Idioma
Català Español English

Cuando el derecho es poco fiable: respuestas jurídicas a la prueba de huellas dactilares latentes

orcid logo 16px Gary Edmond

A partir de casos reportados, este ensayo busca evaluar el impacto que han tenido en la respuesta jurídica que se ha dado a las pruebas mediante huellas dactilares latentes las reglas de admisibilidad, las garantías procesales (incluidas las apelaciones), los cambios en las reglas de admisibilidad y de procedimiento y el surgimiento de asesoramiento científico exógeno. Centrado en decisiones judiciales reportadas en cuatro jurisdicciones del common law, Inglaterra y Gales, Estados Unidos, Canadá y Australia, este ensayo examina la abrumadoramente complaciente respuesta a este tipo de prueba científico forense.
Huellas dactilares latentes; prueba dactilar; ciencias forenses; criterios de admisibilidad de la prueba; prueba pericial

Referencias

Alder, K., 2007: The Lie Detector. The History of an American Obsession, New York: Free Press.

Beecher-Monas, E., 2007: Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Berger, M., 2003: «Expert Testimony in Criminal Proceedings: Questions Daubert Does Not Answer», en Seton Hall Law Review, 33.

— 2005: «What Has a Decade of Daubert Wrought? », en American Journal of Public Health, 95.

Bunn, G.,2012: The Truth Machine: A Social History of the Lie Detector, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Cheng, E. y Yoon, A., 2005: «Does Frye or Daubert matter? A study of scientific admissibility standards», en Virginia Law Review, 91.

Cole, S.A., 2001: Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification: Harvard University Press.

— 2009: «A Cautionary Tale about Cautionary Tales about Intervention», en Organization, 16.

Cunliffe, E. y Edmond, G., 2014: «Gatekeeping in Canada: Mis-steps in Assessing the Reliability of Expert Testimony», en Canadian Bar Review, 92.

— 2018: «What have we learned? Lessons from Wrongful Convictions in Canada», en Ben Berger, et al (eds), To Ensure that Justice is Done: Essays in Memory of Marc Rosenberg, Toronto: Carswell.

Dror, I. et al, 2006: «Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications», en Forensic Science International, 156.

Edmond, G., 2014: « The admissibility of forensic science and medicine evidence under the Uniform Evidence Law’, en Criminal Law Journal, 38.

— et al, 2013: «Admissibility Compared: The reception of incriminating expert opinion (ie forensic science) evidence in four adversarial jurisdictions», en University of Denver Criminal Law Review, 3.

Edmond, G. y Roach, K., 2011: «A Contextual Approach to the Admissibility of the State’s Forensic Science and Medical Evidence», en University of Toronto Law Journal, 61.

Edmond, G., Piasecki, E. y Carr, S., 2019: «Science Friction: Streamlined Forensic Reporting», en Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (forthcoming).

Evett, I. y Williams, R., 1996: «Review of the Sixteen Points Fingerprint Standard in England and Wales», en Journal of Forensic Identification, 46.

Faigman, D.L., Monahan, J. y Slobogin, C., 2014: «Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony», en University of Chicago Law Review, 81.

Giannelli, P.C., 1980: «The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v United States, a Half Century Later’ (1980), en Columbia Law Review, 80.

— 2004: «Ake v. Oklahoma: The Right to Expert Assistance in a Post-Daubert, Post-DNA World», en Cornell Law Review, 89.

Gudjonsson, G., 2002: The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook, Chichester: Wiley.

Jasanoff, S., 1995: Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology, Harvard University Press.

Lawless, C., 2016: Forensic Science: A Sociological Introduction.

Lo Pucki, L., 1996: «Legal culture, legal strategy, and the law in lawyers’ heads», en Northwestern University Law Review, 90.

Lynch, M. et al, 2008: Truth Machine: The contentious history of DNA finger-printing, University of Chicago Press.

Lynch, M. y Cole, S., 2005: «Science and Technology Studies on Trial: Dilemmas of Expertise», en Social Studies of Science, 35.

Martire, K. y Edmond, G., 2017: «Rethinking expert opinion evidence’, en Melbourne University Law Review, 41.

Moles, R. y Sangha, B., 2015: Miscarriages of Justice: Criminal Appeals and the Rule of Law in Australia: LexisNexis.

Nobles, R. y Schiff, D., 2000: Understanding Miscarriages of Justice: Law, the Media, and the Inevitability of Crisis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Risinger, M., 2000: «Navigating Expert Reliability: Are Criminal Standards of Certainty Being Left on the Dock», en Albion Law Review, 64.

Roberts, P., 1998: «Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: More Lessons from North America», en H Reece (ed.) Law and Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

— 2017: «Making forensic science fit for justice», en Australian Journal of Forensic Science, 49.

Saks, M. y Faigman, D., 2008: «Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It», en Annual Review of Law & Social Science, 4.

Saks, M. y Koehler, J.J., 2005: «The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science’, en Science, 309.

Saks, M. y Spellman, B., 2016: The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law, New York: New York University Press.

Sallavaci, O., 2016: «Streamlined reporting of forensic evidence in England and Wales: Is it the way forward? », en Evidence & Proof, 20.

Sengoopta, C., 2003: Imprint of the Raj: How fingerprinting was born in colonial India, London: Macmillan.

Stockdale, M. y Jackson, A., 2016: «Expert evidence in criminal proceedings: Current challenges and opportunities», en Journal of Criminal Law, 80.

Tangen, J., Thompson, M. y McCarthy, D., 2011: «Identifying Fingerprint Expertise», en Psychological Science, 22

Thompson, W., et al, 2017: Forensic Science Assessments: A quality and gap analysis – Latent fingerprint examination, Washington DC: AAAS.

Ulery, B., et al, 2011: «Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions», en Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108.

Walker, C. y Starmer, K., 1999: Miscarriages of justice: A review of justice in error Oxford.

Ward, T., 2013: «Expert Evidence and the Law Commission: Implementation without Legislation?», en Criminal Law Review, 561.

Enlaces refback

No hay ningún enlace refback.
Copyright (c) 2019 Gary Edmond URL de la licencia: https://www.quaestiofacti.com/como-publicar/

ISSN-e: 2604-6202

ISSN: 2660-4515