Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to explore the correlation between the years of experience and number of cases heard by the judge and to explore the related perception of the credibility of the expert witness and the years of experience and number of cases heard by the judge regarding laboratory accreditation. Theoretical framework. The theoretical framework of this study was based on the research foundations of process theory, variance theory, Mohr, Soh and Markus, Roberg and Kuykendall, and Born's process management theory. Process management can be simplified by stating that the information received (input) can be massaged (changed) or remain the same to deliver an expected outcome (outcome). Methodology. The subjects in the present study were 59 superior court judges at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles, California. Subjects responded to a research instrument with 20 Likert scale questions. The initial 11 questions dealt with the judge's perception of certification of forensic personnel, the credibility of scientific evidence, and preferred standards for admitting scientific evidence. The next 6 questions dealt with the judge's perception of the value of laboratory accreditation. Demographic information was gathered in the final 3 questions. Findings. Examination of the data reveals a strong correlation with the years of experience of judge and perception of credibility of the expert. Secondly, examination of the years of experience of judge and perception of an accredited laboratory disclose a strong correlation. This relationship reflects that the years of experience have an influence on the worth of an accredited laboratory. The number of cases a judge has conducted related to perceptions of accreditation of the laboratory are weak with a .431 significant at the .05 level. Conclusions and recommendations. The study data support the conclusion that there is a need for certification and accreditation. Furthermore, certification and accreditation create a higher standard for the profession. A recommendation of further research is indicated regarding court case findings where certification and accreditation proved of interest to the outcome of the case.