Judicial acceptance of hair tests for substances of abuse in the United States courts: scientific, forensic, and ethical aspects - PubMed

Judicial acceptance of hair tests for substances of abuse in the United States courts: scientific, forensic, and ethical aspects

M A Huestis. Ther Drug Monit. 1996 Aug.

Abstract

Changes in the acceptance of hair test results in the United States courts have resulted from two factors: the rapidly evolving scientific understanding of hair test data; and modification of the admissibility standards for forensic evidence in United States courts. The scientific, forensic, and ethical aspects of drug testing in hair impact the acceptance of hair test results. Our knowledge and experience with this new analytical technology have been developing rapidly, although there are many unanswered questions that influence acceptance of data. A consequence of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to have the Federal Rules of Evidence take precedence over the Frye standard in the admissibility of scientific evidence has enabled judges to determine if evidence will assist in obtaining a fuller understanding of a given case. A summation of the scientific, forensic, and ethical aspects of judicial acceptance of hair test results may be: If hair test results are positive, have we proven beyond a reasonable doubt and/or demonstrated that the preponderance of evidence supports a finding of drug use? In general, recent court decisions indicate that hair test results provide information that the courts should consider. However, unresolved scientific, forensic, and ethical issues may have a greater effect on the weight applied to hair test evidence rather than its admissibility in future court proceedings.

Similar articles

• Handwriting Evidence in Federal Courts - From Frye to Kumho.

  Zlotnick J, Lin JR. Zlotnick J, et al. Forensic Sci Rev. 2001 Jul;13(2):87-99. Forensic Sci Rev. 2001. PMID: 26256304 Review.

• Role of the clinical toxicologist in court.

  Chamberlain RT. Chamberlain RT. Clin Chem. 1996 Aug;42(8 Pt 2):1337-41. Clin Chem. 1996. PMID: 8697608 Review.

• Forensic DNA analysis and the United States Government.

  Shapiro ED, Reifler S. Shapiro ED, et al. Med Sci Law. 1996 Jan;36(1):43-51. doi: 10.1177/002580249603600109. Med Sci Law. 1996. PMID: 8907857

• Hair analysis as evidence in forensic cases.

  Moeller MR. Moeller MR. Ther Drug Monit. 1996 Aug;18(4):444-9. doi: 10.1097/00007691-199608000-00023. Ther Drug Monit. 1996. PMID: 8857566

• Capillary electrophoresis in court: the landmark decision of the People of Tennessee versus Ware.

  Marchi E, Pasacreta RJ. Marchi E, et al. J Capillary Electrophor. 1997 Jul-Aug;4(4):145-56. J Capillary Electrophor. 1997. PMID: 9627830

Cited by

• Just say "I don't": lack of concordance between teen report and biological measures of drug use.

  Delaney-Black V, Chiodo LM, Hannigan JH, Greenwald MK, Janisse J, Patterson G, Huestis MA, Ager J, Sokol RJ. Delaney-Black V, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Nov;126(5):887-93. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-3059. Epub 2010 Oct 25. Pediatrics. 2010. PMID: 20974792 Free PMC article.

• The effectiveness of decontamination procedures used in forensic hair analysis.

  Mantinieks D, Gerostamoulos D, Wright P, Drummer O. Mantinieks D, et al. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2018 Sep;14(3):349-357. doi: 10.1007/s12024-018-9994-6. Epub 2018 Jul 3. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2018. PMID: 29971694 Review.

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • Ovid Technologies, Inc.
  • Wolters Kluwer