Unreliable law: legal responses to latent fingerprint evidence
Downloads
Abstract
Drawing on reported cases this essay endeavors to assess the impact of admissibility rules, trial safeguards, changes to admissibility and procedural rules, and the emergence of exogenous scientific advice, on legal responses to latent fingerprint evidence. Focused on reported decisions in four common law jurisdictions, namely England and Wales, the United States, Canada and Australia, the essay examines the overwhelmingly accommodating response to this forensic science evidence.Keywords
Latent fingerprint evidence, fingerprint evidence, forensic science evidence, admissibility rules, expert evidenceReferences
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.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i0.22377Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Gary Edmond
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.