A review of major factors contributing to errors in human hair association by microscopy.

Forensic hair examiners using traditional microscopic comparison techniques cannot state with certainty, except in extremely rare cases, that a found hair originated from a particular individual. They also cannot provide a statistical likelihood that a hair came from a certain individual and not another. There is no data available regarding the frequency of a specific microscopic hair characteristic (i.e., microtype) or trait in a particular population. Microtype is a term we use to describe certain internal characteristics and features expressed when observing hairs with unpolarized transmitted light. Courts seem to be sympathetic to lawyer's concerns that there are no accepted probability standards for human hair identification. Under Daubert, microscopic hair analysis testimony (or other scientific testimony) is allowed if the technique can be shown to have testability, peer review, general acceptance, and a known error rate. As with other forensic disciplines, laboratory error rate determination for a specific hair comparison case is not possible. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based typing of hair roots offer hair examiners an opportunity to begin cataloging data with regard to microscopic hair association error rates. This is certainly a realistic manner in which to ascertain which hair microtypes and case circumstances repeatedly cause difficulty in association. Two cases are presented in which PCR typing revealed an incorrect inclusion in one and an incorrect exclusion in another. This paper does not suggest that such limited observations define a rate of occurrence. These cases illustrate evidentiary conditions or case circumstances which may potentially contribute to microscopic hair association errors. Issues discussed in this review paper address the potential questions an expert witness may expect in a Daubert hair analysis admissibility hearing.     

Managing student peer aggression: an Australian perspective on law and practice

Student peer aggression has become an issue of considerable concern in schools and their surrounding communities. While a considerable volume of research and writing now exists on how this problem might be best managed, little has been written concerning the place of law in the management process. Nonetheless, in view of the long term effects of student peer aggression on both aggressors and aggressed, it behoves school administrators and teachers to have a sound awareness of the many issues associated with this form of behaviour. In particular it is advisable for staff to have a sound appreciation of the potential legal repercussions that can be the result of a failure to exercise an appropriate level of the duty of care owed to students in relation to peer aggression. This article examines recent research into student peer aggression in Australia and elsewhere. Reasons advanced to explain this form of behaviour are discussed, the characteristics of aggressors and aggressed examined, and consequences of student peer aggression explored. The legal remedies available are identified and discussed and measures needed to manage the problem are suggested.     

Et Tu, Counselor: may an in-house attorney file a qui tam action against the attorney's employer?

Most corporations probably do not consider their in-house counsel to be potential qui tam threats. That may be a naive assumption. Case law provides an illustrative view of the legal ramifications involved when an attorney brings a qui tam suit. In general, there is no prohibition on attorneys who wish to bring these actions. Nevertheless, a corporation can take preventive steps to eliminate the likelihood of attorney qui tam actions. In addition, the corporation can take advantage of state professional ethics laws to mount a defensive action against the attorney who files any such action.     

The conflict between notions of fairness and the Pareto principle

Most legal academics and policy makers believe that notionsof fairness should be accorded positive weight in evaluatinglegal policies. We explain, however, that ascribing importanceto any notion of fairness (other than one concerned solely withthe distribution of income) will sometimes lead to a conflictwith the Pareto principle. That is, to endorse a notion of fairnessis to endorse the view that it can be desirable to adopt a legalrule that will reduce the well-being of every person in society.     

Image analysis of gunshot residue on entry wounds. II--A statistical estimation of firing range.

A statistical investigation of the relationship between firing range and the amount and distribution of gunshot residue (GSR), used automated image analysis (IA) to quantify GSR deposit resulting from firings into pig skin, from distances ranging between contact and 45 cm. Overall, for a Ruger .22 semi-automatic rifle using CCI solid point, high velocity ammunition, the total area of GSR deposit on the skin sections decreased in a non-linear fashion with firing range. More specifically there were significant differences in the amount of GSR deposited from shots fired at contact compared with shots fired from distances between 2.5 and 45 cm; and between shots fired from a distance of 20 cm or less, with shots fired at a distance of 30 cm or more. In addition, GSR particles were heavily concentrated in the wound tract only for contact and close range shots at 2.5 cm, while the particle distribution was more uniform between the wound tract and the skin surfaces for shots fired from distances greater than 2.5 cm. Consequently, for future scientific investigations of gunshot fatalities, once standards have been established for the weapon and ammunition type in question, image analysis quantification of GSR deposited in and around the gunshot wound may be capable of providing a reliable, statistical basis for estimating firing range.     

The continuing search for proper perspective: whose reasonableness should be at issue in a prescription product design defect analysis?

This Article is based on a presentation given at Seton Hall University School of Law's Seventh Annual Health Law Symposium on February 12, 1999.