Professor Richard Gutierrez Has Article Published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences
excerpt Heading link

UIC Law Professor Richard Gutierrez published an article titled, “The false promise of firearms examination validation studies: Lay controls, simplistic comparisons, and the failure to soundly measure misidentification rates” that was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. Read an excerpt below:
“Several studies have recently attempted to estimate practitioner accuracy when comparing fired ammunition. But whether this research has included sufficiently challenging comparisons dependent upon expertise for accurate conclusions regarding source remains largely unexplored in the literature. Control groups of lay people comprise one means of vetting this question, of assessing whether comparison samples were at least challenging enough to distinguish between experts and novices. This article therefore utilizes such a group, specifically 82 attorneys, as a post hoc control and juxtaposes their performance on a comparison set of cartridge case images from one commonly cited study…”
Read the Full Article
Article Commentary and Responses Heading link
Following the publishing of this article, John Marshall BS, MBA left extensive commentary. In his letter to the editor, he states, “I was perplexed that the conspicuous title of this paper yielded little in terms of substance as a critique on the field of firearms examination. Gutierrez and Prokesch offer little more than the echo of a small group of critics of the discipline that claim that the error rates for the field have not been established.”
Read the full commentary here.
In response to this comment, Professor Gutierrez and his partner wrote, “We read Mr. Marshall’s commentary with interest, but unfortunately
his submission—riddled with ad hominem attacks on the motivations of firearms examination’s critics and just shy of reference-less—nigh-uniformly concentrates, not on our study design or data, but on bemoaning the notion that firearms examiners’ grandiose claims of near
infallibility (e.g., the “practical impossibility” of error) should rest on empirical grounds rather than on tradition and intention.”
Read Professor Gutierrez’s full response here.
Additionally, a group of forensic researchers (Todd J. Weller, Pierre Duez, and Ryan Lilien) wrote a letter to the editor regarding Gutierrez’s article. In it they state, “We start with brief discussions on topics that raise alarm. A further detailed analysis and discussion on all topics is beyond a letter to the editor therefore our silence on any other issues should not be interpreted as agreement or concede.”
Read the full commentary here.
In response to this commentary, Professor Gutierrez and his partner state, “We thank the commentors for drawing our attention to two typographical errors in our original article…Unfortunately, beyond its contribution to copy editing, their letter amounts to, at best, much ado about nothing, and, at worst, something akin to statistical malpractice.”
Read the full response here.