Display options
Cite
Smith TP, Andrew Smith G, Snipes JB. A Validation Study of Bullet and Cartridge Case Comparisons Using Samples Representative of Actual Casework. J Forensic Sci. 2016;61(4):939-46doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13093.
Smith, T. P., Andrew Smith, G., & Snipes, J. B. (2016). A Validation Study of Bullet and Cartridge Case Comparisons Using Samples Representative of Actual Casework. Journal of forensic sciences, 61(4), 939-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13093
Smith, Tasha P, et al. "A Validation Study of Bullet and Cartridge Case Comparisons Using Samples Representative of Actual Casework." Journal of forensic sciences vol. 61,4 (2016): 939-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13093
Smith TP, Andrew Smith G, Snipes JB. A Validation Study of Bullet and Cartridge Case Comparisons Using Samples Representative of Actual Casework. J Forensic Sci. 2016 Jul;61(4):939-46. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13093. Epub 2016 May 02. PMID: 27135174.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Forensic Sci. 2016 Jul;61(4):939-46. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13093. Epub 2016 May 02.

A Validation Study of Bullet and Cartridge Case Comparisons Using Samples Representative of Actual Casework.

Journal of forensic sciences

Tasha P Smith, G Andrew Smith, Jeffrey B Snipes

Affiliations

  1. San Francisco Police, Department Crime Lab, 1245 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158.
  2. Program in Criminal Justice Studies, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA.

PMID: 27135174 DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.13093

Abstract

The foundation of firearm and tool mark identification is that no two tools should produce the same microscopic marks on two separate objects that they would be inaccurately or wrongly identified. Studies addressing the validity of identification infrequently employ tests that mirror realistic casework scenarios. This study attempted to do so using a double-blind process, reducing test-taking bias. Test kits including bullets and cartridge cases but not the associated firearms were completed by 31 analysts from 22 agencies. Analysis of the results demonstrated an overall error rate of 0.303%, sensitivity of 85.2%, and specificity of 86.8%. Variability in performance across examiners is addressed, and the effect of examiners' years of experience on identification accuracy is explored. Finally, the article discusses the importance of studies using realistic case work scenarios when validating the field's performance and in providing courts with usable indicators of the accuracy of firearm and tool mark identification.

© 2016 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Keywords: casework simulation; error rate studies; firearm and tool mark identification; forensic science; sensitivity and specificity; validation study

Publication Types