Prevention and Education

doi:10.1017/9781009032049.015

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

Marina Gascón Abellán

Edited by

Jordi Ferrer Beltrán and

Carmen Vázquez

Show author details

Jordi Ferrer Beltrán: Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Carmen Vázquez: Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona

Book contents

Get access

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.

Keywords

CSI effect Mayfield Error forensic science cognitive biases expert testimony

Type: Chapter
Information: Evidential Legal Reasoning
Crossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions
, pp. 296 - 322

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009032049.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dror, I. (2018). Biases in Forensic Experts, Science, 360 (6386), 243.Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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

Metzger, P. (2006). Cheating the Constitution, Vanderbilt Law Review, 59(2),475–538.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. (2009). De nuevo, los hechos en serio, DOXA, 32, 317–39.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

Book contents

14 - Prevention and Education

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive