IAFTC Newsletter. Volume 1. Issue 1. November 17, 2025.

Aaron Olson¹; Charles Ramsay²

¹ARO Consulting LLC, PO Box 132, Hugo MN, 55038

²Ramsay Law Firm, PLLC, 2780 E Snelling Ser Dr Suite #330, Roseville, MN, 55113, USA

This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

Download PDF.

Introduction

On November 13, 2025, the Iowa Court of Appeals issued its decision in State v. Withers [1]. While the panel affirmed the conviction, the dissent raised substantive concerns that are directly relevant to forensic consultants and experts across the country. 

The dissent focused on the way late-disclosed forensic evidence can undermine the reliability of the judicial process and prevent meaningful scientific review. To illustrate this broader issue, the judge cited several authoritative sources on forensic reliability, including the articles Errors in Toxicology Testing and the Need for Full Discovery [2], The Courts, the NAS, and the Future of Forensic Science [3], and Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions [4].

The citation, Errors in Toxicology Testing and the Need for Full Discovery is noteworthy for members of the International Association of Forensic Toxicology Consultants (IAFTC) because it highlights the growing recognition within appellate courts that forensic evidence requires careful evaluation, full transparency, and adequate time for expert interpretation. 

The dissent’s reasoning aligns closely with the goals of our association: ensuring that the presentation of toxicology results and their interpretation are presented to the court in a scientifically sound, properly documented, and fully discoverable manner.

Background of the Case and the Discovery Issue

Only eight days before jury selection, the prosecution disclosed a 63-page digital forensics report and a newly identified expert witness. Defense counsel stated that he did not understand the report, did not have time to consult an expert, and could not properly evaluate the accuracy or meaning of the data.

The majority held that the late disclosure did not warrant a continuance. The dissent, however, viewed the situation as fundamentally unfair and scientifically unsound.

The Dissent’s Focus on Forensic Reliability

The dissent emphasized that forensic evidence is not self-explanatory and cannot be meaningfully challenged without adequate preparation. Late disclosures deprived the defense of time to obtain independent analysis, evaluate the methodology, and examine the underlying data.

One line from the dissent captured the core concern:

“I worry that treating an untimely expert witness disclosure like any other witness disclosure perpetuates my concern about how we treat forensic evidence in the courtroom.”

Judge Sandy’s concern reflects a key point recognized by forensic science researchers and practitioners. Digital forensics, toxicology, pattern evidence, and other analytical disciplines involve complex scientific processes that demand expert interpretation. Treating an expert report as if it were equivalent to a simple fact witness disclosure ignores the reality of forensic work and its potential for error.

Why This Matters for Forensic Toxicology Consultants

There are several reasons why IAFTC members should pay attention to this development.

1. Courts are increasingly aware of the limits of forensic science

For years, many forensic disciplines have been treated as inherently credible. But recent scholarship and national reviews of forensic science, including reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, have prompted some courts to engage more directly with academic research when considering the reliability of forensic practices [3–6].  For example, in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016), Justice Alito’s majority opinion explicitly cited the forensic science article by A.W. Jones, titled “Measuring Alcohol in Blood and Breath for Forensic Purposes—A Historical Review,” [7,8].

2. Discovery practices directly affect our ability to provide accurate opinions

When experts receive data late or in incomplete form, it becomes difficult or impossible to evaluate whether an analysis was conducted correctly. Interpretation of toxicology results relies on instrument calibration records, raw data files, method validation studies, chain-of-custody documentation, chromatograms, and other details that are not always included in summary reports. The dissent recognized that meaningful review requires full access to this information.

3. The citation reinforces the importance of expert education and advocacy

The fact that our article was cited shows that courts recognize the role experts play in identifying laboratory errors and helping attorneys understand forensic limitations. It also affirms the importance of continuing to educate legal professionals about laboratory processes, method limitations, and the risks associated with incomplete discovery.

Implications for the Future

Judge Sandy’s dissent in State v. Withers is part of a broader trend. Courts are showing greater interest in the scientific integrity of forensic evidence, the importance of discovery, and the role of experts in ensuring accuracy. While the majority did not adopt this view in the Withers case, the presence of a detailed, research-supported dissent signals that the conversation is evolving.

Forensic toxicology consultants, especially those who provide expert testimony, should expect increasing emphasis on:

• Complete disclosure of underlying data

• Careful documentation of analytical methods

• Transparent quality control processes

• Independent review by defense experts

• Ongoing education for attorneys and judges

These themes mirror many of the IAFTC's priorities and show the growing influence of forensic scholarship on judicial reasoning.

Closing Thoughts

It is encouraging to see appellate judges cite current forensic science research in their opinions. The inclusion of toxicology-focused scholarship reinforces our field’s relevance and highlights the need for continued improvement in laboratory transparency and discovery practices.

As forensic consultants, we play a criticalrole in advancing these discussions. If IAFTC members have encountered similar issues in their jurisdictions or have examples of discovery-related challenges in forensic cases, we encourage you to share them for future newsletter features.

AI Use Disclosure

The authors used ChatGPT to assist with the organization and formatting of this article. All content was verified and substantially written by the authors, who take full responsibility for accuracy.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships, which may be considered as potential competing interests: Aaron Olson serves as an expert witness in forensic toxicology cases, provides consulting services through ARO Consulting LLC, and receives compensation for expert testimony and speaking engagements. Charles Ramsay is a practicing defense attorney specializing in impaired driving cases at Ramsay Law Firm, PLLC.

References

[1]State of Iowa vs. Rickie Blaine Withers Sr. 2025.

[2]Olson A, Ramsay C. Errors in toxicology testing and the need for full discovery. Forensic Sci Int Synerg 2025;11:100629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100629.

[3]Garrett BL, Neufeld PJ. Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions. Virginia Law Review 2009;95:1.

[4]Mnookin JL. The courts, the NAS, and the future of forensic science. Brooklyn Law Review 2010;75:10.

[5]The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature Comparison Methods. PCAST Working Group; 2016.

[6]National Research Council, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, Policy and Global Affairs, Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, D.C., DC: National Academies Press; 2009.

[7]Jones AW. Measuring Alcohol in Blood and Breath for Forensic Purposes - A Historical Review. Forensic Sci Rev 1996;8:13–44.

[8]Birchfield v. North Dakota. 2016.