familiar with. It's very simple. We don't need to make judgments on guilt, we don't need to argue legalities. All we have to say is the absolute truth to the best of our knowledge and explain it so that those without a science background they can still understand. Easy.

Now, have I felt a person was guilty during a case? Of course. I'm human. Did that change what I would testify about? Absolutely not. In fact when the scenario presented by the defense was supported by the math I made sure that the state's attorneys knew it. The attorneys get to argue their version of truth and the fact finder decides. An expert witness should never change their testimony based on whether they feel the person is guilty or not. As long as you always remember that, testifying is easy, and there's no need to worry about statements against your credibility.

There have certainly been cases of misconduct in crime labs, whether through ignorance or intent. These always make the news, and the panel at this particular seminar did discuss some recent instances that had been reported. The academic previously mentioned, extrapolated that to say all crime lab employees are biased towards the prosecution because of their associations with police officers or through overt pressure from superiors to alter a case. This resulted, as you can imagine, in a room filled with red faced people clenching their fists, while the vast majority of the rest of the room frantically raised hands to give their two cents.

I believe overt pressure is truly rare. It is the very rare case where personnel are told to alter results, and I believe that it is truly rare for a forensic scientist to falsify results. Those are the extreme and rare cases.

I do believe however that at times there is a covert pressure. Not to lie or falsify data or anything so dramatic, but in perhaps in not raising as many issues as we may have noticed. We spend the vast majority of our waking hours at our place of employment. People always want that place to be a comfortable place. When you raise issues or say unpopular things, that work place can become a very tense place. Unhappy attorneys tend to be vocal. (This indeed may be an understatement.) So whether we raise issues we know we should or not becomes a difficult question sometimes. I believe that is where most of pressure, if there is any at all arises.

Now as someone who has transitioned from an us to a them I find myself wanting to redefine the term "defense expert" in the forensic community. Being independent does not have to mean being unethical. In fact my credibility arises from the fact that I do have a strong ethical background. My role now is the same as it ever was as a state chemist, to translate the science into layman's terms, to do the math and let the attorneys argue what is "true."

The crime of the academic on the panel was taking a small number of cases where there had been misconduct by the laboratory personnel and applying a bias to all crime lab personnel. The vast majority of forensic scientist are however very honest and ethical in their work. This extrapolation from few to many is the same reason that "defense expert" is a dirty word in the forensic community.

Although we can not force others to behave ethically, we as scientist should always remember to hold ourselves to a high ethical standard. Arguing more passionately for the state does not counteract an unethical defense expert, but in fact adds a sense of bias to the fact finders that simply should not be there in either witness.

As for the panel at the conference, it had to be cut short...