Forensic Sciences

Forensic Science is any scientific methodology used for the purposes of the search, identification, preservation, and analysis of evidence. It offers an intersection of science and law.

Forensic Sciences in the United States

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals is a landmark Supreme Court case which changed the whole landscapdea in relation to the admissibility of forensic expert opinion testimony. The opinion was handed down in 1993. The Court said that in order for scientific (and later, other technical information) techniques, methods, and analyses to be admitted into court, they had to be proven to be scientifically valid. This case caused an explosion of research manuscripts and books on the scientific aspects of forensic science to be published for high school and college students, attorneys and judges, and forensic and other scientists. Daubert v. Merrill Dow held that the Federal Rules of Evidence had displaced the fifty-year-old Frye “generally accepted”standard for the admissibility of scientific testimony in federal trials and then determined a new “standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial.”

The philosophy of science that the Supreme Court draws so heavily upon focuses on the nature of scientific investigation and informs virtually all of modern scientific inquiry, from DNA testing, through medicine, to epidemiology.

Subsequent court decisions such as General Electric v. Joiner and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael provide further clarification on the admissibility rules of forensic expert testimony.

Kumho Tire v. Carmichael

Kumho Tire v. Carmichael (1999) extends Daubert to non-scientific testimony, and sometimes in somewhat conflicted ways. The Daubert Court had articulated a four part test for the admissibility of expert testimony and under the new ruling, captioned Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, Daubert’s general principles are to be applied flexibly to the evaluation of all expert testimony proffered in federal courts.

As a result, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael apparently lays to rest a popular strategy that attempts to avoid Daubert’s strict standards by proffering expert testimony as non-scientific and arguing that the Court’s 1993 ruling was limited to scientific testimony.

The Kumho Court said that “we can neither rule out nor rule in the . . . factors mentioned in Daubert . . . for subsets of cases categorized by category of expert or by kind of evidence.”This apparently argues against such a dichotomization of testimony into scientific and non-scientific categories.

According to “The Impact of Daubert on Forensic Science”(Henry F. Fradella, Lauren O’Neill and Adam Fogarty) “it appears that judges have been remarkably consistent in applying Daubert to several types of forensic science since Kumho made Daubert applicable to many areas originally
thought to be beyond its province when Daubert was first decided. This consistency is marked when applying Daubert to truly scientific areas of forensic investigations, such as with forensic pathology, forensic physics (i.e., ballistics and audiology), forensic fire science, and certain types of forensic engineering. But application of Daubert, post-Kumho, to the more technical areas of forensic science, such as forensic accounting, fingerprint analysis, and handwriting analysis has proven more difficult for the courts.
This is undoubtedly due, in part, to Daubert’s factors for admissibility being based on Karl Popper’s notion of science – specifically on falsifiability. In spite of struggling to fit technical forensic evidence into the scientific rubricof peer review, replication, and known error rates as set forth in Daubert, courts are doing a remarkably good job in applying Daubert fairly
consistently in the post-Kumho era.”

Forensic Sciences in other countries

The Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science argues that, although Daubert v. Merrill Dow is “technically applicable only to US federal courts, all forensic experts should be familiar with it, because court decisions in other jurisdictions refer to and often rely on it. In other countries, seminars at professional meetings also discuss the impact on forensic science of needing proof to satisfy the Daubert factors.”

External links about Forensic Sciences in the United Kingdom:

British Academy of Forensic Sciences: https://www.bafs.org.uk/
LGC Forensics: https://www.lgcgroup.com/lgc-forensics/
Forensic Science Society: https://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/home

List of Forensic Sciences Topics:

Anthropology
Odontology
Behavioral
DNA (Biology)
DNA/Botany
DNA/Entomology
DNA Analytical Techniques
Adhesive Tapes
Decomposition Chemistry
Trace Drugs of Abuse
Environmental Analysis
Trace Explosives
Trace Fibers
Fire Investigation
Firearm Discharge Residues
Forensic Geosciences
Trace Glass
Trace Paint and Coating
Trace Evidence
Digital Evidence
Audio Forensics
Black Boxes and Security Cameras
Photography and Digital Imaging
Documents
Engineering
Causes of Death
Clinical
Pathology
Foundations
Foundations/Fundamentals
Investigations
Legal
Methods
Pattern Evidence
Fingerprints (Dactyloscopy)
Pattern Evidence in Firearms
Pattern Evidence History
Professional
Toxicology
Toxicology/Alcohol
Toxicology/Drugs of Abuse

Forensic Sciences

Forensic Sciences

Forensic Sciences in the United States

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Kumho Tire v. Carmichael

Forensic Sciences in other countries

List of Forensic Sciences Topics:

See Also

Further Reading

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply