cache n - california association of criminalists · 2020. 5. 31. · crime lab: a guide for...

CACNewsCACNewsTTTTThhhhheeeee

News of the California Association of Criminalists • Third Quarter 2000News of the California Association of Criminalists • Third Quarter 2000

he uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assum

ptionthat w

hatever hasgoneoutofdateison

thataccountdiscredited.Youmustfindoutwhyitwentoutofdate.Wasitrefuted

(and

ifso

byw

hom

,whe

re, a

ndho

wco

nclu

sively

) or didit merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing

aboutitstruthorfalsehood.Fromseeingthis,onepassestotherealizatio

nthat

ouro

wn

age

isal

soa ‘

perio

d’, a

nd certainly has, like all periods, its owncharacteristic

illusions.Theyarelikeliesttolurkinthosewid

espr

ead

assu

mpt

ions which are so ingrained in the age

thatnoonedarestoattackorfeels

itne

cess

ary to defend them.

—C

.S.LewisT

T

LISA��

Contributions

!t is the activeparticipation of

its membersthat makesthe CAC anoutstandingprofessionalorganization.

The Third Joint Meeting of theCalifornia Association ofCriminalists and The ForensicScience Society was definitelymemorable for those in attendance.The location was excellent: NapaValley is gorgeous, the weather wasbeautiful and the wine wasn’t tooshabby. The FSS members in atten-dance saw California in all its glory.The program covered an interestingvariety of topics thanks to the out-standing contributions of the mem-bers of both organizations. Thesuccess of this meeting was due tothe efforts of many individuals.Specifically, I’d like to thank BrianWraxall and the SERI staff for theirtremendous efforts in presenting theCAC and the FSS with an informa-tive and thoroughly enjoyablemeeting.

The banquet was a festiveoccasion that concluded with anexchange of gifts. The CAC pre-sented to the FSS a glass bowletched with a decorative combina-tion of the CAC logo, FSS coat-of-arms, joint meeting logo and grape leaf pattern. Itloses something in the description, but you can see apicture of it on the following page. The FSS pre-sented the CAC with a watercolor of “ClarkeHouse,” the FSS office in Harrogate, North Yorkshire.The artist, Carol Rudram, was in attendance withher husband, FSS member Dave Rudram. Thewatercolor will add a touch of class to the CACoffice once it is found.

I would like to thank all themembers of the 1999-2000 Boardof Directors for their hard workand efforts on behalf of the CAC.Specific recognition and thanksgo to the following retiring boardmembers: Hiram Evans, nowimmediate past president, whoworked tirelessly on CAC’sinterests at both the state andnational levels; Ron Nichols, whoconcluded his board duties asimmediate past president; KevinAndera, who made the difficultduties of the recording secretarylook easy; and Pennie Lafertywho guided many applicants tomembership as the membershipsecretary.

Speaking of membership, it isthe active participation of itsmembers that makes the CAC anoutstanding professional organi-zation. The valuable professionalinteraction and developmentopportunities afforded the mem-bers are due specifically to thevolunteer efforts of individuals

serving on various committees. I would like tothank these individuals for their time and effortsspent on behalf of the CAC. Those individuals, whoare interested in serving on a committee, pleasecontact me now. If you are unable to serve at thistime, please consider serving in the future. TheCAC will flourish only through the contributions ofits members —YOU!

The CACNews, ISSN 1525-3090, is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October) by the California Association of Criminalists (CAC), Editorial Secretary, CaDOJFresno, 6014 N Cedar Ave., Fresno, CA 93710, (559) 278-2982, [email protected]. The CAC is a private foundation dedicated to the furtherance of forensicscience in both the public and private sectors. Nonmember subscriptions are available for $16 domestic, $20USD foreign—contact the Editorial Secretary for moreinformation.Please direct editorial correspondence and requests for reprints to the Editorial Secretary.

©2000 The California Association of Criminalists, All Rights Reserved.

Notice to Contributors: We publish material of interest to our readers and are pleased to receive manuscripts from potential authors. Meetings and course announcements,employment opportunities, etc. are also solicited. Advertisements are also accepted, although a fee is charged for their inclusion in The CACNews. Please contact theAdvertising Editor for further information. Because of the computerized typesetting employed in The CACNews, submissions should be made in the form of MS-DOScompatible files on 3.5 inch floppy disks or by e-mail ([email protected]). Text files from word processors should be saved as ASCII files without formattingcodes, e.g. bold, italic, etc. An accompanying hardcopy of the file should be submitted along with the disk. Graphics, sketches, photographs, etc. may also be placed into articles.Please contact the Editorial Secretary for details. The deadlines for submissions are: Dec. 1, March 1, June 1 and Sept. 1.

Editor-in-Chief: Nancy McCombs(559) [email protected]

Art Director: John Houde / Calico Press,LLC(805) [email protected]

Features: Greg Matheson(213) [email protected]

Webmaster: Mark Traughber(909) [email protected]

Advertising: Frank Healy(559) [email protected]

Technical: Suzanne Preaseaux(707) [email protected]

2 President’s DeskIncoming President Lisa Brewer

4 CACBits / Section Reports

5 Jobs / Meetings / CoursesPositions Wanted / Offered

6 EditorialNancy McCombs / Feedback

10 FEATURE: Focus on Microcrystals

11 A Brief Background and Justification forthe Continued Use of Microcrystal TestsWayne Moorehead

16 A Comment on SWGDRUG’s Proposal forMicrocrystal TestingHiram Evans

19 Drug and Microcrystal Tests for ForensicDrug IdentificationHiram Evans—reprinted from Microscope

20 Comments on the Proposal for QualityAssurance in Forensic Drug AnalysisGary Sorgen

22 SWGDRUG Guidelines and Microcrystal-line TestsMarty Fink

23 LAPD’s Poster Session at AAFS

24 Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses:Gambit for ControlRod Taber—reprinted from The Scientist

26 Quality AssuredJohn Simms

27 ObituaryGene Wolberg

28 Spring 2000Scenes from the Napa Meeting

31 Paul Kirk AwardCall for nominations

Third Quarter 2000

P U B L I C A T I O N S T A F F

CACNewsTheTheTheTheThe

C O N T E N T SC O N T E N T S

On the cover: “Swirling in controversy” acouple of cocaine crystals (platinic chloride)are surrounded by an apt quote from C.S.Lewis, supplied by Hiram Evans.Photo: John Houde/Calico Press

Focus on Microcrystals

www.cacnews.org

4 • The CACNews 3rd Quarter 2000

CACBits • Section News

��

��(Accuracy not verified)

Cal

ico

Pres

s

��

On March 24, 2000, Kern Countywas host to a luncheon and studygroup meeting. The meeting, the firstheld in Bakersfield in a long time, wasa complete success. The meeting fea-tured a tour of the Equilon oil refineryand the new crime lab. The crime lab isvery impressive and received goodcomments from those who toured thelab. The luncheon speaker was KernCounty District Attorney Ed Jagels giv-ing a rebuttal to the book “Mean Jus-tice” by Ed Hume. The luncheon wasattended by over 50 persons fromcrime labs from San Diego to Fresno.

The following topics were dis-cussed:•The crime scene study group met for

the first time and preliminarily cov-ered a list of possible formats.

•The Equilon oil refinery tour startedwith a brief but interesting lecture onthe chemistry of oil refining and con-tinued with a tour through the dif-ferent parts and stages of the refin-ing process.

•The trace evidence group coveredFTIR microscopy, “Evaluation of theHuman Hair Root...” article by Linch,Smith and Prahlow from the JFS, andround table discussions on interest-ing cases.

•The forensic biology study group dis-cussed body fluid identification.

•The drug and toxicology study groupsalso met.

I was very pleased with the at-tendance and want to thank all of youwho took the time out of a busy sched-ule to come to Bakersfield. I also wantto thank Greg Laskowski and the restof the Kern County DA staff whohelped make this meeting such a suc-cess.

This is probably the first of a per-manent switch to luncheon meetingsinstead of the old dinner meeting for-mat. The next meeting is scheduled forJune 21 in San Diego at the Old TownMexican Cafe with study groups heldat National University before and af-ter the luncheon. The meeting hostsare Celia Lukomski, Melinda Ronka,and Jeanne Parsons from the San Di-ego Sheriff’s crime lab. If you need anyinformation on the meeting check theCAC website at www.cacnews.org. orcall the SDSO lab at (858) 467-4600. TheSeptember meeting is being hosted bythe Los Angeles Sheriff’s crime lab and

the December meeting will be hosted bythe Orange County sheriff’s lab.

Please note on the CAC website isa quick survey to see if you would prefera luncheon meeting format to the dinnermeeting format. Optionally, it may be leftup to the hosts of the meeting. Please letme know. My e-mail address [email protected].

—Jim Stam

�� The New York Public Library (see

photo) has announced their selection ofCRIME LAB: A Guide For Nonscientistsby John Houde for their “Books for theTeen Age 2000” list. The list, now in itsseventy-first year of publication, includesthe best of the previous year’s publish-ing for teenagers. All of the titles chosenhave been read and reviewed by youngadult librarians and recommended forthis very special list.

In a separate announcement, thebook recently won the “IPPY 2000” inthe science category. This award is pre-sented at the annual Chicago Book ExpoAmerica meeting by Independent Pub-lisher magazine.

��

Scott Lewis—on the birth of his baby girl,Born April 10, 2000

Walter McCrone—on receiving anaward in analytical chemistry from theAmerican Chemical Society (see below).

Lucien Haag—on receiving the PaulGreene Award from the California Asso-ciation of Criminalists

! �� !�� "�� "� �� "� �#�� #

Dr. Walter McCrone received theACS award in analytical chemistry.

Sponsored by Fisher ScientificCompany, the ACS award recognizes andencourages outstanding contributions tothe science of analytical chemistry, pureor applied, carried out in the United Statesor Canada.

The award consists of $5,000 andan etching. The traveling expenses of therecipient incidental to the conferring ofthe award are paid.

The award was established in 1947by the Fisher Scientific Company and

nominees must be residents of the UnitedStates or Canada and must have madean outstanding contribution to analyticalchemistry.

Dr. McCrone may be best knownfor his work on the shroud of Turin. He isdirector emeritus of McCrone ResearchInstitute in Chicago.

�� $$ % ��" "� �#��Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NCPolice Metro-Crime LaboratorySalary Range $41,727 - $49,091

DOEQualified Candidates must pass a

background investigation, drug testingand polygraph examination:

Knowledge of forensic DNA prin-ciples and laboratory procedures and theability to implement these principles andprocedures in the Crime Laboratory; spe-cific knowledge and experience with PCRand STR analysis; knowledge of labora-tory safety regulations and quality assur-ance procedures; ability to examine, iden-tify and analyze various types of physi-

5

Jobs • Meetings • Courses

�"�� &�� '�� "�� Two views of the gift from the CAC to the FSS at the recent Joint Seminar.Photos by Peter Barnett

cal evidence, especially body fluid evi-dence; ability to interpret results and tes-tify in court. This position requires thefollowing education and experience: aBachelor of Science Degree in biology,chemistry, or forensic science with a mini-mum of 12 semester or equivalent credithours of biochemistry, genetics, molecu-lar biology and statistics or populationgenetics and at least three years experi-ence in a forensic DNA laboratory. Gradu-ate level education can be substituted forexperience.

All interested candidates shouldcontact: Jane Burton, Chief Criminalist,Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Depart-ment, Crime Laboratory, 601 E. TradeStreet, Charlotte, NC 28202. Phone: (704)353-1101 Fax: (704) 353-0088. E-mail:[email protected]

�� Forensic Analytical, a leading pri-

vate criminalistics laboratory on the WestCoast, has a unique opportunity avail-able for an experienced criminalist. Work-ing in the private sector with highly re-spected Forensic Scientists in the indus-try, the successful candidate will be re-sponsible for casework in traditional ar-eas of criminalistics, and have the oppor-tunity to help shape a growing relianceon private sector support to both the pros-ecution and defense.

The candidate must possess a de-gree in a physical science and /or Foren-sic Science, and a minimum of five yearsof experience within the criminalistics pro-fession, preferably with trace evidenceknowledge, skills and abilities. Firearmexamination expertise is highly desirable.

Forensic Analytical is an Equal Op-

portunity Employer, offering a competi-tive benefit package, and an excellent op-portunity to practice criminalistics in theprivate sector. Please forward your re-sume and salary history to our Haywardaddress. Salary commensurate with ex-perience.

For further information, contact:David Kahane, Forensic Analytical, Prin-cipal, 3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hay-ward, CA 94545. 1-800-827-3274, e-mail:[email protected], Carol Hunter, Foren-sic Analytical, Laboratory Supervisor,2959 Pacific Commerce Drive, RanchoDominguez, CA 90221. 310-763-2374e-mail: [email protected]

'�� $$$%'��

Kansas Bureau of Investigation,Human Resources 1620 SW Tyler St. To-peka, KS 66612-1827 (785) 296-8247

'�� $56,227-$84,231Mississippi Crime Laboratory 1700

E. Woodrow Wilson Ave. Jackson, MS39216 (601) 987-1600

�� !� �� (�� )�� $�� '��

�� www.vifsm.org/hta2000.html

*�� # +� �www.co.kern.ca.us/person/jobs/

bulletin.htm

,"'"" -...Seventh Annual Midwest

Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropol-ogy Association

University of Missouri - Columbia,October 20-22, 2000

The seventh annual meeting of theMidwest Bioarchaeology and ForensicAnthropology Association will be hostedby the University of Missouri’s Anthro-pology Students Association. The meet-ing will consist of formal and informalpapers, open discussions and posters, andworkshops offered by MU faculty.“Works in progress” and posters arestrongly encouraged, as is student par-ticipation. Like past meetings, the goalof the conference is to provide an infor-mal forum for osteologists, forensic an-thropologists, and bioarchaeologists topresent and get feedback on current re-search, methodological advances, andspecimens of particular interest.

Abstracts: Electronic submission ofabstracts is preferred. Either e-mail theabstract or attach it to an e-mail [email protected]. Send snail-mailabstracts to:ASA - BARFAA abstracts ,Department of Anthropology, Univer-sity of Missouri, 107 Swallow Hall, Co-lumbia, MO 65211. Abstract deadline:September 15, 2000 (postmarked).Deborah Cunningham, [email protected] or Catherine [email protected], or contact us at 573-882-4731.

/�� ! ��0 �/� 1� ��The CAC needs your help. If you

are interested in forensic alcohol issues,and want to help mold the future of al-cohol testing in this state, consider vol-unteering as the Forensic Alcohol Liai-son to the Department of Health Services.The position may involve travel to ex-otic locations (like Sacramento), provid-ing input for new or changing regula-tions, and you may even get to assembleyour own committee. This is actually ajoint position, representing the interestsof both CAC and the California Associa-tion of Crime Laboratory Directors (butdon’t let that scare you away). Besides,think of what this would do for your voirdire in court the next time you testify!

For more information, please con-tact Jeff Thompson at the Scientific In-vestigation Unit of the Huntington BeachPolice Dept. at (714) 374-1582 or email:[email protected].

Jeff’s the current liaison and will bestepping down after 5 years of service.


S

NANCY��

TTTTTo the Genero the Genero the Genero the Genero the General Scientifal Scientifal Scientifal Scientifal Scientific Commic Commic Commic Commic Communityunityunityunityunity...............

F E E D B A C KF E E D B A C KF E E D B A C KF E E D B A C KF E E D B A C KThe CACNews prints letters to the editor that are of interest to itsreaders. We reserve the right to edit letters for brevity and clarity.All submissions to this page become the property of the CACNews.

Because ofconstant

changes inscience and

technology, weare continuallyfaced with an“out with the

old, in with thenew” mentality.

Scientific Working Groups seem tobe popping up left and right for this orthat, groups of approximately 20 indi-viduals recommending minimum “stan-dards” and guidelines for us to follow.The intent is understandable: to ensurequality in collecting, processing, analyz-ing, handling, reporting, testifying etc.,etc. But have SWGs lost track of theirown scope?

Because of constant changes in sci-ence and technology, we are continuallyfaced with an “out with the old, in withthe new” mentality. Memorably, foren-sic science experienced this during the“Line Counting Wars” which stirred upfirearms examiners in the ‘50’s and ‘60’sand continues to do so today. Then be-gan “Starch Wars” in the ‘70’s and ‘80’swith the disputes between multi-loci vs.single-locus techniques still persisting,only now it’s in DNA. Now what’s thehottest controversy? The “Crystal Wars.”

Although there will always bethose in our field who do not welcome

change, most of us are scientists andwelcome any new technology that willimprove our profession. Yet despite theintroduction of new methods and tech-niques, the old, unsophisticated prac-tices are often the best choices in manysituations and for many laboratories.

As long as new developments andtechniques arise, so will the so-called“Scientific Wars.” The question is, willthe latest participants on the battlefield,the forensic “governing bodies,” be al-lies or foes to forensic science? Will therecommendations made by these smallgroups of individuals be acceptable tothe entire forensic science community?

As “minimum standards” and“guidelines” continue to surface, let usnot forget that we are the general scien-tific community. Old science is not syn-onymous with bad science, and newtechniques are certainly not always bet-ter techniques.

�!&�2& ��Editor:Substantial changes recently have been made to the Meth-

ods and Reports Subcommittee Proposals issued for public com-ment last October. Current revisions do accommodate micro-crystalline tests with proper documentation within an analyti-cal scheme. These changes were made at the May 1 - 2, 2000SWGDRUG Core Group Meeting which discussed the Methods

and Reports Subcommittee document and public comment re-ceived about it.

Current versions of all SWGDRUG proposals and relatedinformation may be viewed at www.swgdrug.org

—Jerry MassettiSWGDRUG Methods and

Reports Subcommittee Chairman

7

"� �� 1�� !&�2&Editor:I have been discussing the proposal of the Methods and

Reports Subcommittee of SWGDRUG with my colleagues herein California and I must write to comment on this proposal. Mycomments are directed towards the part of the proposal thatdoes not allow the use of multiple microcrystal tests to identifycontrolled substances.

I am the Officer in Charge (Senior Criminalist) of the SanFrancisco Police Department Crime Lab and I oversee supervi-sion of the Narcotics Unit. Our laboratory examines approxi-mately 12,000 narcotics cases/year. We are mandated by theMayor’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office to provide daily(Sunday-Saturday) service and 24-hour turnaround time for allnarcotics cases, due to jail overcrowding issues.

For over 40 years, microcrystal tests have been used inthis laboratory as one of the primary methods employed topositively identify common controlled substances. These testsare rapid and reliable and provide our customers with the re-sults they need in a timely fashion. Furthermore, this method-ology is blessed by the consensus-based ASTM and AOAC. Iam unaware of any published research which challenges thereliability of this methodology. Our vigorous defense bar hasnot yet successfully challenged our narcotics testing methodol-ogy.

I am additionally concerned when a proposal seems tousurp my responsibility as a manager to choose, among reli-able methodologies, one which best meets my customer’sneeds. Local crime laboratories must be allowed to exercise thistype of self-government.

My question is: If a methodology is not flawed, why“fix” it by adding some other methodology? How do I explainthis to my staff? And how do they explain it to the triers of fact?

Please let reason prevail and recognize that the practitio-ners who employ microcrystal tests are already using a reliableconfirmatory methodology.

Martha BlakeSenior Criminalist

San Francisco Police Dept.

"�� 3�� 4� 3�� # �� Editor,I recently read an article questioning yet again the use of

digital cameras at crime scenes. I’ll share my rebuttal to thatarticle with the membership because I think it may provide astarting point for discussion here.

The dispute about how easily digital images can be al-tered reminds me that this debate is not really new. Decadesago, the story goes, Pablo Picasso was shown a photograph ofhimself. The photographer proudly asked the famous painterhow remarkably realistic this new technology was. “I don’tthink it’s very realistic at all” Picasso complained, “I’m muchbigger than this picture.”

All Photos Are “Unreal.”As a nearsighted individual, I see very poorly without

my spectacles, but if I focus my camera (film or digital) cor-

rectly, the picture comes out sharp. That’s not the way I saw thescene, but couldn’t one say that I have “altered” the image? Ifthe scene was too dark, I may use a flash or high-speed film, orI may lighten the picture in Photoshop. Have I altered the pic-ture? We should be asking, “Does the picture meet the require-ments of the court, namely that it “fairly and accurately depictsthe object or scene at the relevant time?” If I say under oaththat it does, then shouldn’t my photo be admitted into evi-dence? If not, then on what legal basis is it being excluded?Simply because it can be altered easily? I hate to burst anyone’sbubble, but the vast majority of documentary and physicalevidence can be altered easily. (Ever hear of backdating anapplication?) If I intentionally add or delete objects in an evi-dentiary picture I have committed fraud.

Unreal Photos Are Not Necessarily Bad.People are accustomed to looking at “altered” photo-

graphs and generally understand that when they see billboardsor black and white surveillance photos that these are not win-dows, but only representations. A telephoto lens on either afilm or digital camera will foreshorten distances and wide-anglelenses distort landscapes and bend tall buildings. There is noth-ing sinister about this; it’s just the limitations of applying opticsand two-dimensional photography to our three-dimensionalworld. Thirty-five years ago, when my father was a crime scenephotographer, color photos were not allowed in the courtroom.It was felt that blood looked “too red” and would “inflame thepassions of the jury.” Have we come so far?

The author of the critical article correctly points out thatdigital photos do not degrade with time or repeated copying,but he misses his own point. If film degrades with time, isn’t itbecoming “altered?”

Ethical Witnesses Don’t Manufacture Evidence.I share the author’s fear of an unscrupulous digital “art-

ist” placing a book of matches into a crime scene photo, forexample. But this kind of behavior is a weakness with any typeof physical evidence. Witnesses are examined under oath andtheir truthfulness evaluated by the jury. Our system of justiceallows opposing sides to place evidence in front of a jury whoact as “lie detectors.” They have always had the burden ofgiving the appropriate weight to the testimony they hear.

It Boils Down to Credibility.It is a red herring to say that the ease of altering digital

images renders them suspect. I have shown here that all pho-tography is image manipulation. The crucial issue is whetherthe photograph fairly and accurately depicts the scene. Thatfact can only be proved by the testimony of the photographer.The penalties for faking a crime scene picture are severe. Add-ing an electronic means to detect alterations is not the solution.Can the electronic “watchdog” tell if I have intentionally pointedthe camera away from important evidence before clicking theshutter? It is the testimony of the witness and how it is believedby the jury that matters most. Let’s not be fearful of embracingthis new technology. Traditional film won’t be around long anddigital is here to stay.

—John HoudeVentura

FEEDBACK, cont’d


��

it’s just about us

ED JONES’

FACE GAME

Microcrystal PioneersTry to identify these famous and not-so-famousfigures in the development of microcrystal tests.Answers inside this issue.

��#�� 2�� $��# &/,Editor,I read Ron Nichols’ open letter on SWGDRUG’s microc-

rystal policy in the last issue of the CACNews with great inter-est, and I agree with his position. When I heard that the nextissue of the newsletter would focus on crystal tests, I decided Iwanted to speak up in favor of this technique as well. My expe-rience focuses on a relatively “new” controlled substance:gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB).

After doing some research with GHB and helping revisethe GHB methodology at our lab (Orange County Sheriff-Coro-ner) to keep current with California law, I have learned a fewthings about the difficulties involved in analyzing it. Variousfactors such as impurities in the sample, presence of gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) and the extremely hygroscopic nature ofthe compound can make this a very difficult controlled sub-stance to analyze. Identification by GC-MS or GC-IRD requiresderivitization because GHB converts to GBL on the column.Preparing the derivative takes at least 30 minutes, while re-moving water from the sample before derivitization may re-quire another 30 minutes or more. FTIR identification is ham-pered by GHB’s ability to quickly absorb water from the air:after drying, the sample may pick up enough water to ruinyour spectrum in the time it takes you to prepare the KBrpellet. It usually takes me at least 15 minutes to get a good FTIRspectrum, not counting the time it takes to dry the sample.

One test is quick, easy and accurate: the silver/coppercrystal test I developed with Hiram Evans and Catherine Wojcikat the San Bernardino Sheriff’s crime lab. It can be used directlyon an aqueous sample of GHB (which usually is submitted as aliquid), requires only a very small amount of sample, is com-plete within 5 minutes and is specific to GHB. It does have thedrawback of interference from impurities in the sample, but atleast you know within 5 minutes that it isn’t working. Havingspent over an hour trying to obtain an FTIR spectrum on cer-tain samples, I know I prefer a 5 minute test. Several labs inCalifornia use crystal tests as their primary means of identifica-tion for certain drugs because of their high degree of accuracy.So far I have not found any other compounds that give thesame crystals with this reagent as GHB, so I have a good deal ofconfidence that it is a very accurate test.

I would encourage any scientists who have to workwith GHB to take some time and experiment with it to see ifyou can find more crystal tests for identification. Believe me,the time you take to develop them will be made up in theanalysis time saved. I will offer my time to coordinate researchefforts across several laboratories if necessary. Feel free tocontact me if you have any questions about GHB crystal tests.

—Kevin [email protected]

FEEDBACK, cont’d

9

amazon.com

see the reviews at www.calicopress.com

“. . . this is the best book I’veever seen on criminalistics. Itis a joy to read . . .”

—Dr. Walter C. McCroneAuthor, Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud

see the reviews at www.calicopress.com

��

��

Relating to trace evidence transfer:

Lawyer: “If the tip of an AVERAGE LENGTH penistouched the anus of another person, would you consider that“close contact”?

Criminalist: “Counselor, what you described would DE-FINE “close contact”!!

—Robert M. Thompson

* * *

Lawyer: “Do you only testify for the prosecution”?Criminalist: “Today I was called by the prostitution”

—Frank Healy

* * *

“After testifying for hours in a one room courthouse, thejudge, prosecutor and defense attorney thanked me for driv-ing such a long distance. . . as I exited the courtroom I realizedI had entered a broom closet.”

—Mike Waller

* * *

Lawyer: “Isn’t it true that handwriting identification isnot an exact science?”

Document Examiner: “Could you give me an example ofan exact science?”

Lawyer: “Mathematics for instance”Document Examiner: “Then sir, what is one apple plus

one orange?”—As told by Marty Blake about a colleague.

* * *

If YOU have a Courtroom Calamity to share (and thestatute of limitations has expired) please send them to:Nancy McCombs, Editor :[email protected]

Answers: (l-r, top) Paul Kirk, Emile M. Chamot, Charles C.Fulton. (l-r, bottom) Harold F. Schaeffer, Theodore Wormley,Walter C. McCrone.

FACE GAME


Focus onMicrocrystals

The uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our ownage and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that ac-count discredited. You must find out why it went out of date. Was it re-futed (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merelydie away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth orfalsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own ageis also a ‘period’, and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristicillusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions whichare so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessaryto defend them. —C. S. Lewis

The uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our ownage and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that ac-count discredited. You must find out why it went out of date. Was it re-futed (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merelydie away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth orfalsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own ageis also a ‘period’, and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristicillusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions whichare so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessaryto defend them. —C. S. Lewis

11

" �� This paper defends the use of microcrystal tests. Briefly

covered are the historical beginnings, the theory of reactionmechanisms, and the minimum required for documentation ofthe analyst’s observations for case notes followed by responsesto some of the objections raised by opponents of using micro-crystal tests for drug analysis. Whether examining crystals form-ing on a microscope slide or reading a spectrum, the analyst hasto be properly trained, actively thinking, and suitably moti-vated to obtain accurate results. As scientists, we should con-tinue the use of microcrystal testing as an analytical tool.

$��Recently there has been much discussion and misinfor-

mation about the use of micro-crystal tests or chemical micros-copy. Most of those disapproving of these tests show their ig-norance of chemistry, of the use of the tests, and of the philoso-phy behind their use.

Micro-crystal tests primarily involve precipitation reac-tions, something taught in many freshman level college courses.Chemical microscopists take the typical precipitation test onestep further by looking at the reaction product microscopicallyto obtain specific information about the species. For some un-known reason, looking at the reaction product has becomeforbidden. These same precipitation principles were used toextract drugs and chemicals from plants before World War II(Culbreth 1927), before instrumentation and synthetic chemis-try began in earnest. Chemical microscopy was used to assist inthe elucidation of structures of organic chemicals prior to thecommercial introduction of instrumentation. One need onlyexamine organic chemistry, pharmacology, and drug booksfrom the early part of the 20th century to prove that organicchemical structures were known. Even though instrumentswere being produced, Schneider (1964) in Qualitative OrganicMicroanalysis, referring to structural elucidation of truly un-known organic compounds, stated:

“In fact, as can be seen from the following pages,considerable time and work can be saved if a microscope isused. Its use is not restricted to identification of crystallineform but includes the observation and measurement of other

properties such as refractive index and extinction direc-tions. As investigation of the optical properties of variouscarbon compounds and their tabulation continues, theseproperties will become of greater importance in the identifi-cation of the compound and will permit further reduction inthe time required for identification.”

Precipitation reactions observed with the microscopebegan as early as 1742, when Henry Baker in The MicroscopeMade Easy discussed observing salts forming out of mineralwater (Fulton in Clarke 1961). Approximately 80 years later,FV Raspail is believed to be ‘the first’ to perform chemical mi-croscopy. In Europe, sometime between 1820 and 1830, chemi-cal microscopy for drugs and poisons began (Stewart & Stolman1961). Over the proceeding years, as alkaloids were discov-ered, methods of micro-chemical identification were developedfor their identification. One of the earliest books on chemicalmicroscopy in the United States, was the book by T.G. Wormley,Micro-chemistry of Poisons, published in 1857. There have beenmany books written or containing chapters about chemicalmicroscopy including Holland (1905), Stephenson (1921),Behrens-Kley (1922), Chamot & Mason (1940), Benedetti-Pichler(1964), and Fulton (1969). Journal articles concerning chemicalmicroscopy are too numerous to mention.

�� #�� Philosophically, there are two types of tests for un-

knowns. The first is to identify a compound “to discover thestructural formula of the unknown so that it becomes fullyknown”(Fulton 1969). Prior to the use of instrumental tech-niques, attempts at derivatization of the unknown then mea-suring various properties of the new material were performed(Behrens-Kley 1921, Schneider 1921). A chemical microscopistcould employ the microscope to obtain morphological, crystal-lographic, and optical properties of the material in addition todetermining if the unknown substance had polymorphic forms.If the derivatization was not successful, you ended with thestarting material and still gained useful information about theunknown material. The use of instrumentation to elucidate thestructure of a truly unknown compound often requires morethan one spectroscopic technique (IR, UV, NMR, XRD, and MS)contrary to the assertions of some that a single instrumentprintout is “structural elucidation”. Very rarely is the typicaldrug analyst engaged in the structural elucidation type of analy-sis. In fact, few crime laboratories have the instrumentationavailable to perform complete structural analysis on “un-known” compounds and few analysts have the background.

The second type of chemical identification “is simply toidentify an unknown as a chemical substance already known.This may be called ‘matching identification.’ It is this secondtype with which microcrystal tests…are concerned”, (Fulton1969). The analyst compares properties of the unknown againstthose of known compound(s). This type of analysis precisely

A Brief Background and Justificationfor the Continued Use of Microcrystal Tests

Wayne Moorehead, F-ABC

Wayne Moorehead has worked in the fieldof criminalistics for nearly 23 years withmany years analyzing drugs and usingchemical microscopy. He is certified as afellow with the American Board of Criminal-istics (ABC) in Drug Analysis and FireDebris Analysis.

The views presented are his alone anddo not reflect the views of his employers.


typifies the crime lab drug or trace evidence analyst’s job.

Published in 1961, Fulton admonishes in Clark: “A fundamental error, which seems to be prevalent

in modern “microchemistry”, is the idea that the micro-scope has value in chemistry only as an adjunct to proce-dures on a small scale. Actually, this is the least of its uses;and the early chemists, 200 to 100 years ago…had a muchbetter appreciation of its real value.”

Continuing, Fulton points out four uses of microscopy inchemistry:1) observing minute characteristics, regardless of the amount of

material available,2) observing characteristics not observed by the unmagnified

eye, altering light and compensators to observe various prop-erties,

3) “making identifications by microscopic observations and mi-crocrystal tests, for which the microscope is essential, againregardless of the amount of material present,” and

4) use of the microscope as an adjunct to micro scale procedures.

These are uses of the microscope that “modern chemicalscience seems to have forgotten, and which most modern chem-ists disregard or overlook” (Fulton in Clark 1961). How truenearly 40 years later!

Because the drug analyst confronts an impure solid sample,the microscope represents an ideal analytical tool, able to ana-lyze complex or impure samples. The matching type of analy-sis “has tremendous advantages in speed, simplicity, and di-rectness of proof but also takes in many kinds of tests thatwould not be fundamental to the structural type (of analysis).”Fulton (1969) continues that “as chemical (his emphasis) teststhey respond to certain kinds of substances but not to others,and often can be used in the presence of excipients, diluents,adulterants, and impurities to which they do not respond: butmore than mere detection by reason of some reaction, theygive distinguishable results.”

Seemingly, most newcomers to the field of forensic sci-ence (and criminalistics specifically) confuse the two types ofanalysis. Some of these individuals have thorough backgroundsin research but not much experience in the practical applicationof science in criminalistics. Another new concept to the novicein the criminalistics field is that an elimination can be as power-ful as an inclusion. The novice (even those with PhD’s) is oftenunaware that comparative identification, not research identifi-cation, accurately answers the questions posed to the criminal-ist. Similarly, while not new to the criminalist, certain techniquesare foreign to many in other sciences. Those in criminalisticswould not abandon firearms examinations, hair comparisons,or forensic document examination because they are not com-monly taught academically nor would criminalists end DNAanalysis because the function of the DNA used for analysis isnot completely understood. “Microchemical tests are excep-tionally good for court purposes, because they are as simpleand direct as tests can be… What sometimes seems to be over-looked or not realized as it should be, is that they are also bestfor chemical purposes” (Fulton in Clark 1961).

� �� The reactions occurring on a microscope slide are typical

of the chemistry of solutions of electrolytes or ions, also known

as precipitation reactions. These reactions are dependent onmany different factors. Among the various factors are the na-ture of the reaction product, its visibility, solubility product,quantity of material initially present, color of the reagent used,diffusion of reactants, separated zones of reactions (potentiallydifferent crystal forms observed), presence of electrolytes, hy-drogen ion concentration, colloidal properties, the procedureemployed introducing the two reactants, and other details thatmust be controlled, according to Rothemund in Hampel &Hawley (1973). For those interested in the specific theory ofionization, Svante Arrhenius wrote the first paper Uber die Dis-sociation der in Wasser gelosten Stoffe (On the Dissociation ofSubstances Dissolved in Water) in 1887. The non-German read-ing analyst could also read about the theory of ionization in agood book on qualitative analysis. The original theory “hasbeen modified, but the essential postulates remain and are morefirmly entrenched than ever in the structure of the science”(Meldrum & Flosdorf 1938).

� 5��6�#�� 2�� #��

OBJECTION-MYTH #1They are unpredictable, i.e. you cannot look at the re-

agent and the structure of the molecule and know what thecrystal form the reactant will have.

That is true, one cannot know ahead of time what theappearance of the crystal habit or form will be. This is an ad-vantage because microcrystal tests permit identification (orexclusion) of very closely configured molecules by precipitat-ing into vastly different crystal forms. The tests have been de-veloped to optimize the drug(s) of interest. Some drugs maynot precipitate, others may form apparent oil-drop-like amor-phous masses, while some drugs will precipitate out in charac-teristic crystal forms. Other optical properties of the crystalreaction products may be quickly determined, completing theidentification of isomer and analog compounds.

For instance, one can differentiate d from l and dl formsof a drug. This can be done quickly, accurately, and efficientlywith the microscope and microchemical tests.

We are using tests that have been shown through timeand scientific experimentation to be accurate for the drug speciesthey were designed to test. All of the testing has been done,contained in the literature of decades ago. We do not have to re-invent or re-prove microchemistry or that it is scientifically valid.

OBJECTION-MYTH #2Can you draw from memory the crystal reaction prod-

uct of gold chloride with d-amphetamine?No. Can you draw the MS or IR spectra of amphetamine

from memory? I recognize the crystal when I see it. If anydoubt exists, I perform a test with a known standard to refreshmy memory and compare against the unknown. If there wasany question about a spectrum, I would re-analyze a knownstandard with that instrument and compare the known spec-trum against the question spectrum. This is simply good scien-tific technique.

OBJECTION-MYTH #3Instrumentation is objective and microscopy is subjective.Some view microscopy as subjective and spectroscopy

as objective. Microscopy is as objective as spectroscopy or spec-


13

troscopy is as subjective as microscopy. Both the microscopistand spectroscopist view an item that possesses objective prop-erties. Each may ask someone else knowledgeable about thatsubject to view the item in question, to gain a second opinion orto peer review their work. Each analyst must then, based on hisor her examination of the item, make a decision as to the identifi-cation of the item. The decision process, whether crystallizationreaction occurs in a particular way on a microscope slide or aspectrum is obtained (projected on a CRT monitor or printedon paper), is the subjective factor for both methods. Some haveargued that because a computer may be involved, this rendersthe spectrum identification process somehow less subjective.Ultimately, the human analyst must reach a conclusion - not thecomputer. The human makes a subjective decision, regardless ofwhether they are a spectroscopist or a microscopist. If spec-troscopy is so objective, why do so many, who use spectros-copy, miss the CTS proficiency tests? (Nichols1997).

OBJECTION-MYTH #4Microcrystal tests have no print outs to peer review.

How can a reviewer know what you saw?That’s true, microcrystal tests have no print outs to peer

review. Unless the analyst has drawn a picture or made a writ-ten description of what they saw, there is no print out. Anargument has been made to photograph every microchemicaltest in the drug lab. Let’s examine this suggestion further. Firstwe determine the number of cases each day an analyst mightwork (10-40 per analyst). Multipy that number times the num-ber of analysts in the lab (two to twelve) times the number ofdays worked each year (approximately 220 – 20 days less than240 due to holidays, vacations, & sick leave), at nearly twodollars each for Polaroid, about a megabyte for TIF files, and 36exposure rolls developed at about ten dollars each (not to men-tion original film cost and development lag time), then add theoriginal cost for purchasing a camera system for each micro-scope, whether in film or electronic versions, this could be anexpensive proposition. Then there is the time factor. One of theadvantages of using microcrystal tests is the reduced analysistime per test. Waiting for the development of a roll of film andthen having to re-find each case to properly match and insertthe photograph to the case notes would take too long.

Why is the analyst’s notations or drawings of what theysaw so suspect? At what point do you not trust your analyst?• Did you trust that the description of the seal or evidence iscorrect?

• Is the weight correct (did they fudge a little bit on the “close”weight to make the enhancement weight or drop it below toavoid court)?

• Do they skim a little in each case to take home?• Did they count the drug money correctly, found with theduffel bags of drugs?

• Did they misrepresent the color test results?• Did they “dry lab” the weight and the color tests while hav-ing a standard spectrum already on the GC/MS of the ex-pected drug in the case? (It is of interest that the analystsrecently caught performing “dry lab” tests have been usinginstrumentation.)

If you can trust them to deal with these issues, the analystdescription or drawing of what they saw for their result shouldbe sufficient. If the analyst simply puts a check mark or “+” signfor their results, this would be insufficient for a description, in

this author’s opinion. The analyst should be providing accepteddescriptions of the crystals (Stewart & Stolman 1961, Fulton1969) or a ‘quick’ drawing of the observed crystal(s) should bein their notes. Use of a drawing or accepted terminology assistsa reviewer in understanding what you saw.

A photomicrograph of the ideal crystal form for eachmicrochemical reagent/drug combination analyzed in the labo-ratory should be available in a booklet, binder, hanging on thewall, or in the analyst’s training folder to serve as a reference.Reasonable drawings of the drug standard’s crystal form(s)may be substituted for a photomicrograph, though a photomi-crograph is the preferred document for comparison.

One alternative to photomicrographs, if drawings or de-scriptions were completely unacceptable, would be to use cam-era-to-printer technology. One would have to retro fit micro-scopes to include a video/digital camera and have the com-puter immediately print the image. Perhaps the imaging pro-gram would permit case number and other descriptors im-printed in the image (but this again slows analysis). The printerwould have to be detailed and fast (minimum 600dpi and print-ing a page in half a minute). Color printing is probably notnecessary to show the crystal form. This would be a less expen-sive alternative to photomicrographs.

OBJECTION-MYTH #5There’s no chemical analysis, you’re simply looking at it.The various microchemical tests comprise different chemi-

cal reagents, each formulated for the drug(s) of interest. Thesemicrochemical tests are true chemistry, performing actual chemi-cal reactions on a micro-scale and observing the reactionproduct(s) directly. You, the microscopist, become the analyti-cal instrument.

No one yet, not even scientists, has difficulty with a medi-cal technician, technologist, or pathologist’s ability to recognizeand identify stained organs, tissues, and disease states by use ofmorphological properties using brightfield microscopy. Often,these microscopists do not have the ability to examine the speci-men with various chemicals, other independent tests, or alter-ing the light (polarizing light and compensators) to gain moreinformation about the sample. By contrast, the forensic chem-ist, who analyzes a suspected drug sample with microcrystaltests and who performs several independent tests on the sampleusing a polarizing light microscope, has an advantage overtheir medical counterparts. The drug analysts have more toolsto examine their sample.

Humans can recognize thousands of items instantly, someslightly different from each other. Why not use this excellentskill for analytical work? For instance, try describing an auto-mobile or a telephone to someone. It is difficult to do and yetwe know one when we see one without performing instru-mental analysis.

OBJECTION-MYTH #6When I was in school, I did microchemical tests and

some reactant products looked nearly identical. Microcrystaltests aren’t any good because different chemicals can producethe same crystal form in different reagents.

To quote from Fulton (1969), “If the different crystals of twodifferent substances with two different reagents look alike (and per-haps even belong to the same crystal system), it does not matter in theleast. The fact that they are obtained with different reagents is anabsolute distinction in itself.”


One must remember that unlike an instrument wheretypically one thing is occurring (maybe two), many factorscome into play in acquiring the crystals. “It is only necessary tomake distinctions between different crystals formed with thesame reagent, and here the desired feature is that when givenby different substances, they should not look alike” Fulton(1969). Only when two substances give identical crystals fromthe reagent should there be concern.

Laboratories typically use formulations from publishedarticles concerning microcrystal tests. These tests have beenthoroughly researched and designed to optimize the reactionproduct for the drug(s) in question.

OBJECTION-MYTH #7Are crystal tests simply harder to learn?Harder to learn than what? They are not harder to learn

than any other common analytical test for people who havegraduated with a bachelor degree in a natural science and havestudied basic chemistry. As with all instrumentation, the ana-lyst, in their training, should examine a sufficient number ofstandards and read a sufficient amount of literature to be as-sured of the accuracy of the method or technique and its ad-vantages and disadvantages. They should have run a sufficientnumber of exhibits to know various aspects of the test.

The analyst invests a little more time in their training inthe beginning but saves many hours of time when analyzingcasework because the techniques are faster and as accurate asthe instrument. The microcrystal tests take much less time thaninstrumental methods.

An Exception: Individuals with ‘form blindness’ may havedifficulties using a microscope. They may not be able to seepatterns and details that the person without ‘form blindness’does. These individuals should not be using a microscope. In-deed, they probably shouldn’t be working in any analyticalarea involving pattern recognition – such as spectrum (IR, MS)or chromatogram (GC) comparisons. That is the only limita-tion, unless the analyst is unmotivated and not thinking aboutwhat they are doing.

OBJECTION-MYTH #8Should the training standards be more stringent when

crystal tests are the primary means of identification?The drug analyst using the crystal tests as their primary

identification should run a slightly larger number of drugs,adulterants, excipients, and diluents to show specificity thanthose who use it as a non-confirmatory, presumptive-like testand then use GC-MS or IR as the confirmatory test. The “crys-tal test only” analyst should be using a bank of color tests andno fewer than 2 crystal tests for identification.

The analyst in the trace evidence section should have athorough background in polarizing light microscopy and mi-crochemical techniques. When microchemical tests are per-formed on unknown samples, a standard of the suspected chemi-cal is run with the same reagent even when published literaturephotomicrographs are available. Because of the infrequency ofthese tests, as run by trace analysts, standards should be run torefresh one’s memory and be able to compare against the un-known. These two tests (questioned and standard) are typi-cally photographed for case notes; however, drawing the re-sults of the tests would be acceptable.

The analyst in training ought to have a mentor to assistthem in their acquisition of knowledge and skill of observation

when using the microscope and microcrystal tests. For “inmaking an identification one compares the crystals given by an‘unknown’ and a known. (However) this does not mean that acasual glance at each is sufficient: one must know how to ob-serve microcrystals understandingly and with attention to de-tail even for such comparisons” (Fulton 1969). Further, thementor can assist teaching proper descriptions of crystals byusing terms found in the literature.

OBJECTION-MYTH #9Microchemical tests cannot be used for every scheduled

drug. Therefore, the test should be abandoned.The first statement is true. Not every scheduled drug has

an associated crystal test (e.g. some steroids – a good projectfor someone), but microcrystal tests work for the cases thatoverwhelm most drug sections of crime laboratories: cocaine,methamphetamine, phencyclidine (PCP), and heroin. Druganalysts have used these tests successfully for years. In a retestof over 3,700 drug cases, where the microcrystal test was per-formed first, a conclusion reached, and then the case re-ana-lyzed by GC/MS, only one result was different by GC/MSfrom the microcrystal test – a result of sample handling errorgiving a negative result by GC/MS (Hourigan & Ascano 2000).

Quick and accurate analysis of the vast majority of drugcases can be performed using microcrystal tests, which satisfiesour clients, the narcotics investigators and attorneys. Becausethe MS cannot distinguish between certain types of compoundsshould we abandon its use? I think not. We use GC/MS for itsstrengths and find other techniques to use, where it is not ad-vantageous to use the instrument. The same analytical logicshould apply to microcrystal tests.

OBJECTION-MYTH #10How does one validate a method when the principle of

operation is unknown?Qualitative (micro-chemical) tests are governed by modi-

fications of the ionic theory of Arrhenius (Meldrum & Flosdorf,1938). See above for more information.

“Thus the ionic theory has become one of the principles in thestudy of qualitative analysis. It offers logical explanation for most ofthe procedures and observations. The student of qualitative analysiswho realizes that the ionic theory gives him almost certainly the actualpicture of what is happening, and who considers most carefully eachprocedure, test, and suggested precaution, from the standpoint of thetheory, is the one who will benefit most…” (Meldrum &Flosdorf,1938).

A practical example of the use of the precipitation reac-tion from the beginning of the 20th century was the extractionof tartaric acid from vegetables and fruits (Culbreth, 1927).Chemists knew potassium tartrate was soluble (that which camefrom the fruit and vegetables) but calcium tartrate was insolublein aqueous solution. After precipitating the potassium tartrateas the calcium salt, they poured off the liquid and the precipi-tate was washed and removed to another container. Combin-ing the precipitate with sulfuric acid, the calcium tartrate con-verted into tartaric acid with a by-product of calcium sulfate.The tartaric acid was soluble in water so they could separate itfrom the insoluble calcium sulfate. Real chemistry in action!

The empirical use of the precipitation reactions has oc-curred for about 170 years with the theory of ionization under-stood since at least the latter part of the 19th century. Two ions,one inorganic (reagent) and one organic (the drug), are intro-duced in solution. Several outcomes are possible: they may


15

stay in solution and not react, they may form amorphous prod-ucts, such as oily globs or they may may form a colloidal pre-cipitate (crystals too small to discern with the optical micro-scope) or begin to crystallize from solution. If the latter domi-nates, then as more ions add to the crystal, the crystal grows.Eventually the crystal form is observed with a microscope forcharacterization and identification. Usually, depending on theamount of starting material, hundreds to millions of crystalsgrow in the reaction mixture.

Typically, the tests employ an acid against a basic (alka-line) drug. These drugs “yield precipitates in the following ways:1) by reaction with basic reagents that precipitate the free base;2) by combination with oxygen acids belonging to Groups 4,5B, 6A, and 7 of the periodic table; 3) by halogenation; 4) byforming double or complex salts with certain metals of the B-groups of the periodic table; and 5) by uniting with organiccompounds, mostly acids” (Stewart & Stolman, 1961).

The fundamental crystal reaction mechanisms and crys-tal growth can be read in the crystallography sections of miner-alogy books or physical chemistry books, and can be found inbooks specific about crystal chemistry (Bunn 1945, Bloss 1971).

OBJECTION-MYTH #11An important part of any method validation is to un-

derstand why the method works, and then to test for possiblelimitations and interferences based on this understanding. Itis simply not feasible to test for all known chemicals.

While true not every compound in the world can betested, the same applies for nearly every analytical method, orinstrument. It was recently reported in the literature that phar-maceutical and biotechnology firms are synthesizing upwardsof 100,000 “new” compounds each year; fortunately, few ofthese ever leave their laboratories.

“However, the microcrystal tests are usually so highlycharacteristic, that two or three of them, even just using theordinary microscope, and making comparisons, as necessary,with a known sample, will often make an identification certain,without necessarily having or obtaining any other type of in-formation” (Fulton in Clark, 1961).

The Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC)in their Official Methods of Analysis, as of 2000, the 17th edition,contains methods for chemical microscopy. In the 15th edition,they devoted 8 pages to listing drugs and their crystal reagentswith the reagent formulas. The ASTM recently instituted guide-lines for performing microcrystal tests for certain drugs andthe SWGDRUG group accepted microcrystal tests as part of avalid scientific scheme for drug identification. Clearly, presti-gious scientific bodies still consider microcrystal tests as valu-able analytical tools for drugs.

��The mechanism of microcrystal tests are known and pub-

lished. The tests have been shown, overtime, to be scientificallyvalid, and their specificity has been documented. Criminalisticsremains an applied science not a science of theoretical research.Criminalists answer real world questions using comparative or“matching identification” in an accurate and timely manner forthe clients we serve. Most drug laboratories do not performtrue structural determinations, they perform “matching identi-fication” even when using GC-MS and it is misleading to stateotherwise. As determined over the last 150 years, microcrystaltests and precipitation reactions are scientifically valid, accu-

rate, and time efficient.At the end of the section of Qualitative Microscopy in

Hampel & Hawley, Rothemund points out what most booksomit from obtaining accurate analytical results, the differencebetween a good analyst and a poor analyst: “equally importantare the personal equation, and often the enthusiasm of theobserver.” Whether examining crystals forming on a micro-scope slide or reading a spectrum, the analyst has to be prop-erly trained, actively thinking, and suitably motivated to ob-tain accurate results. As scientists, we should continue the useof microcrystal tests as an analytical tool.

"��(I would like to thank Don Petka and Gary Gonzales for

recommending changes that made this paper more readable.

��Arrhenius S, Uber die Dissociation der in Wasser gelosten Stoffe,

Zeitschrift fur physikalische Chemie (1), 631, 1887Benedetti-Pichler AA, Identification of Materials via Physical

Properties, Chemical Tests, and Microscopy, Acad. Pr., 1964Behrens-Kley, P.D.C., Translated by Stevens, R.E.Bloss FD, Crystallography And Crystal Chemistry An Intro-

duction, Holt Rinehart, Winston 1971.Bunn CW, Chemical Crystallography An Introduction to Opti-

cal and X-ray Methods, Clarendon Press, 1945Chamot EM, Mason CW, Handbook of Chemical Microscopy,

John Wiley & Sons, 1940Cheronis ND (editor), Proceedings, 1961 – International Sym-

posium on Microchem. Tech., Interscience Publishers, 1961Clark GL (editor), The Encyclopedia of Microscopy, Reinhold

Publishing Corp., 1961ibid. Fulton CC pp 13 – 72.Culbreth DMR, A Manual of Materia Medica and Pharmacol-

ogy, Lea & Febiger, 1927Fulton CC, Modern Microcrystal Tests for Drugs – The Identifi-

cation of Organic Compounds by MicrocrystallographicChemistry, Wiley-Interscience, 1969

Hampel CA, Hawley GG (editors), The Encyclopedia of Chem-istry, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1973

Helrich K, Official Methods of Analysis of the Association ofOfficial Analytical Chemists, AOAC, 15th Ed., 1990

Holland JW, A Text-Book of Medical Chemistry and Toxicology,WB Saunders & Company, 1905

Horwitz W, Official Methods of Analysis of the Association ofOfficial Analytical Chemists, AOAC, 17th Ed., 2000

Hourigan J, Ascano MP, Microcrystal Test and Quality ControlProcedures Employed at the LAPD Narcotics Analysis Unit,Abstract from Proceedings of the American Academy ofForensic Sciences, Reno, Nevada, February, 2000

Meldrum WB, Flosdorf EW, Qualitative Analysis of InorganicMaterials, American Book Company, 1938

Nichols R, Science & Justice Vol. 37 #3, July-Sept. 1997, pp 191-196Schneider FL, Qualitative Organic Microanalysis: Cognition and

Recognition of Organic Compounds, Acad. Press, 1964Stephenson CH, Some Microchemical Tests for Alkaloids,

Lippincott, 1921Stewart CP, Stolman A (editors), Toxicology –Mechanisms and

Analytical Methods, Volume 2, Academic Press, 1961.Wormley TG, Micro-chemistry of Poisons, Lippincott, 1857,

1869, 1885


A Comment onSWGDRUG’s Proposal forMicrocrystal Testing

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Scien-tific Working Group on the Forensic Analysis of Drugs(SWGDRUG) Methods and Reports Subcommittee proposal.As currently written, we are OPPOSED to the proposal.

Among the missions assigned itself by SWGDRUG is “pro-viding guidelines for drug examinations and reporting” and“gaining international acceptance of SWGDRUG Standards.”The Methods and Reports Subcommittee’s mission is to “assessand evaluate available analytical methodologies and reportingmethods.” Ultimately the method must have as its goal theobtaining of the correct answer to the identification of a sus-pected controlled substance.

SWGDRUG in the most recent draft of the Methods andReports Committee has chosen to relegate microchemical/mi-crocrystal tests to the status of presumptive test, requiring, atleast in 2005, that an identification include analysis by gas chro-matography/mass spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, ornuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry. It is my understand-ing that the objections to microcrystal tests among SWGDRUGappointees include that they do not provide structural infor-mation and that the literature regarding microcrystal tests isold. We shall endeavor to put forward the reasons we believethat decision is incorrect.

1. “When it is not necessary to change it is necessarynot to change”1

There has been no evidence presented that microcrystaltests are inaccurate, that is that they are incapable of correctlyidentifying suspected controlled substances. Indeed, there isevidence that instrumental analysis produces more errors ofidentification than do microcrystal tests2.

2. Microcrystal tests are a validated method for the identifi-cation of controlled substances.

The Association of Official Agricultural, later the Associa-tion of Official Analytical Chemists, now simply JOAC Interna-tional, has published 16 editions of its Official Methods of Analy-sis3 commencing in 1916. Methods included in the AOAC’s Offi-cial Methods have been selected, developed or adapted by anAssociate Referee. The Associate Referee then develops the in-house validation data and collaborative study protocol. The Gen-eral Referee, Committee’s Statistics and Safety Advisors and theMethods Committee review the protocol. Only then is the methodsubmitted to inter-laboratory collaborators who have been re-cruited by the Associate Referee. The Associate Referee compilesthe data, evaluates the results, and writes the collaborative studyreport which is submitted to the General Referee and the Meth-ods Committee for technical review. The Official Methods Boardreviews all of this information and if acceptable it’s adopted asFirst Action, and published in The Referee and Journal of AOACInternational. Two years later, a method is eligible for adoptionas Final Action if no significant problems in the performance ofthe method have been received, the method is accepted by theGeneral Referee and affirmative vote by members of the AOAC.4

Method validation guidelines currently being taught bythe American Chemical Society include those derived fromAOAC.5

Microcrystal tests for the identification of drugs, includingcontrolled substances, have been subjected to these validationstudies for the following analytes: acetanilid6,7,acetphenetidin8,9, acetylsalicylic acid10, aconitine11

,amidopyrine12,13, amobarbital14,15, d-amphetamine16, d,l-amphet-amine17, amytal18, anabasine19, antipyrine20, apomorphine21,aprobarbital22, arecoline23, atropine24,25,26, barbital27,28, barbitu-rate and derivatives29, bemegride30, benzoic acid31, benzocaine32,benzylmorphine33, berberine34, brucine35, butabarbital36,butalbital37, butethal38, caffeine39,40,41, chinosol42, choline43, cin-chona44, cinchonidine45, cinchonine46, cinchophen47, cocaine48,49,codeine50,51,52, cotamine53, cyclobarbital54, cyclopal55,diallylbarbituric acid56, dinitrophenol57, dyphylline58, ephe-drine59,60, d,l-ephedrine61, epinephrine62, ethylhydrocupreine63,ethylmorphine64, heptabarbital65, heroin66,67, hexobarbital68,homatropine69,70, hydrastine71,72, hydromorphone73, hyoscine74,hyoscyamine75,76, isoproterenol77, lobeline78, mandelic acid79, d-methamphetamine80, d,l-methamphetamine81, methenamine82,metharbital83, morphine84,85,86, narceine87, narcotine88,neocinchophen89, nicotine90, papaverine91, pelleterine92, pento-barbital93, perphenazine94, phenmetrazine95, phenobarbital96,97,phenylmethylbarbituric acid98, phenylpropanolamine99, phys-ostigmine100,101, pilocarpine102, probarbital103, procaine104, promet-hazine105, pseudoephedrine106, pyridium107, quinidine108, qui-nine109, salicylic acid110, secobarbital111, sulfanilamide112, scopola-mine113, sparteine114, strychnine115,116, sulfadiazine117, sulfapyri-dine118, sulfathiazole119, talbutal120, theobromine121,122, theophyl-line123,124, triethanolamine125, thienylperazine126, trifluprom-azine127, vinbarbital128, vitamins129, yohimbine130

Microchemical tests are contained in Chapter 18 Drugs:Part I, Subchapter 10 Microchemical Tests:

Section 18.10.01 (Final Action), Alkaloids and RelatedAmines in Drugs incl. Table 930.40; microchemical tests for 38alkaloids

Section 18.10.02 (Final Action 1972) Barbiturates in Drugsincl. Table 962.21A; microchemical tests for 12 barbiturates

Section 18.10.03 (Final Action 1988), Phenothiazine Drugsincl. Table 985.44; microchemical tests for 3 synthetic drugs

Section 18.10.04 (Final Action 1970), SympathomimeticDrugs incl. Table 960.55; microchemical tests for 12 sympatho-mimetic drugs.

Section 18.10.05 (Final Action) Synthetic Drugs incl. Table962.21B incl. Table 962.21B; microchemical tests for 30 syntheticdrugs

Section 18.10.06 (Final Action 1992) Xanthine Group Al-kaloid Drugs incl. Table 962.21B incl. Table 960.56; microchemi-cal tests for 4 xanthine drugs

AOAC’s validated methods do NOT contain so manyvalidated methods for gas chromatography, infra-red spectro-photometry / spectrometry, mass spectrometry, nuclear mag-netic resonance spectrometry and so forth. I believe it is usualfor newer methods proposed for validation to be compared tothe older, previously validated methods. Based upon this, itwould appear to be GC, IR, MS, and NMR which need to provethemselves, rather than microcrystal tests.

Besides AOAC International, the American Society forTesting Materials (ASTM) Committee E-30 on Forensic Scienceshas recently adopted the Standard Guide for the Forensic Iden-tification of Amphetamine/Methamphetamine and the Stan-dard Guide for the Forensic Identification of Cocaine and hasbefore it a proposed Standard Guide for the Forensic Identifica-


17

tion of Phencyclidine and Its Analogs. No standard guides ormethods have been approved for GC, IR, MS or NMR.

There is nothing about microcrystal tests that are inher-ently incompatible with the Section 10, Validation and Verifica-tion of the SWGDRUG Quality Assurance Recommendations.

3. Structural Information“Crystal tests are largely empirical, that is, there is no

readily available theoretical explanation for the specificity ofthe tests.”131 Microcrystal tests do not give structural informa-tion in so far as one cannot look at a printed output and deducethe structure from that output. Indeed, instrumental techniquescan not either. For mass spectrometry and infra-red spectro-photometry/spectroscopy, few, if any, forensic scientists de-duce the structure from the output either. Rather, the analystcompares the instrumental output to one on file, or even morefrequently has the instrument’s computer algorithm comparethe results to that stored in the instrument’s library. These arecomparative methods. If the output/results do not favorablycompare to the laboratory’s file or library, no conclusion canreadily be drawn. Microcrystal tests, too, are comparative. Ifyou don’t know what the crystals indicate by looking at themor comparing them to a photomicrographic library, no conclu-sion can readily be drawn. IR and MS certainly do provide thepossibility of deducing some structural units and microcrystaltests admittedly do not.

Perhaps this is best stated by E. G. C. Clarke when hesaid, “The microcrystal test is unsuitable as a primary methodof identification of an unknown compound, as it does not lenditself to form the basis of an identification scheme. [emphasisadded]132 Microcrystal tests are rarely applied to completelyunknown compounds; appearance, color, smell, or prior testshave given the analyst information on a range of candidatecompounds; indeed no harm would be done by applying mi-crocrystal tests in this manner, but the analysis would be aseries of shots in the dark. The real value of a microcrystal test“is as a means of final identification to confirm a provisionaldiagnosis made from chromatographic or spectrophotometricevidence, its extreme simplicity, the rapidity with which it maybe performed, and its high degree of specificity, rendering itideal for this purpose.133

4. Microcrystal Tests are DatedMicrotechniques were included in the FBI/DEA Interna-

tional Symposium on the Forensic Aspects of Controlled Sub-stances in 1988.134 The Final Action taken by AOAC with re-spect to the xanthine alkaloids occurred in 1992. Microcrystaltests for drugs have been the subject of technical papers givenat recent meetings the Clandestine Laboratory InvestigatingChemists (CLIC)135 and the California Association ofCriminalists.136,137 They are being applied to new drugs as thosebecome of forensic interest, but if it comes to it, the bulk offorensic drug problems, too are dated. Amphetamine, cocaine,heroin, and methamphetamine have represented the bulk offorensic casework for some time. Microcrystal tests for thesedrugs have been around for some time as well.

5. DocumentationASLCD/LAB and good scientific practice requires docu-

mentation, not documents. There is simply nothing sacred orinfallible about an instrumental output. At least one core com-mittee member can relate a circumstance in a laboratory withwhich she is familiar in which the instrumental outputs were

present to document an analysis and indeed the analysis wasnot done. ASLCD/LAB has found it acceptable for a laboratoryto document what constitutes a positive by microcrystal test,without the need for further documentation beyond the indi-cation of “positive” in the analyst’s notes.138

There is nothing about microcrystal tests that are inher-ently incompatible with the Section 8.1, Casework Documenta-tion of the SWGDRUG Quality Assurance Recommendations.

6. Training“A skillful microscopist can identify many drugs solely

by the shape and color of their microcrystals. No other confir-mation is required by them. Because of recent improvementsin chemical instrumentation and the emphasis on training andeducation on these instruments coupled with the lack of avail-able training and education on microscope in universities to-day, identification by microcrystalline analysis is becoming lessoften used in the forensic science laboratory. This is indeedunfortunate because there are some situations where the mi-crocrystal test is still the single best test for characterizing somecontrolled substances.”139 These words of a core committeemember speak to the need for wider availability of training,NOT the need for abandonment or relegation of a techniquebecause many or most do not know how to employ it. Indeed,perhaps it would auger for those who employ microcrystaltests, including DEA’s master of microcrystal tests Joseph Koles,to ‘spread the word’ about this technique more so than IR, MS,or NMR which are the subject of a wide variety of universitycourses in instrumental analysis.

There is nothing about microcrystal tests that are inher-ently incompatible with the Section 9, Proficiency and Compe-tency Testing of the SWGDRUG Quality Assurance Recommen-dations.

7. International ConsiderationsThere certainly are places in the world in which the avail-

ability, quality and cost of supplies and services which those ofus in the ’developed’ world take for granted must be a prob-lem. The simple availability of reliable electrical power at rea-sonably constant voltage and analytical quality water cannotbe taken for granted in many parts of the world. A constantsupply of quality gases for GC, the availability of routine main-tenance supplies such as septa and vacuum pump oil, the costof maintenance and repair services for IR and MS instrumentsis not a trivial consideration in places here in the US, no less forthose in the Third World. To say forensic drug identificationscannot be effected without IR, MS or NMR is to deny some theability to perform these identifications. Microcrystal tests are,at least in this context, “low tech..” “Low tech” is NOT synony-mous with low quality.

8. EfficiencyWhile the primary imperative of forensic analysis of sus-

pected controlled substances is obtaining the correct result,surely we must also acknowledge that we must do so withinthe parameters set by the judicial system on timeliness and theparameters set by our employers and ultimately the taxpayerson expense.

Microcrystal tests certainly do NOT meet the require-ments of all laboratories, particularly those for whichquantitation is inherent in analyses. There are other laborato-ries for which the turn-around or case volume requirements oftheir client agencies, be they investigative, prosecutorial, or


judicial, have lead them to believe microcrystal tests are thebest method for them. The core committee members shouldnot universalize their own situations of turn-around or volumeto others, more than those who find microcrystal tests to fit ourneeds would require core committee members to employ mi-crocrystal tests in their laboratories.

9. The Last WordI shall leave the last word to Stuart Kind, “Although the

advance of technology has given the crime investigator ma-chine-assisted techniques which were not dreamed of 40 yearsago, it has also lead to the widespread attitude that all advance incrime investigation is dependent upon the advance of technol-ogy and the production of ‘guidelines.’ Training people to thinkis more difficult than training them to operate machines.”140

—Hiram K. Evans, M.Sc., F-ABCSupervising Criminalist

1 Lord Falkland as quoted by S. S. Kind in Sceptical Witness,Hodology Ltd., 1999, pg. 257.

2 Nichols, R., “Drug Proficiency Test False Positives: a Lack of Criti-cal Thought”, Science and Justice, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1997, pg. 191-196.

3 Cunniff, Patricia A. (ed.), Official Methods of Analysis of AOACInternational, 16th ed., AOAC International, Arlington, VA, 1995.

4 Cunniff, Patricia A. (ed.), Official Methods of Analysis of AOACInternational, 16th ed., AOAC International, Arlington, VA, 1995,pg. xxii.

5 “Methods Development, Validation Procedures, and ConformityAssessment in the Analytical Laboratory,” Pittcon 2000, March11-12, 2000.

6 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1935, pg. 524-525.7 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1936, pg. 514-515.8 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1935, pg. 524-525.9 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1936, pg. 514-515.10 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1938, pg. 525-529.11 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1931, pg. 317-319.12 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1934, pg. 435-437.13 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1935, pg. 524-525.14 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.15 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.16 Keenan, George L., JAOAC, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1942, pg. 830-832.17 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.18 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1937, pg. 553-553.19 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1937, pg. 551-553.20 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1934, pg. 435-437.21 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1937, pg. 551-553.22 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.23 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1931, pg. 317-319.24 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1929, pg. 312-317.25 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1931, pg. 317-319.26 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1935, pg. 521-523.27 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1937, pg. 553-553.28 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.29 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1935, pg. 524-525.30 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.31 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1938, pg. 525-529.32 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1933, pg. 391-394.33 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1938, pg. 525-529.34 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1939, pg. 706-709.35 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1930, pg. 315-318.36 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.37 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.38 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.39 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1930, pg. 315-318.40 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1936, pg. 512-514.41 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.42 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1933, pg. 391-394.

43 Keenan, George L., JAOAC, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1943, pg. 96-99.44 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1929, pg. 282-285.45 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1929, pg. 282-285.46 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1929, pg. 282-285.47 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1933, pg. 391-394.48 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1927, pg. 370-374.49 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 11. No. 3, 1928 pg. 353-355.50 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1921, pg. 150-155.51 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1927, pg. 370-374.52 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 11. 3 1928 pg. 353-355.53 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1939, pg. 706-709.54 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.55 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.56 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1939, pg. 709-712.57 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1935, pg. 521-523.58 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.59 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1930, pg. 315-318.60 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.61 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.62 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.63 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1931, pg. 317-319.64 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1938, pg. 525-529.65 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.66 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1921, pg. 150-155.67 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1927, pg. 370-374.68 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.69 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1934, pg. 433-434.70 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1935, pg. 521-523.71 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1937, pg. 551-553.72 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1938, pg. 525-529.73 Keenan, George L., JAOAC, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1941, pg. 830-833.74 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1934, pg. 433-434.75 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1934, pg. 433-434.76 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1935, pg. 521-523.77 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.78 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1933, pg. 345-34679 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1939, pg. 709-712.80 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.81 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.82 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1934, pg. 435-437.83 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.84 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1921, pg. 150-155.85 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1927, pg. 370-374.86 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 11. 3 1928 pg. 353-355.87 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1939, pg. 706-709.88 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1939, pg. 706-709.89 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1936, pg. 514-515.90 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1933, pg. 345-34691 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1934, pg. 433-434.92 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1937, pg. 551-553.93 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.94 JAOAC, Vol. 68, 1985, pg. 527.95 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.96 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1937, pg. 553-553.97 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.98 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.99 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.100 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1931, pg. 317-319.101 Keenan, George L., JAOAC, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1941, pg. 830-833.102 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1931, pg. 317-319.103 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.104 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1934, pg. 433-434.105 JAOAC, Vol. 68, 1985, pg. 527.106 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.107 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1933, pg. 391-394.108 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1929, pg. 282-285.109 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1929, pg. 282-285.110 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1935, pg. 521-523.111 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.112 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1939, pg. 709-712.113 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1935, pg. 521-523.


19

114 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1933, pg. 345-346.115 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1927, pg. 370-374.116 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 11. 3 1928 pg. 353-355.117 Keenan, George L., JAOAC, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1943, pg. 96-99.118 Keenan, George L., JAOAC, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1941, pg. 830-833.119 Keenan, George L., JAOAC, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1942, pg. 830-832.120 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.121 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1936, pg. 512-514.122 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.123 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1936, pg. 512-514.124 Fulton, C. C., JAOAC, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1960, pg. 262-271.125 Shupe, Irwin S., JAOAC, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1934, pg. 435-437.126 JAOAC, Vol. 68, 1985, pg. 527.127 JAOAC, Vol. 68, 1985, pg. 527.128 JAOAC, Vol. 45, 1962, pg. 600.129 Keenan, George L., JAOAC, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1943, pg. 514-99.130 Glycart, C. K., JAOAC, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1931, pg. 317-319.131 Canaff, R. F., “ Basic Training Course for Forensic Drug Chem-

ists, Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics and DangerousDrugs, Washington, D.C., 1972, pg. 23,

132 Clarke, E. G. C., Isolation and Identification of Drugs, ThePharmaceutical Press, London, 1969, pg. 135.

133 Clarke, E. G. C., Isolation and Identification of Drugs, ThePharmaceutical Press, London, 1969, pg. 135.

134 Koles, Joseph E., The Use of Microtechniques for the Examina-tion of Drug Samples, Proceedings of the International Symposiumon the Forensic Aspects of Controlled Substances, Forensic ScienceResearch and Training Center, Quantico, VA, March 28-April 1,1988, pg. 14.

135 Andera, K. M., Evans, H. K., and Wojcik, C M., MicrochemicalIdentification of Gamma-Hydroxy-Butyrate (GHB), CLIC,Toronto, ONT, Sept., 1999.

136 Ascano, R. and Hourigan, J., “Microcrystal Test and QualityControl Procedures Employed at the Los Angeles Police Depart-ment Narcotics Analysis Unit,”, CAC, Ontario, CA, Oct., 1999.

137 Thompson, J., “Steroid Identification via Microcrystalline Tests,”CAC, Ontario, CA, Oct. 1999.

138 Gibbons, M., Letter to SWGDRUG; January 14, 2000.139 Siegel, J, A., “Forensic Identification of Controlled Substances,”

in Saferstein, Richard (ed.), Forensic Science Handbook, VolumeII, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988, pg. 81.

140 Kind, S. S., Sceptical Witness, Hodology Ltd., 1999, pg. 142.

Drug and Microcrystal Testsfor Forensic DrugIdentificationHiram K. EvansSan Bernardino County Sheriffs Department9500 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739

The Technical Working Group on Forensic Drug Analysisformed in 1977 was recently re-named the Scientific WorkingGroup, changing from TWGDRUG to SWGDRUG. The missionis to promote professional development in forensic drug analy-sis, provide a means of information exchange within the foren-sic science community, provide guidelines for drug examina-tions and reporting, perform collaborative exercises, specifyrequirements for analysts knowledge, skills, and abilities, es-tablish quality assurance guidelines, and gain international ac-ceptance of SWGDRUG standards.

The committee was apparently selected by the Drug En-forcement Administration (DEA) and consists of five represen-tatives of DEA, along with representatives from FBI, American

Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD), ASCLD/LAB,Illinois State Police Laboratory, California Department of Jus-tice Laboratory, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Labo-ratory, Virginia Division of Forensic Science, Michigan StateUniversity, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),UK Forensic Science Service, Netherlands Ministry of Justice,Health Canada, Australian Federal Drug Laboratory, JapaneseNational Institute of Police Science, Budeskrim-inalamt, andUN International Drug Control.

Subcommittees were formed on Education and Training,Methods and Reports, Quality Assurance, and Communica-tions requiring a 2/3 majority of members (absentee ballotsincluded) to move a recommendation to the core committeeand a 2/3 majority of the core committee (excluding absentees)required to determine policy. At a presentation at the Interna-tional Association of Forensic Sciences meeting in Los Angelesin September, SWGDRUG announced their intention to havetheir recommendations adopted by forensic accrediting bodiessuch as ASCLD/LAB.

The Methods and Reports Subcommittee conducted asurvey, by Internet and publication in January 1998 issue ofMicrogram, of methods used by laboratories to identify con-trolled substances. Based on the survey, review of CTS profi-ciency data, and forensic literature, the subcommittee created aproposal that included multiple TLC systems and microcrystaltests. In February 1999, this proposal was rejected by the corecommittee. Indirectly, the subcommittee was asked to producea document with IR or GC/MS as a requirement for a forensicidentification, but no definition of the term forensic identifica-tion was provided to the committee, nor could a clarification ofthe term be obtained.

Two revised proposals were created; both would re-quire the use of NMR, IR, or MS for the forensic identificationof a controlled substance. The first proposal would institutethis requirement upon adoption; the second would allow a 5-year grace period during which laboratories, that do not cur-rently meet the requirements, could move to do so. It is thelatter proposal that is before the core committee for adoptionat its meeting to be held in conjunction with the AmericanAcademy of Forensic Sciences meeting in Reno, NV next Feb-ruary. The core committee appears to believe that based uponreviewability, lack of correlation of results to molecular struc-ture, the lack of recent publications in the area, and the age ofthe technique, that microcrystal tests will no longer be ap-proved as a means of identification of controlled substances.None of the laboratories represented on the core committeeuses multiple TLC or microcrystal tests as their means of iden-tification and some of the core committee members have nevertried microcrystal tests.

For those of us who routinely use microcrystal tests as asignificant part of our identification of routinely encounteredcontrolled substances, this challenge is significant both to ourability to rapidly produce results for our client agencies and thecourts and in maintaining ASLCD/LAB accreditation. I encour-age interested parties to contact members of the core commit-tee, who are listed at SWGDRUGs web: http://users.erols,com/scitechz/twgroster.html or members of the ASCLD/LAB del-egate assembly to whom this issue will be brought.

For a discussion of publication in this area, see INTER/MICRO-99; Microscope, 1999, 47, 102.

This article first appeared in the Microscope, Vol 47:3147(1999). Reprinted here by permission of the publisher and author.



Comments on the Proposal forQuality Assurance in ForensicDrug Analysis. An Open Letter toSWGDRUG by Gary Sorgen

I have some comments on the proposed guidelines forforensic drug analysis. For those who don’t know me, I’ll givea brief personal background. I graduated from California StateUniversity in Sacramento with a bachelor’s degree in chemis-try 34 years ago. After graduating, I worked for the US Foodand Drug Administration as an analytical chemist for 4 years. Ithen transferred to the US Department of Justice, Bureau ofNarcotics and Dangerous Drugs/ Drug Enforcement Adminis-tration, where I have worked for 30 years as a forensic chemist.

At the FDA there were many official methods of analysis.The methods were old and relied heavily on elaborate wetchemistry cleanups and UV/VIS assays. Identifications weredone by a combination of color tests, chromatography, crystaltests etc. There was an infrared spectrophotometer, but it wasseldom used for identification. There was also a great emphasison the number of exhibits analyzed. One consequence was thatthey had little confidence in the analytical results so the occa-sional sample found to be in violation had to be retested - not aviable process for our type of work.

When I transferred into forensic work, there were norules of analysis, written or otherwise. What we did have werethe best available instruments, time, and freedom to experi-ment. There were two types of qualitative methods in use, thenon-specific tests that were used in combination and IR analy-sis. Quantitation methods were done mainly by wet chemistrycleanups and UV analysis. The methods in use came mainlyfrom the chemists who had worked for the Treasury Depart-ment analyzing narcotics, and the FDA chemists supplied meth-ods for the pharmaceuticals and hallucinogens. There weremany lively discussions on methods of analysis. All this was tothe good. It forced us all to evaluate our methods of analysis. Irecall no such discussions at FDA with its official methods. Theother major problem at the FDA was the lack of modern instru-mentation.

I agree with most of your guidelines for quality assur-ance and I’m encouraged that there is interest in improving thescience in forensic drug work. I’m discouraged, as I am sureyou are, in the slow pace of bringing all forensic laboratoriesinto the 21st century. However, I have some problems withyour minimum standards of analysis. I’m sure your intentionsare to improve the overall quality of forensic drug analysis, butI would like to point out some problems and unintended con-sequences of your guidelines.

SWGDRUG Example #1: An unknown powder givespositive results for cocaine using the following methods:

Option #1 Cobalt Thiocyanate Spot Test: (Category C)Acceptable today FTIR Analysis: (Category A) and after 1/1/2005 Result Cocaine Identified

Option #2 Cobalt Thiocyanate Spot Test: (Category C)GC Analysis: (Category B) Acceptable today, but TLC Analysis:(Category B) not after 1/1/2005 Result Cocaine Identified

First I have to comment on the use of “FTIR.” While ithas not much to do with the present subject, FTIR spectra is nomore specific or has any advantage over dispersive IR spectra.

In fact they should be essentially the same. This is almost liketelling you what brand of spectrometer to use. You don’t usethe term quadrupole MS, where the type of mass spectrometerdoes make a difference in the spectra. You do not, and correctlyso, use FTNMR.

Option #1 of your example #1 is a typical forensic analy-sis. First you do a screening color test, then an IR. Suppose youstart screening your sample by running a direct IR as several ofour chemists do, and suppose the spectrum appears to be amixture of cocaine and mannitol. After a simple extraction,another IR is run of the organic solvent solubles, which turnsout to be pure cocaine hydrochloride. Would a color test berequired for identification? Now suppose that the first screen-ing IR was pure cocaine hydrochloride. Would I then be re-quired to run a cobalt thiocyanate color test after the IR? Is anycobalt thiocyanate reagent acceptable, even the ones that turnblue with all the common caines? The color test, in this ex-ample, adds nothing to the quality of this identification.

SWGDRUG Example #2: An unknown liquid is suspectedto contain diazepam. Positive results for diazepam are ob-tained by the following techniques:

Option #1 TLC Analysis: (Category B) Acceptable today,but HPLC/DAD Analysis: (Categories B + C) not after 1/1/2005 Result Diazepam Identified

Option #2 TLC Analysis: (Category B) Acceptable todayLC/MS Analysis: (Categories B + A) and after 1/1/2005 ResultDiazepam Identified

I assume in option #2 that a separate category B test andan MS would be acceptable in your proposal, but not just LC/MS. Since this is a liquid, is it necessary to do two separatesamplings? I’m not sure why you think that two separate sam-plings are necessary for any sample, although I can think oftwo possible reasons. One, when you are doing lots of exhibitsat the same time, you may mix up exhibits. The second reasonwould be in any multiple step method there is a chance ofcontamination. One of the reasons I prefer to start with testslike direct IR and NMR is they are simple, keeping the prob-lems of multiple exhibits and contamination possibilities to aminimum.

SWGDRUG Example #3: An unknown powder tests posi-tive for methamphetamine by the following methods:

Option #1 Marquis Spot Test: (Category C) Acceptabletoday GC/MS Analysis: (Categories B + A) and after 1/1/2005Result Methamphetamine Identified

Option #2 Marquis Spot Test: (Category C) TLC Analysis:(Category B) Acceptable today, but Microcrystalline Test: (Cat-egory B) not after 1/1/2005 Result Methamphetamine Identi-fied

I think both options in example #2 are poor ones to chose.Methamphetamine is a good example of a compound whereMS is the method of last resort due to methamphetamine’spoor spectrum and similar spectra of other compounds. Whenyou use the term GC/MS are you saying that one must use theretention time as part of the criteria? If not, you should list MSonly. Of course in the case of methamphetamine, the retentiontime is much more important since the spectrum alone is notsufficient. Either way the color test supplies very little informa-tion to the identification. Ask yourself, if I did the tests in thereverse order, GC/MS first, would I then run a Marquis colortest? If you wouldn’t, and I certainly wouldn’t, then the colortest should not be considered part of the identification. I ana-lyze all powder samples by running a direct IR. If the powderturned out to be pure methamphetamine hydrochloride, then

21

I would consider it laughable that I would then have to run aMarquis color test to prove that the powder was methamphet-amine hydrochloride.

I was trained in how to do microcrystalline tests. I didn’tuse microcrystalline tests because I thought they were not veryuniversal. That is, each drug had its own separate reagent/test.My only other option at the time was IR analysis. I personallybelieved then and now that IR was a much more powerfulmethod. It often requires more time than microcrystalline tests,but time was not an issue back then so I used the more specifictest. Even so, I doubt there were many misidentifications usingmicrocrystalline tests because they could only be used on com-mon drugs. I would also bet that more drugs have beenmisidentified using MS than microcrystalline tests. My experi-ence with those who did microcrystalline tests was that theywere conservative in identifying drugs. They were much morelikely to not identify a drug that was there, than to identify adrug that wasn’t there, which can’t be said about MS users.

My experience with MS goes back a long way. In theearly 70s I was enthusiastic about getting a GC/MS for thelaboratory. I was given the task of evaluating the relativelyinexpensive mass spectrometers for DEA. It seemed at the timeto be a boon to the identification of controlled substances. How-ever, my conclusion was that GC/MS was not as accurate inidentifying compounds as IR. A number of papers were pub-lished that were nothing more than running the drug on theGC/MS and stating that this was an absolutely conclusive test.I don’t see where this kind of paper is of any more use than amicrocrystalline paper that does the same thing. Just becauseone gives some structural details does not make it specific. Oneof the great dangers of all tests is that they tend to be oversold.This is particularly true of MS because of its frequent use due toits speed, ease of use, and great sensitivity. Most chemists arenot trained in the problems of mass spectra. Identifying a com-pound like heroin is easy for both microcrystalline tests andMS, but a contributing factor to the identification is that thelikelihood of finding a structurally similar compound is remoteto say the least. The microcrystalline chemist would not at-tempt to identify other drugs that they see infrequently, whilethe MS chemist will gladly attempt to identify compounds likethe fentanyls. The fentanyls have two major problems. One isthat they are synthetic, which means that all combinations ofstructurally related compounds are a good possibility. Secondthey have structural isomers that tend to give spectra that canbe “virtually” the same. So while MS can identify heroin (bydefault) it has severe limitations for some compounds. On theother hand MS readily distinguishes between steroids with verysimilar IR spectra. This committee, and others, tells chemiststhat MS is specific, which might lead to chemists being less thancautions.. This laboratory had many discussions on MS, in par-ticular phenethylamine compounds like methamphetamine.However, even the strongest proponent of MS, started usingGC/IR for methamphetamine when the instruments becameavailable. Which tells us two things, analysts need the peerreview discussions and also need the instruments to do a betteranalysis. No method is perfect for all drugs and to pick one testfrom column A and one from B approach tends to indicate thatthis approach will work no matter which tests are picked.

SWGDRUG Example #4: An exhibit (suspected to becannabis) tests positive for cannabis by the following tech-niques:

Option #1 - Observable botanical features Macroscopic

Examination: (Category B) Microscopic Analysis: (Category B)Acceptable today Duquenois-Levine Analysis: (Category C)and after 1/1/2005 Result Cannabis Identified

Option #2 - No sufficient observable botanical featuresDuquenois-Levine Analysis: (Category C) Acceptable todayGC-MS Analysis (for THC): (Categories B + A) and after 1/1/2005 Result THC Identified

Example #4, when applied to sinsemilla marijuana, maycorrectly identify the material as marijuana but it would bepoor science. Sinsemilla often has little detectable THC sincethe “THC” found is actually THC Acid until it decarboxyates inthe GC/MS. Sinsemilla usually has a non-typical marijuana ap-pearance which makes microscopic identification difficult. Yet,if the listed tests were followed, the forensic chemist wouldconclude that there was lots of THC in the sample. While thismay be of no consequence as far as the law is concerned, it isvery poor science. A proper analysis would include a simpleTLC system that would show that the marijuana consisted ofhuge amounts of THC Acid and little or no THC. This is an-other case where GC/MC gives the wrong answer.

The color test, Duquenois-Levine, seems to be the mostimportant test. This example #4, and others examples I haveseen, seem to require that it must be run in order to identifymarijuana, which seems very odd considering that it is just acolor test and of limited use in structure elucidation. I am alsosurprised in the use of Duquenois-Levine and not the morespecific Modified Duquenois-Levine. My suggestion would beto drop D/L and add TLC with color visualization. It’s hard toimagine any argument that would conclude that the D/L is abetter test than TLC, which includes a color test with a varietyof spots and colors. Of all the tests commonly run on mari-juana, Duquenois-Levine is by far the least informative.

I strongly dislike this method of taking one test from A,plus B and C etc. This method seems to imply that if one fol-lowed these cookbook rules you could identify anything withno thinking involved. There are no methods that don’t havetheir weaknesses. It may seem that I am picking on MS. This isbecause GC/MS will be the method that replaces microcrystal-line tests in most laboratories in order to continue the practiceof doing large numbers of samples rapidly. No thinking will beinvolved and errors will follow. Many labs will have a singleperson actually run the instrument increasing the possibility ofmixing up samples.

I think your attempts to raise the quality of drug analysisare going to have some bad unintended consequences. I par-ticularly think that having managers decide what minimumtests are required, and requiring a minimum number of exhib-its be analyzed, will force the analysts into using the minimumnumber of tests required even in cases where these tests arenot sufficient for a correct identification. It will be difficult tokeep our best analysts interested in their work and the overallcompetence will decrease. Technicians will replace scientists, ifnot in name then in deed.

My recommendation to you managers is to make surethat analysts have the equipment and time to use them. I woulddowngrade any laboratory that did not have the proper equip-ment as unacceptable, and I would consider it unacceptable if alaboratory had shop times for each type of exhibit or requireda certain number of exhibits be analyzed. It takes time to dogood work. While managers should have some knowledge inscience, they should not be deciding how an analysis should bedone. If you hire scientists, give then the time, equipment, andproper training, then you will have a great improvement in


forensic science. You can’t mandate good science by making upa bunch of ‘no thinking required’ rules. Certainly, good sciencecomes from the scientific process and not from a managersoffice. Managers are pressured for more exhibits done with theleast amount of money spent. It is your job to make sure thatthe analysts have what they need to do the best analysis.

SWGDRUG Guidelines andMicrocrystalline TestsAn Open Internal Memo

The San Diego County Sheriff’s Crime Laboratory hasused microcrystalline tests as a part of its routine drug analysisscheme for more than 25 years. This analytical technique haswithstood Kelley-Frye court challenges and has been acceptedby the courts in San Diego County.

Microcrystal testing is a tried and true method for theidentification of certain controlled substances. It is by no meansthe only method of examination and identification available,and no criminalist assigned to the Controlled Substances Analy-sis Section is forced to use this technique. Its use, however, is anintegral part of the full training protocol used at the San DiegoSheriff’s Crime Lab and each analyst has it as an option to beused, if desired, in their arsenal of analytical techniques. Eachcontrolled substances criminalist becomes proficient in microc-rystalline techniques and mastery of the techniques is demon-strated through proficiency testing and qualifying samples.

The technique is expedient, inexpensive, and verifiable.“The crystal, or microcrystal, test is one of the oldest, the sim-plest, and the most sensitive tests used in toxicology. Althoughnowadays it has fallen into disfavor and been very largely re-placed by instrumental methods, it remains of considerablevalue for confirmatory purposes.” (Isolation and Identificationof Drugs by E.G.C. Clarke). A San Diego Sheriff’s Lab criminal-ist was not convinced about the reliability of the microcrystal-line testing having come from a 29 year career as a toxicologistwhere GCMS was the standard. After the standard controlledsubstances training, this individual embarked on a project todisprove the crystal tests. The analyst, for a period of approxi-mately 3 months, ran every sample on the GCMS in addition tothe crystal tests. At the end of this project the analyst chosemicrocrystal tests over the GCMS for most routine analyses.Another SDSO Lab criminalist has been doing parallel analysesof routine cases by microcrystalline testing and GCMS. For 3years this criminalist has been conducting microcrystal testsfirst followed by GCMS. No sample has been misidentified,and he has discovered that some samples are easier to identifyby microcrystal testing than by GCMS. Actually this justifiesthe use of GCMS as a confirmation method by comparing it toa completely validated method-microcrystal tests.

“...the microcrystal is of little use in the general search foran unknown drug. Its value comes later, particularly indifferentiating between compounds of very similar consti-

tution, when the field has been considerably narrowed bychromatographic or spectrophotometric screening.” Isola-tion and Identification of Drugs by E.G.C. Clarke.

Microcrystal tests were not designed for analysis of acomplete unknown. The value of an FTIR or GCMS examina-tion of a complete unknown yields data that points a chemisttowards a possible identification. Every technique has valuedepending upon the sample, the chemist’s experience, and thecomfort level using a particular method. There are many roadsavailable to reach the same destination.

Several areas of the SWGDRUG Methods and ReportsSubcommittee Minimum Recommended Analytical Scheme forForensic Drug Identification reference “structural information”or “structural elucidation” techniques. Realistically, very fewcriminalists employ “structural elucidation” when identifyingand confirming the presence of a controlled substance. Thetrue method of identification when using MS or IR is patternrecognition. The identification is made by a library search of adatabase, comparison to literature, or by running a standardcompound under the same conditions as the unknown andcomparing the resultant pattern. If it is truly “structural eluci-dation” then reference materials are unnecessary as the analystshould be able to identify the compound by evaluating theresulting spectrum alone instead of comparing it to a knownstandard. The microcrystal test is the same as pattern recogni-tion in that “identification being achieved by comparing themicroscopic appearance of the crystals formed when the testsolution is mixed with a certain reagent with those formedwhen the same reagent is mixed with a solution of a knownsubstance.” (Isolation and Identification of Drugs by E.G.C.Clarke). This pattern recognition technique is no different thanwhat most criminalists do with GCMS and FTIR spectra.

Results of microcrystal tests can be reviewed by manydifferent means including photography, written description,drawing, or comparison to a standard. If “dry-labbing” is aconcern, and one has the inclination, it is a very simple process tofalsely generate a hard copy of any analytical result. The onlyanswer to this is through blind proficiency testing and trust inyour analysts. We whole heartedly agree with Section A.4. forMinium Training Requirements for a Laboratory Analyst whichstates that a “Verification document demonstrating that the traineehas achieved the desired competence per specific topic area.”Not only does this mean demonstration of proficiency throughtraining in microcrystalline techniques and identification but train-ing regarding the ethical obligations of the criminalist to be unbi-ased and honest in their examinations. Granted, microcrystaltests have limitations just as any analytical technique does. Thereare times and places for different methods to be used based onthe knowledge, training, and experience of the criminalist. Thisis the essence of criminalistics-evaluating the evidence and choos-ing the appropriate method of analysis and confirmation basedon training and experience. A drug chemist must be trained torecognize anomalies in resultant crystals just as the chemist mustrecognize anomalies in IR or MS spectra. This, again, comesdown to competent training in an analytical technique. “...thedegree of reliance that can be ascribed to this test (resultantmicrocrystals) depends heavily on the skill and experience inmicroscopy possessed by the analyst. A skillful microscopist canidentify many drugs solely by the shape and color of their micro-crystals. No other confirmation is required by them. Because ofrecent improvements in chemical instrumentation and the em-phasis on training and education on these instruments coupled


23

with the lack of available training on the microscope in universi-ties today, identification of drugs by microcrystalline analysis isbecoming less often used in the forensic science laboratory. Thisis indeed unfortunate because there are some situations wherethe microcrystal test is still the single best test for characterizingsome controlled substances.” (Forensic Science Handbook, Vol-ume II edited by Richard Saferstein). “Over the years, analystshave developed hundreds of crystal tests to characterize themost commonly abused drugs. These tests are rapid and oftendo not require the isolation of a drug from its diluents; howeverbecause diluents can sometimes alter or modify the shape of thecrystal, the examiner must develop experience in interpretingthe results of the test.” (Criminalistics, An Introduction to Fo-rensic Science 4th Edition by Richard Saferstein). The value ofadequate training cannot be overly emphasized. As in any tech-nique, training is critical to its success as well as recognizing itslimitations as an analytical tool.

Microcrystalline techniques have been around for yearsand are still a staple in many forensic labs. They are fast, inex-pensive, and quite reliable. Although instrumentation has cometo the fore front of analytical methods, older, established tech-niques are still reliable and are not obsolete. There has been nodata or proof generated to indicate that microcrystalline analysisis not a valid technique. Truth be told, quite to the contrary. TheAOAC in its Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International,16th Edition continues to include microcrystal tests. In addition,the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) E-30 Com-mittee on Forensic Sciences has adopted microcrystal methodsfor amphetamine, methamphetamine, and cocaine and has allbut officially accepted phencyclidine and its analogs.

“It is important to note that most color and crystal testsare largely empirical-that is, scientists do not fully understand

why they produce the results that they do. From the forensicchemist’s point of view, this is not important. The fact is thatwhen the tests are properly chosen and are used in proper com-bination, their results constitute an analytical scheme that is char-acteristic for one and only one drug.” (Criminalistics, An Intro-duction to Forensic Science 4th Edition by Richard Saferstein).The key to a successful identification by microcrystalline analysisis the training of the chemist by competent trainers and theexhibition of competency through qualifying samples and con-tinued monitoring through a competent proficiency program.

When referring to his work on the Shroud of Turin andsubsequent confirmation by carbon dating 10 years after hisoriginal conclusion about the age of the Shroud, Dr. WalterMcCrone said, “I’m pleased that the conclusion was first reachedthrough use of an analytical instrument nearly as old (about1590) as the Turin “Shroud” (1355)-the light microscope. Thisshould help convince scientists everywhere that this almostuniversally neglected analytical tool can compete successfullywith modern space-age instruments and techniques and oftenbeat them at their own game.” (Judgement Day for the TurinShroud by Walter McCrone). This easily applies to drug micro-crystal examination. Old does not mean obsolete.

Competent examiners must be allowed the continueduse of this valuable analytical method and the members of theControlled Substances Analysis Section support this position.The San Diego Sheriff’s Crime Laboratory will continue to en-dorse the use of microcrystalline analysis for drug identifica-tion and strongly urges SWGDRUG to re-examine its stance onthe eventual demise of this technique.

—Marty FinkSupervising Criminalist-Controlled Substances Section

San Diego Sheriff’s Crime Laboratory

1"�� ""'�Above is a portion of the poster prepared by Supervising Criminalist Joe Hourigan and Criminalist MariaAscano of the Los Angeles Police Dept. Crime Lab. The display was presented at the poster session of theAmerican Academy of Forensic Sciences in February, 2000 in Reno, Nevada.


The Scientist 14[6]:35, Mar. 20, 2000

OPINIONCourt-Appointed ExpertWitnesses: Gambit for ControlBy Rod Taber, PhD

Some elements of the legal community suggest that the cure for biased andgreedy expert witnesses is the court appointment of experts as in Europe. Underthe plan, litigants can apparently still hire as many lawyers as circumstances dictateand pay them freely, but only the court can appoint experts and pay them on astandard, and presumably lesser, scale. Courts would certify experts, and lawyerswould then consult the database for legitimate experts.

Lawyers would greatly benefit from the reduction of scientists from free-agent professionals to fixed-price tradesmen. A list of approved experts gives law-yers a database of who plays ball and who doesn’t. The proposed solution is ripe forabuse. I won’t select that expert if you don’t select this one. If you select that one then I willselect this one. The net result is that lawyers stand to gain even more control over aprocess they almost totally control already. All of this occurs in a forum circum-scribed by the very agents who are handsomely paid to advocate a position regard-less of the facts—the lawyers. Lawyers want to reduce bias in experts but keep theirown.

An alternative to the low scale, which the legal profession will not accept, is topay experts at the same rate as the highest paid attorney on the case. We see theunderlying truth: Lawyers want to downgrade science and scientists while main-taining their lofty remunerations.

Most expert charges seem to be less than $5,000 per day plus expenses. Thisfigure comes from experience with my colleagues. Experts rarely work for a per-centage of the award. Therefore, when it comes to the cut, there isn’t one. A goodexpert who takes the time to know the subject matter of the case better than theother side may make a quarter of a million dollars for six months of very hard workin perhaps a dozen disciplines. This sounds like a bonanza until you hear what theattorneys make.

New York lawyers commonly bill 24 hours every day they are out of townon a case. Each day costs the client $12,000 to $24,000 plus expenses. They make

Proposals to “keep experts in line” by thelegal establishment are simply finishingtouches on a job nearing completion. Towit, total control of the legal system. Inmy opinion, allowing total control wouldbe a severe mistake. There is no clear andcompelling evidence that court-appointedexperts will do any more for justice thancourt-appointed lawyers. The proposal toappoint experts is simply a gambit forcontrol by mercenary lawyers complain-ing about mercenary experts. There is aneffective remedy for our judicial system,but it does not yield more control to law-yers. To the contrary, it reduces the con-trol and power of the legal profession.Our legal system will therefore neveradopt it. So for an academic exercise, let’slook at the jury.

The jury is drawn at random fromthe voting records, with a highly effec-tive screening or filtering process at workbehind the scenes. Both sides can excludesome potential jurors. The first to go areoften the ones with meaningful educa-tion—education related to the patents insuit. In some locales the highest educa-tional level in the sitting jury can be aslow as the 10th grade. As an expert, youwill explain to them that synaptic weightsin an artificial neural network may modelpulse code modulation, frequency modu-lation, or amplitude modulation in realbiologic neural systems.

During trial the jury sits passively inthe jury box and is mentally shaped andmolded by the lawyers and experts. Shap-ing and molding can be a grotesque danceof one-upmanship as lawyers bow, scrape,and posture. In some jurisdictions one ormore lawyers may have substantial influ-ence on the local population by virtue ofresidency and property ownership.

Consider a hypothetical patent caseon digital signal processing. The jury willdecide if a quasi-wavelet transform is alinear operator and whether its use withthe western blot infringes a patent. It mustdetermine if the transform is prior art. Isthe patent valid—does it cover somethingthat is novel, unobvious, and useful? If it isvalid, does one side infringe it?

In weighing this problem, keep inmind that patents are reexamined by theU.S. Patent and Trademark Office foranonymous clients, and some patents aredeclared invalid. Even patent attorneys,patent examiners, and experts cannot al-ways agree on these matters. The officeissues patents, then invalidates some ofits own patents. Yet the jury, usually un-trained in technical matters, must quicklydecide who is right. The jury has a real

money while they sleep. It is not unusual for a patent case to involve three law firmson each side with two or three lawyers in each firm working the case. The net resultis a legal bill well into the millions, regardless of outcome. The losing side makes outvery well, and the payday of the winning side makes the New York lottery look likepocket change.

The question of the day is, are experts the real mercenaries?Lawyers optimized the existing system for lawyers, not necessarily for justice.

A juror may attach credibility to the lawyer

with the spotted tie because he resembles a

famous actor. Anything the jury can iden-

tify with is a possible focal point.

25

problem on its collective hands. Thosehands are handcuffed by our legal sys-tem. Part one of the problem is that apseudorandom jury meets the currentdefinition of a peer group. This may betaking the “all men are created equal”credo a little too far.

The jury doesn’t understand wave-lets or blots, so they may focus on some-thing they can understand. A juror mayattach credibility to the lawyer with thespotted tie because he resembles a fa-mous actor. Anything the jury can iden-tify with is a possible focal point. Some-times, the lawyer becomes the messagewhen in fact science should be the mes-sage. Judges try to mitigate, but there isonly so much a judge can do. Some fed-eral judges try over 400 cases a year. Un-fortunately, there is a lot to be said thatshouldn’t be said for operant condition-ing of the jury.

The solution to the problem ofcourtroom bias lies more in jury compo-sition than in hired experts, or in lawyersfor that matter. If bias is indeed a consid-eration, it behooves the court to removethe bias of attorneys by limiting them toa state-fixed and standard wage scale. Nomore hundred million dollar windfalls forwinning a case. Then no lawyer has avested interest in any particular outcome.Each would receive an hourly wage. Asattractive as this straw-man proposal mayseem to those outside the legal profes-sion, justice could be better served inother ways that do not destroy the rightof a company to select its own experts.

I propose educated and active ju-ries for high-tech cases. An educated juryis a true peer group. It is on the samelevel as the case. If the court case con-

cerns stochastic resonance, then accept-able jurors know calculus, statistics, anddynamical systems. If it is about DNA,then jurors know how to extract it fromcells, and they have bench-level profi-ciency with PCR. They understand chro-matography and its principles. If suchhighly qualified jurors are unavailable,tutors or master experts can fill in theknowledge gaps. If we proscribe edu-cated juries we might as well take the ran-dom jury concept to its logical conclusionand hire plumbers to fly commercial jet-

eval constraint of incommunicado, but byreason and discourse. It decides not byfiat, but by critical thinking about under-standable evidence. The jury takes theattorneys to task for questionable tactics.It grills the experts.

Every assertion must be supportedwith documentation or reasonable argu-ment. The jury will devalue every unsup-ported assertion. Pontification will be-come grounds for disqualification. Let theexperts answer questions until the jury issatisfied it understands the key issues. Asby-products, the judge can gauge thedegree to which the jury understands thecase, and the court transcripts will con-tain better appeal material.

Educated and active juries do nottolerate theatre. The disfranchisement oflawyers from their current role to simplyadvisers may well have a cathartic effecton our clogged legal system. The courtwill not waste time on topics the juryunderstands (they can say they under-stand), and it can apply its resources tothose topics of importance and confusion.Junk science rightfully fails the grade.

In light of my proposal, the redherring issue is bias. Control and moneyare the actual targets of the court-ap-pointed expert proposal. As it now stands,a winning lawyer expects a large pecuni-ary reward. He is biased by the companythat pays his bills. An expert may stumblefor the same reason. It’s only human tofeather one’s own nest. These biases arealways present to some degree and maybe unavoidable in an adversarial systemwithin a free society. Under-the-table pay-ments and financial expectations under-mine justice in our system, but they can-not undermine it to the existing extentwhen educated and active juries are incontrol.

It’s not a question of good and evil.Our society cannot exist without scien-tists or lawyers. It is a question of bal-ance. We argue science in a court of lawwhen we should be applying law in acourt of science. We now try high-techcases with pseudorandom juries. Let usexplore a new forum: high-tech caseswith high-tech juries.

Rod is a professional expert witness withtrial experience. [email protected]

Reprinted by permission.

To subscribe, send a message to:[email protected] this request in the messagebody:subscribe forensend

Join, lurk, or flame, it's guaranteednever to be dull!

Join��

The world of forensicscience is rapidly changing—stay in touch by subscribingto the “Forensic Listserver.”Completely free, this mes-sage board is always buzzingwith hot topics about certification,use of canine detection methods,DNA technical questions, crimescene processing methods andeven requests from TV producersfor broadcast ideas.

Read what your peers saywhen they argue about nationalstandards, or just argue.

Connecting to: Forens-l discussions

liners and lawyers to decode the humangenome.

The idea of an active jury is foreignto most readers and definitely anathemato the lawyers. It solves part two of thejury problem: passivity. An active jurylistens to and argues with the attorneysand experts. It questions authority. Itreaches a verdict not under some medi-

An active jury listens toand argues with the

attorneys and experts. Itquestions authority. Itreaches a verdict not

under some medievalconstraint of incommu-nicado, but by reason

and discourse.


C

Quality Quality Quality Quality Quality AssurAssurAssurAssurAssurededededed

JOHN��

From the perspec-

tive of quality

assurance, crystal

tests can and do

meet all the general

requirements of

any test method.

Quality Assurance and Crystal Tests

Can microcrystal tests be used for drug identification?Can microcrystal tests be used in any format in the process ofdrug analysis? After years of use of microc-rystal tests, these questions are now beingdebated in the accreditation environmentand being answered by the issuance of newSWGDRUG guidelines.

First, quality assurance may be ableto answer some portions of these questionsbut quality assurance may be the improperjurisdiction to answer the grand prize ques-tion of overall crystal test relevancy intoday’s modern world.

There are a number of significant is-sues that quality assurance can address. Withregards to any general test method, thereare a number of requirements that have tobe met:

•The method is generally accepted in thescientific community.

•The method must be validated beforeimplementation.

•The use of proper standards and controlsis required.

•The method must be subject to properdocumentation.

•The documentation is subject to techni-cal and administrative review.

Skip bullet #1 for now.

Bullet #2: Can crystal tests be vali-dated? Of course. A method is developedfrom technical literature and/or from bor-rowed technical procedures of neighboringlabs. The method is then subject to testingwith the reagents and known materials toassure the method works. The final step isto test the method with unknown samplesto make final assurances the system is working. The family ofthe most closely related compounds are run with the samecrystal test to show that none of them give the same crystal testform as that of the known drug substance. Finally, there isample literature that goes back years supporting crystal testdevelopment and use.

Bullet#3: Are crystal tests subject to proper standardsand controls? Of course. Your reagents are tested on knowndrug materials to assure the reagents have been made prop-

erly. Every time the reagent stock is made, new quality controlchecks are made to assure the new stock was made correctly.

Bullet #4: Are crystal tests subject toproper documentation? Of course. Docu-mentation can be in various forms.Worksheets with the numerous crystal testscan be listed and the resulting drug formcan be drawn into the notes. Technically, acolleague can take a peek into the micro-scope to verify the drug form but this is notnecessary. The drug forms can be photo-graphed. Analysts have flexibility in theirchoice of documentation.

Bullet #5: Can crystal test documen-tation be technically and administrativelyreviewed? Of course. The notes, with drawncrystal forms or included photographs, canbe examined for proper format and proce-dure. Is it possible that we will somedayrequire photographs to be taken of all crys-tal tests? This is purely a rhetorical ques-tion.

From the perspective of quality as-surance, crystal tests can and do meet allthe general requirements of any testmethod. Validation is addressed. Documen-tation and review is addressed. So whatseems to be the problem? Perhaps one ofthe final concerns is that the physical pro-cess of crystal tests cannot be explained with-out some hi-level explanation of physicalchemistry principles. And this still does notreally address the physical process. In ef-fect, there is no structural elucidation. Itseems by inference that the structural formis integral to the unique crystal formationthat results from the testing.

The new SWGDRUG guidelines havebeen posted and crystal tests have been placed in Category Bwhich is the mid range of discriminatory power. The bottomline is crystal tests cannot be used by themselves as an identifi-cation method…..according to the guidelines. And these areonly guidelines, right?

So quality assurance, after all, is very comfortable withcrystal tests.

27

Luk

e H

aag

John

Sim

ms

Eugene J. Wolberg1947-2000

Eugene J. (Gene) Wolberg passed away suddenly

on May 26, 2000 due to heart failure. Gene was a well-

known forensic firearms expert who for the past 20 years

had been employed in the firearms section of the San Di-

ego Police Department. He was a Vietnam Era Veteran hav-

ing served in the U.S. Navy from 1967-1971. After his ser-

vice Gene went to college and graduated from San Diego

State University in 1976 with a B.S. in Microbiology. Prior

to his employment with the San Diego Police Department

he held a position as a medical microbiologist and crimi-

nalist. Within two years of his employment with the San

Diego Police Department Gene was assigned to the fire-

arms section where he remained until his untimely death.

Gene’s passion was not only his forensic work in fire-

arms, but also teaching others about all other aspects of

firearms. He spent much of his spare time involved help-

ing others to understand the complexities of firearms, their

use and safety. Gene was an outspoken advocate for the

Second Amendment and firearms ownership. In this battle

he will be sorely missed by all. Gene was a good friend to

all who shared his interests and would go out of his way

to help the neophyte as well as the most experienced ex-

aminer. There is no question among those who knew him

that his death leaves a huge void in our lives. He is sur-

vived by his wife Rena, his sons John and Christopher as

well as his parents and a brother and sister. Services were

held on June 2, 2000 in San Diego, CA.

—Paul Dougherty

(CAC Members Only)S E R O L O G YS E R O L O G YS E R O L O G YS E R O L O G YS E R O L O G Y / DNA / DNA / DNA / DNA / DNA

S 1 Elec t rophores i s Bas i c sE le c t rophores i s Bas i c sE le c t rophores i s Bas i c sE le c t rophores i s Bas i c sE le c t rophores i s Bas i c s—Linhart • G ly cogenated Vag ina l Ep i the-Gly cogenated Vag ina l Ep i the-Gly cogenated Vag ina l Ep i the-Gly cogenated Vag ina l Ep i the-Gly cogenated Vag ina l Ep i the-l i al i al i al i al i a —Jones • Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase — Rickard • Phosphoglucomutase —White / M. HongS 2 ImmunologyImmunologyImmunologyImmunologyImmunology — StockwellS 3 Gm / KmGm / KmGm / KmGm / KmGm / Km —Stockwell / WraxallS 4 Pept idase APept idase APept idase APept idase APept idase A — YamauchiS 5 A B OA B OA B OA B OA B O — ThompsonS 6 Sa l i vaSa l i vaSa l i vaSa l i vaSa l i va —Spear (incl DNA Kelly-Frye/Howard Decision)S 7 Presumpt . Tes t s /Spec ies / PCR In t roPresumpt . Tes t s /Spec ies / PCR In t roPresumpt . Tes t s /Spec ies / PCR In t roPresumpt . Tes t s /Spec ies / PCR In t roPresumpt . Tes t s /Spec ies / PCR In t ro—Peterson/MayoS 8 Gc subGc subGc subGc subGc sub—Devine/NavetteS 9 Sta t i s t i c sS ta t i s t i c sS ta t i s t i c sS ta t i s t i c sS ta t i s t i c s—M. StammS 1 0 Haptog lob inHaptog lob inHaptog lob inHaptog lob inHaptog lob in — D. HongS 1 1 P o p u l a t i o n G e n e t i c s & S t a t i s t i c s C o u r s eP o p u l a t i o n G e n e t i c s & S t a t i s t i c s C o u r s eP o p u l a t i o n G e n e t i c s & S t a t i s t i c s C o u r s eP o p u l a t i o n G e n e t i c s & S t a t i s t i c s C o u r s eP o p u l a t i o n G e n e t i c s & S t a t i s t i c s C o u r s e—Bruce WeirS 1 2 M i c r oM i c r oM i c r oM i c r oM i c r o . . . . . E x a m . o f S e x A s s a u l t E v i d e n c e E x a m . o f S e x A s s a u l t E v i d e n c e E x a m . o f S e x A s s a u l t E v i d e n c e E x a m . o f S e x A s s a u l t E v i d e n c e E x a m . o f S e x A s s a u l t E v i d e n c e —JonesS 1 3 DNA WorkshopDNA WorkshopDNA WorkshopDNA WorkshopDNA Workshop — — — — — Spring 1993

CRIME SCENECRIME SCENECRIME SCENECRIME SCENECRIME SCENEC 1 Bloodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec ture —KnowlesC 2 Bloodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec ture — ChisumC 3 Cr ime Scene Inves t iga t ion Sympos iumCr ime Scene Inves t iga t ion Sympos iumCr ime Scene Inves t iga t ion Sympos iumCr ime Scene Inves t iga t ion Sympos iumCr ime Scene Inves t iga t ion Sympos ium—Fall ’88 CAC

G E N E R A L I N T E R E S TG E N E R A L I N T E R E S TG E N E R A L I N T E R E S TG E N E R A L I N T E R E S TG E N E R A L I N T E R E S TG 1 ABC News 9/23/91: “Lab Errors”G 2 48 Hours 9/25/91: “Clues”G 3 Founder’s Lecture: Stuart Kind— Fall ’93G 4 Founder’s Lecture: Walter McCrone—Spr ’90G 5 Founder’s Lecture: J. Osterburg—Fall ’91G 6 Founder’s Lecture: Lowell Bradford—Spr ’93G 7 OJ Simpson Tonight Show ClipsG 8 “Against All Odds—Inside Statistics”

ALCOHOL / TOXICOLOGYALCOHOL / TOXICOLOGYALCOHOL / TOXICOLOGYALCOHOL / TOXICOLOGYALCOHOL / TOXICOLOGYA 1 Forensic Alcohol Supervisor’s Course—DOJ

T R A C E E V I D E N C ET R A C E E V I D E N C ET R A C E E V I D E N C ET R A C E E V I D E N C ET R A C E E V I D E N C ET 1 Bas i c Mi c ros copy Lec tureBas i c Mi c ros copy Lec tureBas i c Mi c ros copy Lec tureBas i c Mi c ros copy Lec tureBas i c Mi c ros copy Lec ture—————E. RhodesT 2 T i re Impress ions as Ev idenceT i re Impress ions as Ev idenceT i re Impress ions as Ev idenceT i re Impress ions as Ev idenceT i re Impress ions as Ev idence—NauseT 3 Eva luat ion o f Lamp F i lament Ev idenceEva luat ion o f Lamp F i lament Ev idenceEva luat ion o f Lamp F i lament Ev idenceEva luat ion o f Lamp F i lament Ev idenceEva luat ion o f Lamp F i lament Ev idence—BradfordT 4 FTIR Lec tureFTIR Lec tureFTIR Lec tureFTIR Lec tureFTIR Lec ture—MooreheadT 5 Gunshot Res idue Lec tureGunshot Res idue Lec tureGunshot Res idue Lec tureGunshot Res idue Lec tureGunshot Res idue Lec ture—CallowayT 6 F o o t w e a rF o o t w e a rF o o t w e a rF o o t w e a rF o o t w e a r — B o d z i a kT 7 Footwear Mfg . TourFootwear Mfg . TourFootwear Mfg . TourFootwear Mfg . TourFootwear Mfg . Tour —Van’s ShoesT 8 Glas s MethodsGlas s MethodsGlas s MethodsGlas s MethodsGlas s Methods—Bailey / Sagara / RhodesT 9 F iber Ev idenceF iber Ev idenceF iber Ev idenceF iber Ev idenceF iber Ev idence—Mumford/Bailey/ThompsonT 1 0 Trace Ev idence Ana ly s i sTrace Ev idence Ana ly s i sTrace Ev idence Ana ly s i sTrace Ev idence Ana ly s i sTrace Ev idence Ana ly s i s—Barnett/Shaffer/Springer

F I R E A R M SF I R E A R M SF I R E A R M SF I R E A R M SF I R E A R M SF 1 Forens i c F i rearms Ev idenceForens i c F i rearms Ev idenceForens i c F i rearms Ev idenceForens i c F i rearms Ev idenceForens i c F i rearms Ev idence —HaagF 2 Wound Ba l l i s t i c s Wound Ba l l i s t i c s Wound Ba l l i s t i c s Wound Ba l l i s t i c s Wound Ba l l i s t i c s: “Deadly Effects”—Jason

Please address requests toElizabeth Thompson, Orange Co. Sheriff’s Dept.Sheriff-Coroner Laboratory320 N. Flower St., Santa Ana, CA 92703(714) 834-4510 voice (714) 834-4519 FAX

Or FAX this ad with your selections circled above.(Be sure to include your name and address)


Spring ‘00NAPA

Above: Annie and Bill Casper form bookends around Michael Feredayfrom the FSS. Right: Suzanne Preaseaux and Fred Tulleners strike a pose.

Above: The seminar in full swing. Below: Banquet entertainment isprovided by the choir.

29

WWine country was the set-ting for the third joint meetingof the CAC and the ForensicScience Society. The event washosted by Serological ResearchInstitute.

(This page, top) The ven-dor area is visited by attendees,right, a gift of artwork is pre-sented to the Forensic ScienceSociety from the CAC. (Right,below) Your CAC board dis-cusses important issues. (Lowerright) The traditional coconutis passed to incoming presi-dent Lisa Brewer by HiramEvans. (Below, left) Luke Haagreceives the coveted RogerGreene Award from Hiram.

Photos courtesy Nancy McCombsand Pennie Laferty


��

��

B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S

��

President:

President-Elect:

Secretary:

Treasurer:

Regional Director:(North)

Regional Director:(South)

MembershipSecretary:

EditorialSecretary:

ImmediatePast President:

Lisa BrewerSanta Clara Co. Crime Lab1557 Berger Dr. #B-2San Jose, CA 95112(408) [email protected]

Daniel GregonisSan Bernardino Co. Sheriff200 South Lena RoadSan Bernardino, CA 92415-0056(909) [email protected]

Brooke BarloewenSanta Clara Co. Crime Lab1557 Berger Dr. #B-2San Jose, CA 95112(408) [email protected]

Michelle FoxForensic Analytical Specialties3777 Depot Rd. Ste 409Hayward, CA 94545(510) 887-8828 [email protected]

Ann MurphySacramento Co. DA Crime Lab4800 Broadway, Ste 200Sacramento, CA 95820(916) [email protected]

Jim StamSan Diego Police Dept.1401 Broadway MS725San Diego, CA 92101(619) [email protected]

Elissa Mayo-ThompsonCalif. Dept. of Justice, Riverside1500 Castellano RoadRiverside, CA 92509(909) [email protected]

Nancy McCombsCalif. Dept. of Justice, Fresno6014 N Cedar Ave.Fresno, CA 93710(559) [email protected]

Hiram EvansSan Bernardino Co. Sheriff9500 Etiwanda AvenueRancho Cucamonga, CA 91739(909) [email protected]

— Receive the Journal of the Forensic Science Societyand/or Journal of Forensic Sciences—

— Receive The CAC News —— Lower, Member registration fees at CAC Seminars —

— Receive CAC Membership Roster / Seminar Abstracts —— Receive Salary Survey of Government Labs —— Membership in a prestigious Forensic Society —

To join, follow these simple steps: 1. Contact the CAC MembershipSecretary, Elissa Mayo-Thompson (909)782-4170, to obtain aninformation packet and application. 2. Fill out and return the applicationto Elissa along with your first year’s dues & appl. fee. 3. Two of yourlisted references will be contacted. 4. Applicants are screened to ensurethat they meet the requirements. (Outlined in Article 11 of the CACMembership Handbook). 5. Your application will be presented to theBoard of Directors at their next quarterly meeting. If approved, yourapplication will be voted on by the membership at the next Seminar.

nterested inbecoming a member?i

The “CAC logo” is a registered service mark of the CAC and its use is restrictedto official communications and by other authorization of the CAC Board.

Up and Coming

�� "�� '�� 7�!"'�8Nov. 6-10, 2000

Colorado Springs, Colorado

� � �� # �� '�� 7��'�8Nov. 1-5, 2000

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

� �� "�� 7�"�8 Oct. 11-14, 2000

Glendale, California

31

Paul Kirk AwardCall For Nominations

It is time to nominate outstanding new members of our profession for the Paul Kirk Award.In 1994 it was established that the recipient of the Paul Kirk Award is also the recipient ofthe Presidents Award. The Presidents Award was established to encourage a collegialrelationship between the CAC and the Forensic Science Society by promoting scientificexchange and fellowship between members. The recipient of the Presidents Award will besponsored to go to a FSS meeting in 2001.

Nominations will be submitted to the Awards Committee. The Committee will screen thecandidates’ qualifications and submit their recommendations to the Board, who will selectthe recipient of the award. Although candidates must be members of the CAC, nominatingparties need not be. No self-nominations will be accepted.

The nomination period will end on August 31, 2000.No nominations will be accepted after this time.

The candidate qualifications are as follows:

1. The candidate must be employed in the profession for fewer than six years. This sixyear qualifying period is defined as October 1994 - October 2000.

2. Employment in the field is defined as full-time employment and shall not include timein pre-professional positions, such as an intern or laboratory technician.

3. The candidate must be a CAC member (in any status) at the time of nomination.

4. During the six-year qualifying period, the candidate should have demonstrated an interestin a professional organization, not limited to the CAC.

5. Candidates must have made at least one of the contributions to the profession outlinedon the nomination form.

The CAC is pleased that we have the opportunity to recognize our newer colleagues whohave contributed to the profession. We would like to encourage as many nominations aspossible. All nominations should be returned to the Awards Committee Chairperson, ShaninSullivan, at the address below.

Shanin SullivanVentura County Sheriff’s Crime Laboratory800 S. Victoria AveVentura, CA 93009

cache n - california association of criminalists · 2020. 5. 31. · crime lab: a guide for...

Documents