ALTHOUGH SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS CAN BE IMPORTANT TRIAL WITNESSES, REPORTS ON THEIR TESTS RATHER THAN PERSONAL TESTIMONY ARE OFTEN ADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE, SINCE POLICE SCIENTISTS HAVE LITTLE TIME TO SPEND IN COURT. TO JUSTIFY ADMISSION OF THESE REPORTS, COURTS SUBSCRIBING TO THE MAJORITY VIEW (FAVORING ADMISSIBILITY) HAVE ACCEPTED THREE THEORIES OF ADMISSIBILITY: (1) LABORATORY REPORTS QUALIFY AS BUSINESS ENTRIES, (2) LABORATORY REPORTS CONSTITUTE OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC RECORDS, AND (3) THESE REPORTS REPRESENT THE ANALYST'S PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED. HOWEVER, OTHERS ARGUE THAT ADMITTING REPORTS RATHER THAN REQUIRING THE AUTHOR TO TESTIFY VIOLATES DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS TO CONFRONT WITNESSES AGAINST THEM. MOREOVER, THESE REPORTS ARE NOT FACTS BUT MERELY EXPERT OPINIONS, AND EXPERTS OFTEN DISAGREE. THE PROSECUTION'S LABORATORY REPORTS ARE NOT BUSINESS ENTRIES, SINCE THEY ARE NOT NEUTRAL BUT PREPARED BY MEMBERS OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM TO CONVICT THE DEFENDANT. UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ALL HEARSAY EVIDENCE MUST BE RELIABLE, YET RECENT STUDIES SHOW THAT POLICE LABORATORY TESTS ARE OFTEN INACCURATE. NEVERTHELESS THESE REPORTS ARE OFTEN ENTERED AS EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGE. IN ADDITION, JURIES ARE OFTEN UNDULY IMPRESSED WITH SCIENTIFIC REPORTS. SOLUTIONS INCLUDE STRICTER EXCLUSIONARY RULES BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND FOR THE DEFENSE TO SUBPOENA THE EXPERT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPORT. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (PAP)