7623 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

potential witness's memory, a well kept field notebook can be utilized to verify conditions, techniques, and observations which are often critical to conclusions of fact. Conversely, failure to keep a field notebook or compiling one in a poor manner can render a field observation almost worthless from a legal standpoint. Information relevant to a field observation, such as location and date, is necessary to preserve the chain of custody. Without an adequate record of such material, the value of a field observation is greatly diminished or destroyed. RESEARCH TECHNIQUES Volumes have been written on proper techniques, so there will be no attempt here to indicate in even a general way what procedures should be followed in examining a particular stream. The purpose of this section is more to emphasize that role proper (or, arguably, improper) sampling technique plays in a case. If a lawyer determines that an expert witness can do harm to his client's case, and that the substance of what the witness has to say is probably correct, or at least difficult to attack, then he may attempt to cast doubt upon the analytical methods employed by that scientist. It is imperative that accepted techniques be followed to the letter and that if the methods are not presented in depth in the research paper itself, at least detailed records are kept so that questions directed at those methods can be answered. For example, care should be taken to assure the transects or photographs are representative and not anomalous, and that this can be shown by the testimony. The increasing amount of environmental litigation has generated a lawyer- specialist who (a) knows where to find consultants and (b) knows how to use their expertise in ways which can seriously discredit researchers who are not careful. Such care should be standard in all research, but special care should be placed on understanding the concepts which underlie the research design. The statistical significance of test results is often taken for granted, yet several witnesses who have appeard in recent EPA hearings have had their published work seriously questioned by skillful use of desk calculators and accepted statistical analyses. Reference to statistical tests is now common in lengthy proceedings. What follows is an excerpt from part of the Aldrin/Dieldrin pesticide proceeding (Rogers 1974:11-12). In this case the witness was not totally trapped by improper methods; it is a more typical case in which a "question" is raised in the mind of the trier of fact: Q. First of all, I would like to discuss the methodology that you employed in this particular experiment. In particular, I would like to discuss the reliability and the weight which you give to the levels of dieldrin and aldrin that you found I would like to focus on the methodology. In particular I want to ask you, Dr. , whether in the techniques that you employed for analyzing the presence of aldrin and/or dieldrin, you used any separation techniques, or so-called 12