THE TWO AUTHORS CONDUCTED IDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS IN SEVERAL CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT LOCATIONS IN 1975 AND THEN EXCHANGED RESEARCH ON OVERLAPPING AREAS OF CONSIDERATION. THE DISCUSSION AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS THAT FOLLOWED THE RESEARCH EXCHANGE INDICATE THAT RELIABILITY OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION SOURCES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE CANNOT BE ASSUMED. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE CRITERION OF VALIDITY IS EVEN MORE ELUSIVE. THIS ELUSIVENESS IS APPARENT IN ATTEMPTS TO OPERATIONALLY DEFINE CRUCIAL CONCEPTS. THE VARIABLE THAT MEASURES CRIMINAL OFFENSE, AN IMPORTANT PREDICTOR, CAN BE OPERATIONALLY DEFINED OR MEASURED IN MARKEDLY DIFFERENT TERMS THAT MAY MASK THE TRUE IMPACT OF OFFENDER CULPABILITY. THE VALIDITY PROBLEM IS ALSO CLEARLY SEEN IN ATTEMPTS TO OPERATIONALLY DEFINE THE CRIMINAL SANCTION, I.E., THE DISPOSITION OF CHARGES AGAINST CONVICTED DEFENDANTS. THESE CONSIDERATIONS SUGGEST THAT THE TWO AUTHORS CONDUCTED INDEPENDANT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE SUBJECT AT HAND AND THAT RESEARCH RESULTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITH 'SCIENTIFIC' CAUTION. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED).