Book contents
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Evidence As an Area of Knowledge
- Part II Convergences between Systems
- Part III On Evidential Inferences
- Part IV Expert Evidence
- 12 From Institutional to Epistemic Authority: Rethinking Court-Appointed Experts
- 13 Latent Justice
- 14 Prevention and Education
- 15 Evidentiary Practices and Risks of Wrongful Conviction
- Part V Standards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules
- Index
- References
14 - Prevention and Education
The Path towards Better Forensic Science Evidence
from Part IV - Expert Evidence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2022
Book contents
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Evidence As an Area of Knowledge
- Part II Convergences between Systems
- Part III On Evidential Inferences
- Part IV Expert Evidence
- 12 From Institutional to Epistemic Authority: Rethinking Court-Appointed Experts
- 13 Latent Justice
- 14 Prevention and Education
- 15 Evidentiary Practices and Risks of Wrongful Conviction
- Part V Standards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules
- Index
- References
Summary
Forensic scientists are influential players in the justice system. At least two reasons may account for the great confidence placed in forensics. On the one hand, most people (and judges) have a rather poor science education, which leads them to place disproportionate expectations on the analysis produced by forensic science labs. On the other hand, DNA profiling has also contributed decisively to the prestige of forensic science. Unfortunately, there is no reason for such strong confidence, and experience shows that forensic science errors are also possible.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Evidential Legal ReasoningCrossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions, pp. 296 - 322Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Allen, R. J. (2013). The Conceptual Challenge of Expert Evidence, Discusiones filosóficas, 14(23), 41–65.Google Scholar
Aitken, C. and Taroni, F. (2004). Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, 2nd ed., Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Allen, R. J. and Miller, J. S. (1993). The Common Law Theory of Experts: Deference or Education? Northwestern University Law Review, 87, 1131–47.Google Scholar
Balding, D. J. and Bucleton, J. (2009). Interpreting Low Template DNA Profiles, Forensic Science International: Genetics, 4(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Beety, V. E. (2016). Cops in Lab Coats and Forensic in the Courtrooms, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 13(2), 543–65.Google Scholar
Biedermann, A., Vuille, J., Taroni, F. and Champod, C. (2015). The Need for Reporting Standards in Forensic Science, Law, Probability and Risk, 14 (2), 169–73.Google Scholar
Cao, K. and Jain, A. K. (2017). Automated Latent Fingerprints Recognition, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 41(4), 788–800.Google Scholar
Carr, S., Piasecki, E., Tully, G. and Wilson, T. J. (2016). Opening the Scientific Expert’s Black Box, Journal of Criminal Law, 80(5), 364–86.Google Scholar
Carracedo, A. (1999). Valoración de la prueba del ADN, in La prueba del ADN en la medicina forense. La genética al servicio de la ley, Jarreta, B. Martínez ed., Barcelona: Masson.Google Scholar
Champod, C. and Vuille, J. (2011). Scientific Evidence in Europe. Admissibility, Appraisal and Equality of Arms, International Commentary on Evidence, 9 (1), 1–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, J. and Workewych, L. (2016). The CSI Effect, Oxford Handbooks Online, DOI 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935352.013.28.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2009). Forensics without Uniqueness, Conclusions without Individualization: The New Epistemology of Forensic Identification, Law, Probability and Risk 8(3), 233–55.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2012). Forensic Science and Wrongful Convictions: From Exposer, to Contributor to Corrector, New England Law Review, 46, 711–36.Google Scholar
Cole, S. and Dioso-Villa, R. (2009). Investigating the CSI Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in Criminal Law, Stanford Law Review 61(6), 1335–74.Google Scholar
Cooley, C. and Turvey, B. (2014). Miscarriages of Justice. Actual Evidence, Forensic Evidence and the Law, Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, E. and Edmond, G. (2017). Reviewing Wrongful Convictions in Canada, Criminal Law Quarterly, 64 (3–4), 473–86.Google Scholar
Dror, I. (2016). A Hierarchy of Expert Performance, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(2), 121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., and Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications, Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dror, I. and Rosenthal, R. (2008). Meta-Analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 900–3.Google Scholar
Dror, I., Thompson, W., Meissner, , Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M. and Risinger, M. (2015). Context Management Toolboox: A Linear Sequential Unmasquing (LSU) Approach for Minimizing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decision Making, Journal of Forensic Siences, 60(4), 1111–12.Google Scholar
Fabricant, C. and Carrington, W. T. (2016). The Shifted Paradigm: Forensic Sciences‘s Overdue Evolution from Magic to Law, Virginia Journal of Criminal Law, 4(1), 1–115.Google Scholar
Garret, B. L. (2014). Wrongful Convictions and the Role of Forensic Science, in Jamieson, A. and Moenssens, A. eds., Wiley Online Encyclopaedia of Forensic Science, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Garret, B. and Neufeld, P. (2009). Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions, Virginia Law Review, 95 (1), 1–97.Google Scholar
Garret, B. and Mitchell, G. (2013). How Jurors Evaluate Fingerprint Evidence: The Relative Importance of Match Language, Method Information, and Error Acknowledgment, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10, 484–511.Google Scholar
Gascón, M. (2016). Conocimientos expertos y deferencia del juez. Apuntes para la superación de un problema, DOXA. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 39, 347–65.Google Scholar
Grace, V., Midgley, G., Veth, J. and Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. (2011). Forensic DNA Evidence on Trial: Science and Uncertainty in the Courtroom. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.Google Scholar
Guerra Thompson, A. (2015). Cops in Lab Coats. Curbing Wrongful Convictions through Independent Forensic Laboratories, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2015). The Expert Witness: Lessons from the U.S. Experience, Humana Mente, 28(2015), 39–70.Google Scholar
Huber, P. (1991). Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, New York: New York Basic Books.Google Scholar
Igartua, J. (2007). Prueba científica y decisión judicial: unas anotaciones propedéuticas, Diario La Ley, 6812 (2/11).Google Scholar
Jamieson, A. and Boder, S., eds. (2016). A Guide to Forensic DNA Profiling, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2016). Wrongful Convictions in China. Comparative and Empirical Perspectives, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kaye, D. H. (2010). Probability, Individualization and Uniqueness in Forensic Science: Listening to the Academies, Brooklyn Law Review, 75(4), 1163–86.Google Scholar
Koehler, J. (2014). Forensic Fallacies and a Famous Judge, Jurimetrics, 54(3), 211–19.Google Scholar
Koehler, J., Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J. and Macquiston, D. E. (2016). Science, Technology, or the Expert Witness: What Influences Jurors‘ Judgments About Forensic Science Testimony? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 22(4), 401–13.Google Scholar
Kloosterman, A., Sjerps, M. and Quak, A. (2014). Error Rates in Forensic DNA Analysis: Definition, Numbers, Impact and Communication, Forensic Science International: Genetics, 12, 77–85.Google Scholar
Kloostroom, A. (2014). Framework for Registration, Classification and Evaluation of errors in the Forensic DNA Typing Process, Nederlands Forensich Instituut. Available: www.nist.gov/forensics/upload/Kloosterman-DNA.pdf.Google Scholar
Leung, W. C. (2002). The Prosecutor’s Fallacy – A Pitfall in Interpreting Probabilities in Forensic Evidence, Medicine Science and the Law, 42(1), 44–50.Google Scholar
Lucena, J. J., Gascón, M. and Pardo, V. (2015). Technical Support for a Judge when Assessing A Priori Odds, Law, Probability and Risk, 14(2), 147–68.Google Scholar
Martire, K. A. and Edmond, G. (2017). ‘Rethinking Expert Opinion Evidence’, Melbourne University Law Review, 40 (3), 967–98.Google Scholar
Mcquiston-Surrett, D. and Saks, M. J. (2009). The Testimony of Forensic Identification Science: What Expert Witnesses Say and What Facfinders Hear’, Law and Human Behaviour, 33(5), 436–53.Google Scholar
Meester, R., Collins, M., Gill, R., and Van Lambalgen, M. (2006). On the (ab) Use of Statistics in the Legal Case against the nurse Lucia de B. Law, Probability and Risk, 5(3–4), 233–50.Google Scholar
Mnookin, J. (2010). The Courts, the NAS, and the Future of Forensic Science, Brooklyn Law Review, 75 (4), 1208–75.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. (2015). Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA, New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (2009). Report, Strengthening Scientific Evidence in the United States: A Path Forward, Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Office of the Inspector General. US Department of Justice, 2006: Report on Mayfield: A Review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case. www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0601/final.pdf.Google Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), (2016) Report, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. (2013). ¿Fue el bebé sacudido? Prueba, pericia y epistemología jurídica en el proceso penal inglés, in Estándares de prueba y prueba científica, C. Vázquez, ed., Madrid: Marcial Pons, 135–80.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. and Redmayne, M., eds. (2007). Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research and Teaching, Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. (2005). The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Science, Science 309(5736), 892–5.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. (2008). The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence, Vanderbilt Law Review, 61(1), 199–219.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. (2010). Individualization Claims in Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted, Brooklyn Law Review, 75(4), 1187–208.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J., Albright, T., Bohan, T. L., Bierer, B. E., Bowers, C. M., Bush, M. A. et al. (2016). Forensic Bitemark Identification: Weak Foundations, Exaggerated Claims. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3(3), 538–75.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, N. J. and Saks, M. J. (2007). The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction About Forensic Science Affects Public Expectations About Real Forensic Science, Jurimetrics 47, 357–64.Google Scholar
Taroni, F., Aitken, C., Garbolino, P. and Biedermann, A. (2006) Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
The Law Comission (2009) Report The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales. A New Approach to the Determination of Evidentiary Reliability, www.lawcom.gov.uk/expert_evidence.htm.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C. (2006). Tarnish on the ‘Gold Standard’: Understanding Recent Problems in Forensic DNA Testing. The Champion, 30(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C. (2009). Letter to the Editor – The Prosecutor’s Fallacy in George Clarke’s. Justice and Science: Trials and Triumphs of DNA Evidence, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(2), 504–5.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C. and Chumann, E. (1987). Interpretation of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials. The Prosecutor’s Fallacy and the Defense Attorney Fallacy, Law and Human Behaviour 11(3), 167–87.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C., Vuille, J., Taroni, F., Biedermann, A., (2018). After Uniqueness: The Evolution of Forensic Science Opinions, Judicature, 102(1), 18–27.Google Scholar
Twining, W. (2013). Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence’, in Evidence, Inference and Inquiry, Dawid, P., Twinning, W. Vasilaki, M. , eds., British Academy Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
Ulery, B. T. et al. (2011). Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Latent Fingerprint Decisions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (19). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018707108.Google Scholar
Vázquez, C. (2015). De la prueba científica a la prueba pericial, Madrid-Barcelona: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Zalman, M. (2018). Wrongful Convictions: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge Handbook of Social Problems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 448–80.Google Scholar