Authors' response to Gutierrez et al Commentary on.

Journal of Forensic SciencesVolume 68, Issue 3 p. 1102-1104 REPLY Authors' response to Gutierrez et al Commentary on Keith L. Monson PhD, Corresponding Author Keith L. Monson PhD [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-7126-4247 Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia, USA Correspondence Keith L. Monson, Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia 22135, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorErich D. Smith MSFS, Erich D. Smith MSFS Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia, USASearch for more papers by this authorEugene M. Peters PhD, Eugene M. Peters PhD Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia, USASearch for more papers by this author Keith L. Monson PhD, Corresponding Author Keith L. Monson PhD [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-7126-4247 Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia, USA Correspondence Keith L. Monson, Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia 22135, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorErich D. Smith MSFS, Erich D. Smith MSFS Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia, USASearch for more papers by this authorEugene M. Peters PhD, Eugene M. Peters PhD Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 21 April 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15256 See Original Article here See Gutierrez et al Commentary on here Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES 1Monson KL, Smith ED, Peters EM. Accuracy of comparisons conducted by forensic firearms examiners. J Forensic Sci. 2023; 68(1): 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15152 2Baldwin D, Bajic S, Morris M, Zamzow D. A study of false-positive and false-negative error rates in cartridge case comparisons (Report No. IS-5207). Ames, IA: Ames Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy; 2014 https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a611807.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2023 3Gouwe J, Hamby J, Norris S. Comparison of 10,000 consecutively fired cartridge cases from a model 22 Glock. 40 S&W Caliber Semiautomatic Pistol. AFTE J. 2008; 40(1): 57–63. 4Hamby J, Thorpe J. The examination, evaluation and identification of 9mm cartridge cases fired from 617 different Glock model 17 & 10 semiautomatic pistols. AFTE J. 2009; 41(4): 310–24. 5Bunch S, Murphy D. A comprehensive validity study for the forensic examination of cartridge cases. AFTE J. 2003; 35(2): 201–3. 6LaPorte D. An empirical and validation study of breechface marks on .380 ACP caliber cartridge cases fired from ten consecutively finished hi-point model C9 pistols. AFTE J. 2011; 43(4): 303–9. 7Fadul T, Hernandez G, Stoiloff S, Gulati S. An empirical study to improve the scientific foundation of forensic firearm and tool mark identification utilizing 10 consecutively manufactured slides. AFTE J. 2013; 45(4): 376–93. 8Keisler MA, Hartman S, Kilmon A, Oberg M, Templeton M. Isolated pairs research study. AFTE J. 2018; 50(1): 56–8. 9Hamby JE, Brundage DJ, Petraco NDK, Thorpe JW. A worldwide study of bullets fired from 10 consecutively rifled 9MM Ruger pistol barrels—analysis of examiner error rate. J Forensic Sci. 2019; 64(2): 551–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13916 10Smith TP, Smith AG, Snipes JB. A validation study of bullet and cartridge case comparisons using samples representative of actual casework. J Forensic Sci. 2016; 61(4): 939–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13093 11Mattijssen EJAT, Witteman CLM, Berger CEH, Brand NW, Stoel RD. Validity and reliability of forensic firearm examiners. Forensic Sci Int. 2020; 307:110112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.110112 12Smith JA. Beretta barrel fired bullet validation study. J Forensic Sci. 2020; 66(2): 547–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14604 13Law EF, Morris KB. Evaluating firearm examiner conclusion variability using cartridge case reproductions. J Forensic Sci. 2021; 66(5): 1704–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14758 14Kerkhoff W, Stoel RD, Mattijssen EJAT, Berger CEH, Didden FW, Kerstholt JH. A part-declared blind testing program in firearms examination. Sci Justice. 2018; 58(4): 258–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.03.006 15Best BA, Gardner EA. An assessment of the foundational validity of firearms identification using ten consecutively button-rifled barrels. AFTE J. 2022; 54(1): 28–37. 16Stephenson JL, Smith ED. Identification of bullets fired from consecutively manufactured double-broached Ruger® SR9c® barrels utilizing comparison microscopy and confocal microscopy. Proceedings of the 68th annual scientific meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2016 Feb 22–27; Las Vegas, NV. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2016 https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/AAFS-2016-E38.pdf 17Nalley M, Hofmann H. Ruger LCP Study: A Two-Pronged Approach. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/entities/publication/5fc21111-3f89-4684-9743-23e00eb8713b. Accessed 27 Mar 2023 18Stroman A. Empirically determined frequency of error in cartridge case examinations using a declared double-blind format. AFTE J. 2014; 46(2): 157–75. 19Cazes M, Goudeau J. Validation study results from Hi-Point consecutively manufactured slides. AFTE J. 2013; 45(2): 175–7. 20Monson KL, Smith ES, Bajic SJ. Planning, design and logistics of a decision analysis study: the FBI/Ames study involving forensic firearms examiners. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2022; 4:100221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100221 21Scurich N, Garrett BL, Thompson RM. Surveying practicing firearm examiners. Forensic Sci Int Synergy. 2022; 4:100228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100228 22 U.S. v. Edgar Diaz et al. No 05–00167 WHA: N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2007. 23Neuman M, Hundl C, Grimaldi A, Eudaley D, Stein D, Stout P. Blind testing in firearms: preliminary results from a blind quality control program. J Forensic Sci. 2022; 67(3): 964–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15031 24Mattijssen EJAT, Witteman CLM, Berger CEH, Stoel RD. Cognitive biases in the peer review of bullet and cartridge case comparison casework: a field study. Sci Justice. 2020; 60(4): 337–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.005 25Pierce ML, Cook LJ. Development and implementation of an effective blind proficiency testing program. J Forensic Sci. 2020; 65(3): 809–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14269 26Thompson SG, Cásarez NB. Solving Daubert's dilemma for the forensic sciences through blind testing. Hous L Rev. 2019; 57: 617–69. 27Pow RE, Mello-Thoms C, Brennan P. Evaluation of the effect of double reporting on test accuracy in screening and diagnostic imaging studies: a review of the evidence. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016; 60(3): 306–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12450 Volume68, Issue3May 2023Pages 1102-1104 ReferencesRelatedInformation