Rules and practices of forensic experts in the field of civil or criminal law (original) (raw)
Related papers
Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals
Psychology, Crime & Law, 2012
ABSTRACT Forensic scientists strongly advocate the use of likelihood ratios for expressing the diagnostic value of evidence in technical forensic reports. They call this the logically correct approach. The correct comprehension of such likelihood ratios by jurists, however, appears to be particularly problematic. The present research has empirically investigated this issue for defense lawyers and criminal judges. For comparative purposes forensic professionals, many of whom use the logically correct approach, were included in the study as well.Using fictitious forensic reports, it was shown that proper understanding of likelihood ratios by jurists is quite poor, due mainly, but not exclusively, to the prosecutor's fallacy. Forensic professionals outperformed jurists to a large extent but made many mistakes themselves. It is further shown that participants’ self-expressed supposed level of understanding of logically correct conclusions is quite high and thus not justified by their levels of proper understanding. Suggestions for how to improve the situation are presented.
There is no systematic deterioration in the ability of law to make sound judgments in criminal cases where scientific opinion evidence has important bearing on matters, even if doubt on its integrity has been cast over recent egregious errors. There are limitations on the capacity of science to depict the absolute truth and its conclusions always must be regarded as provisional. Law is not always aware of this. Science is not a privileged source of knowledge. It is socially constructed. Empirical studies attest high precision and objectivity in their findings but the design of studies affects the reliability of conclusions. Gatekeeper functions and rules of evidence would diminish pragmatism, flexibility and judicial discretion in court, notwithstanding that it would protect the jury from misleading evidence in some cases. If the proposal is a reaction to recent mishaps over convictions, it might be superfluous because law has not become incompetent and can continue to resolve matters using legal reasoning and the experience of judges. For judges to have to learn science would be arduous. Also, it would be unbeneficial because more would be gained by appreciation of the philosophy and sociology of science and the sociology of knowledge. Reference manuals in science are well constructed but substantial. Though training for judges in the USA has been well-received, I contend that this is inappropriate. I argue for retention of part of Option 3 of the proposal that retains experts who can form a consensus over scientific evidence and present the judge with an opinion on its accuracy. The judge can then consider this in deciding its admissibility. This eliminates the ‘deference test’ and makes the ‘panel’ merely advisory. Much of the risk of repeating recent errors can be reduced by adopting better procedures. Expert opinion witnesses should be reminded of their duty to the court. A proposal has been located in the literature that would change the rôle of expert witnesses to ‘auxiliary forensic professionals’ who would not be immune from civil liability. Professional bodies have instituted procedures to investigate some forms of non-accidental deaths in children. Multiplication of such protocols will relieve law of some of the burden of decision-making in this and other ‘grey areas’.
The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
THE SEVEN CONSULTATION CRITERIA Criterion 1: When to consult Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome. Criterion 2: Duration of consultation exercise Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible. Criterion 3: Clarity and scope of impact Consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and the expected costs and benefits of the proposals. Criterion 4: Accessibility of consultation exercises Consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and clearly targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach. Criterion 5: The burden of consultation Keeping the burden of consultation to a minimum is essential if consultations are to be effective and if consultees' buy-in to the process is to be obtained. Criterion 6: Responsiveness of consultation exercises Consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should be provided to participants following the consultation. Criterion 7: Capacity to consult Officials running consultations should seek guidance in how to run an effective consultation exercise and share what they have learned from the experience. m CONSULTATION COORDINATOR The Law Commission's Consultation Coordinator is Correna Callender. m You are invited to send comments to the Consultation Coordinator about the extent to which the criteria have been observed and any ways of improving the consultation process.
Expert report under scrutiny: A discursive construction of the role of a forensic accountant expert
2017
University of Wollongong Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorise you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of the author. Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion...
The Importance Of Expertise As An Evidence And Its Triangulation With Other Evidences
Pjese e Revistes "Jus JUSTICIA 14_7" 2020, 2020
The right to initiate court action and conduct legal proceedings aims to resolve a dispute and put the parties on equal terms in regards to proving their claims. If we refer to the phrase "due legal process", provided by Article 6 of the ECHR, it is the prosecuting body that has the responsibility to prove different facts or versions in support of the injured party or the suspected perpetrator of a criminal offense, and the prosecuting body shall also prove, in each case, the sustainability of the versions raised during the investigation or not. One of the evidences obtained during the investigation or trial is the expertise, which holds a special role and importance in the process. It is an indicator of the full investment of the judiciary body to conduct a fair and impartial adjudication in the context when the trial panel or the prosecuting body can not take a stand based only on their professional background or internal conviction, and therefore, they summon subjects with special knowledge in a certain field, to clarify such circumstances of special nature.
Observations on Expert Assurance in Court Cases Related to Collaborationist Activity
ЕКСПЕРТНЕ ЗАБЕЗПЕЧЕННЯ РОЗСЛІДУВАННЯ ФАКТІВ КОЛАБОРАЦІЙНОЇ ДІЯЛЬНОСТІ
Actuality of the theme The issue of scientific assurance of the judicial process is widely studied by forensic scientists and legal experts. Since the mid-twentieth century, scientists and practitioners have constantly raised the issue of inefficiency of forensic support to law enforcement and court proceedings. The necessary organizational and legal transformations of forensic activities were seen not only in individual improvements of forensic examination procedures and technologies, but also in changes in the structure and functioning of forensic organizations, pooling of forensic activities resources and increasing the level of its coordination. Obviously, the problem of effective organization of the forensic expert activity was to become one of the priorities of scientific analysis for the new independent field of scientific knowledge-the theory of forensic science, which was formed in the 1980s to study the forensic expert activity and develop recommendations to improve its effectiveness. At the same time, consideration of these issues requires changes in the established in the theory approaches to the analysis of its subject and object. These circumstances led to the formation of a new area of research in the theory of forensic science, which is related to the study of the role of the state in
This is a sequel to the comment of the same name previously posted. It describes the progress in the English Courts towards reaching safer conclusions in criminal prosecutions for Non-Accidental Head Injury (NAHI) in children. The Law Commission proposed new primary legislation to overcome the problem of flawed expert opinion evidence that so misled the courts previously. The measure would have bowdlerized evidence to prevent that ruled inadmissible from reaching the court. The government rejected the recommendation, though, but instead suggested amendment of Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions, to include pre-trial discussions between experts that can indicate to the court the range and complexity of opinion in these cases which it can take into account. The piece concludes by showing how this and the traditional values of orality, pragmatism, openness, discretion, witness demeanour and common law precedents that characterize the culture of English court practice help the courts towards conclusions that do not need to be appealed.
Competence aspects in forensic expertise of documents
Nowa Kodyfikacja Prawa Karnego, 2023
The technical expertise of documents, although it already seems to be a well-developed field, in the current stage faces many problems which need to be investigated. This especially concerns the limits of expert-examiners' competences. Apart from the "classic" means of falsifying and counterfeiting documents, new ones constantly appear as the offenders gain new skills and equipment, which makes expertise much more complex. 1 In the present article, the authors attempt to discuss the limits of competences in the specialties of judicial expertise-code 6.01 (technical expertise of documents) and code