Forensic Laboratory QA, Accreditation & Firearms Expert (Riley, Welch, LaPorte)

Ryan Larrison is a senior forensic science executive and expert with more than 25 years of experience in forensic laboratory quality systems, ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, laboratory operations and management, policies and procedures, analyst competency, technical review, corrective action, and firearms and toolmark examination.

Mr. Larrison's expertise is particularly suited to complex and high-stakes matters in which the reliability of forensic evidence depends not only upon the work of an individual examiner, but upon the quality system of the laboratory responsible for producing, reviewing, and reporting that evidence.

His experience provides him with an unusually comprehensive perspective on forensic science. During his career with the Michigan State Police, Mr. Larrison has served as a practicing firearms and toolmark examiner, expert witness, forensic laboratory director, Assistant Division Director, statewide Quality Assurance Manager, accreditation assessor and assessment team leader, and senior executive overseeing complex statewide systems and programs.

This combination enables him to evaluate forensic evidence from both the casework and systems levels.

FORENSIC LABORATORY QUALITY SYSTEMS

Mr. Larrison served as Assistant Division Director and Quality Assurance Manager for the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division, where he was responsible for the strategic direction, implementation, and oversight of quality systems across seven accredited forensic laboratories.

His responsibilities included quality assurance, accreditation compliance, laboratory policies and procedures, training and competency, corrective actions, risk assessment, quality-system implementation, and continuous improvement across a multidisciplinary statewide forensic laboratory system.

Mr. Larrison evaluates whether forensic laboratories have appropriate systems, procedures, controls, personnel qualifications, competency programs, review processes, documentation, corrective-action mechanisms, and management oversight necessary to support reliable and defensible forensic conclusions.

A forensic result does not exist in isolation. Its reliability may depend upon the integrity of the larger system in which the examination was conducted—including examiner qualifications, training and competency, validated procedures, instrumentation, quality controls, evidence handling, documentation, technical review, corrective actions, supervision, and management oversight.

Mr. Larrison can evaluate these interconnected components to determine whether deficiencies are isolated to a particular examination or may indicate broader systemic problems within the laboratory.

ACCREDITATION & ISO/IEC 17025

Mr. Larrison has extensive experience with forensic laboratory accreditation and ISO/IEC 17025 requirements.

In addition to overseeing quality assurance within the Michigan State Police forensic laboratory system, he has served as a technical assessor and assessment team leader for national forensic laboratory accreditation bodies, conducting assessments of forensic laboratories throughout the United States.

His assessment experience includes evaluation of laboratory quality systems, technical procedures, personnel competency, documentation, corrective actions, management practices, and compliance with accreditation requirements.

This provides Mr. Larrison with experience from both sides of the accreditation process: managing quality within an accredited statewide forensic laboratory system and independently evaluating the quality systems and technical operations of other forensic laboratories.

Importantly, accreditation alone does not establish that every examination performed by a laboratory is reliable. Mr. Larrison can evaluate whether a laboratory was actually operating in accordance with its quality system, established procedures, accreditation requirements, and accepted forensic practices—and whether identified departures or deficiencies have significance to the evidence at issue.

PROCEDURES, COMPETENCY & TECHNICAL REVIEW

Mr. Larrison can evaluate laboratory quality manuals, standard operating procedures, analytical methods, validation and verification records, technical protocols, evidence-handling procedures, quality-control practices, and reporting requirements.

His review can address whether appropriate procedures existed, whether personnel followed those procedures, whether deviations were identified and documented, whether methods were properly validated or verified, and whether laboratory practices were consistent with established policies and quality requirements.

He also evaluates analyst training, competency assessment, authorization to perform casework, continuing education, proficiency testing, remedial training, and other factors relevant to determining whether laboratory personnel were appropriately qualified to perform and interpret the examinations at issue.

Technical and administrative review are critical safeguards within a forensic quality system. Mr. Larrison can evaluate whether casework received meaningful and appropriate review, whether reviewers were properly qualified, whether relevant data and documentation were considered, and whether discrepancies, limitations, or unsupported conclusions should have been identified during the review process.

SYSTEMIC LABORATORY PROBLEMS

One of Mr. Larrison's most significant areas of expertise is evaluating whether an apparent error represents an isolated event or evidence of a broader systemic laboratory problem.

A single deficiency may have limited significance when considered independently. Multiple deficiencies involving training, competency, procedures, documentation, validation, technical review, corrective actions, supervision, or management may present a substantially different picture when evaluated collectively.

Mr. Larrison can review laboratory records to identify patterns, recurring deficiencies, inadequate corrective actions, ineffective controls, or management failures that may have broader implications for forensic reliability.

His analysis may include determining whether similar problems occurred in other cases; whether laboratory management knew or should have known about recurring issues; whether previous audits, assessments, or accreditation findings identified related concerns; whether corrective actions addressed the actual root cause; whether training or competency programs were adequate; whether technical review repeatedly failed to identify problems; and whether laboratory procedures or management practices contributed to recurring error.

NONCONFORMING WORK & CORRECTIVE ACTION

Errors and procedural departures can occur in any scientific organization. A critical measure of an effective forensic quality system is how the laboratory identifies, investigates, evaluates, corrects, and prevents recurrence of those problems.

Mr. Larrison has extensive experience with corrective-action programs, risk assessment, quality-system improvement, and management of laboratory nonconformities.

He can evaluate whether nonconforming work was properly identified, whether its scope and significance were adequately investigated, whether an appropriate root-cause analysis was performed, whether potentially affected casework was identified, and whether corrective actions were sufficient to prevent recurrence.

This analysis can be particularly important when an apparent problem in a single case may reveal a broader weakness involving personnel, procedures, instrumentation, competency, technical review, supervision, or laboratory management.

LABORATORY MANAGEMENT & OVERSIGHT

As a former Laboratory Director, Assistant Division Director, and statewide Quality Assurance Manager, Mr. Larrison has extensive experience with the management and oversight necessary to operate multidisciplinary forensic laboratories while maintaining scientific quality and accreditation.

He can evaluate whether laboratory leadership established appropriate quality expectations, provided adequate resources and training, responded appropriately to known problems, enforced laboratory procedures, monitored performance, addressed recurring deficiencies, and maintained an effective quality-management system.

This perspective can be particularly important when questions arise concerning whether management knew or should have known about recurring problems, whether warning signs were adequately addressed, or whether organizational or systemic weaknesses affected forensic practices.

FORENSIC RELIABILITY

Mr. Larrison's analysis goes beyond simply determining whether a laboratory policy, procedure, or accreditation requirement was violated.

The critical question is whether the identified deficiency has significance to the reliability, integrity, or defensibility of the forensic evidence.

Not every procedural departure invalidates a scientific result. Conversely, accreditation, compliance with a checklist, or the existence of a completed laboratory report does not by itself establish that the underlying forensic work is scientifically reliable.

A meaningful forensic quality-system review requires determining what occurred, why it occurred, whether appropriate safeguards functioned as intended, whether the problem was properly identified and corrected, whether similar deficiencies existed elsewhere, and whether the deficiency has significance to the forensic conclusions being offered.

FIREARMS & TOOLMARK EXPERIENCE

Mr. Larrison's quality-system expertise is strengthened by direct experience as a practicing forensic scientist.

Earlier in his career, he served as a firearms and toolmark examiner, conducting forensic examinations, responding to crime scenes, preparing laboratory reports, and testifying as an expert witness in court proceedings.

He subsequently served as Laboratory Director of the Michigan State Police Bridgeport Laboratory, where he was responsible for laboratory operations, personnel leadership, scientific service delivery, stakeholder engagement, training, and technology.

This hands-on scientific and laboratory-management experience distinguishes Mr. Larrison from quality consultants whose experience is limited primarily to auditing or administration. He understands forensic quality from the perspective of the examiner performing the work, the reviewer evaluating it, the laboratory director responsible for operations, and the quality manager responsible for the integrity of the laboratory system.

EXPERT CONSULTATION & INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Through Riley, Welch, LaPorte & Associates Forensic Laboratories, Mr. Larrison provides independent consultation and expert review involving:

• Forensic laboratory quality management systems
• ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation and compliance
• Accreditation assessments and findings
• Laboratory policies and standard operating procedures
• Validation and verification
• Analyst training, competency, and authorization
• Proficiency testing
• Technical and administrative review
• Quality-control procedures
• Nonconforming work
• Corrective action and root-cause analysis
• Risk assessment
• Laboratory audits
• Evidence handling and chain of custody
• Laboratory documentation and records
• Management and supervisory oversight
• Forensic laboratory operations
• Firearms and toolmark examinations
• Scientific reporting
• Reliability and defensibility of forensic conclusions
• Patterns of error and recurring deficiencies
• Potential systemic laboratory failures

Mr. Larrison can assist attorneys and litigation teams with targeted case review, comprehensive laboratory quality-system assessment, discovery strategy, identification and evaluation of laboratory quality records, expert consultation, reports, depositions, and testimony when appropriate.

His expertise can be particularly valuable in complex criminal prosecutions, homicide and other serious felony matters, post-conviction litigation, wrongful-conviction claims, governmental investigations, complex civil litigation, challenges to forensic evidence, and other high-consequence matters in which the integrity and reliability of forensic laboratory operations are central to the dispute.

Mr. Larrison brings an uncommon combination of hands-on forensic examination, courtroom experience, crime laboratory management, statewide quality-assurance leadership, ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation assessment, and executive-level oversight.

This experience enables him to address a fundamental question in complex forensic litigation:

Was the forensic conclusion produced within a laboratory system whose procedures, personnel, competency controls, technical review, quality safeguards, corrective-action processes, and management oversight were sufficient to support the reliability of the reported result?

When a matter requires looking beyond an individual analyst or test result, Mr. Larrison provides the experience necessary to evaluate the entire forensic quality system and determine whether isolated deficiencies or systemic failures may undermine the reliability and defensibility of the forensic evidence.