Is the Expert Admissibility Game Fixed?: Judicial Gatekeeping of Fire and Arson Evidence

Anecdotal evidence claims that in criminal cases, trial judges admit the prosecution's expert witnesses more readily than the defendants', and in civil cases the reverse is true; judges exclude plaintiffs' experts more often than civil defendants' experts. This occurs despite the fact that, with few exceptions, the same rules of admissibility apply to all parties and, in most jurisdictions, across criminal and civil cases. This article empirically tests this differential by reviewing judicial decisions to admit or exclude evidence holding the type of expert testimony constant, fire and arson evidence, across criminal and civil cases in the United States. The study examines the admissibility of fire and arson investigation experts in criminal and civil cases across all legal parties in fifty‐seven federal and state opinions in the United States. The findings offer empirical support of a bias in criminal cases and in civil cases which present expert witnesses at trial, and is less pronounced, but still evident, on appeal. Specifically, the role of the party that offers the evidence has a profound effect on whether arson evidence is admitted, even when factors around the judge's political affiliation, attorney experience, expert qualifications, and rules of evidence are taken into account.     

Police officers' perceptions of older eyewitnesses

Purpose. This study examined United Kingdom police officers' perceptions about older witnesses (>60 years) and their thoughts about employing the cognitive interview (CI) with this group. Method. A questionnaire was used to assess officers' opinions about current interviewing protocols for older witnesses, including the CI, and to explore the challenges involved with interviewing older witnesses. Results. Over half of the officers surveyed perceived older witnesses to be less reliable and less thorough than younger witnesses. Many officers lacked confidence in dealing with the emotional distress and memory loss often displayed by older witnesses and victims. Several officers stated they were inadequately trained and had insufficient time to devote to interviewing in general. Moreover, the number of officers who considered the CI to be helpful with older witnesses was roughly equivalent to the number of officers who believed it was not. Conclusions. These results suggest that police officers, like mock jurors, consider older adult witnesses and victims to be less reliable and thorough than younger adult witnesses. Furthermore, the results indicate that many officers are not always satisfied with their interviews of older witnesses and victims. Implications for officer training are discussed.     

Expert Testimony on Psychological Injury: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

This article introduces psychologists to aspects of the legal process most pertinent to their role as expert witnesses in civil litigation. It summarizes the role of psychological evidence in the adjudication of common law tort claims, the structure of the court system, and the stages of the litigation process. It also explains the various roles a psychological expert may play during litigation and the implications of those roles for expert confidentiality and disclosure. The article then provides an overview of legal policy governing the admissibility of psychological expertise, especially as admissibility is affected by the “Daubert” standard applied in most North American courts.     

专家证据的价值与我国司法鉴定制度的修改

随着科学技术的飞速发展，专家证据在诉讼中发挥着越来越重要的作用。在英美法系国家，专家证据制度在专家证人资格规定上的广泛性和选任上的自由性，使其在适用上具有灵活性和实用性的特点，其详细而完备的专家证据可采性规则，更是司法经验的积累与法官智慧的结晶。英美法系国家的专家证据制度和大陆法系的鉴定制度，在近些年的改革中呈现出共同的趋向，如启动程序的多样化、过错责任的严格化和庭审对抗的强化，这为完善我国司法鉴定制度、准确适用新刑诉法中有关专家辅助人的规定以及充分发挥专家证据的作用开启了新的思路。面对我国司法鉴定中依然相当混乱的鉴定主体问题，构建鉴定人、专家顾问和专家辅助人三位一体的司法鉴定主体格局，或许是一条比较合理可行的出路。     

Forensic Psychological Expertise in the Wake of Daubert

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. established guidelines for screening the admissibility of scientific evidence and overruled the Frye general acceptance doctrine. Guidelines more akin to those advocated by psychologists to assess the trustworthiness of the expert testimony were established in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence on the reliability, relevance, and prejudicial or probative nature of the information. Forensic psychological experts will have to be explicit about the scientific foundations of their opinions. The more flexible formula for the admission of scientific evidence may exert greater quality control than the Frye test, and enhance the relationship of psychology and law by eliminating some sources of controversy within the professional community over expert witnesses. Research needs flowing from the new standards are identified. Administrative Judge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Southern California, and a Mediator and Arbitrator with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services/Endispute     

鉴定人出庭与专家辅助人角色定位之实证研究

新刑事诉讼法试图改变鉴定人出庭率低的现状,为此完善了鉴定意见审查规则;相应地,新确立的专家辅助人制度也被寄予厚望。从理论上看,保障被告方的对质权应成为上述改革的主要支点。但实证研究显示,鉴定人出庭率并没有因为新刑事诉讼法的实施而显著改善,鉴定人与法官对于鉴定人出庭都缺乏积极性;专家辅助人在法庭上的角色定位是模糊的,其在鉴定人、证人、辩护律师和其他独立的诉讼参与人等角色之间徘徊。应当围绕保障被告方的对质权来完善必要鉴定人出庭制度,在保留职权化和强调中立性的鉴定制度的同时,赋予专家辅助人意见以证据能力,以构建控辩平等的司法鉴定体系。     

如何建立我国鉴定结论采纳规则——以美国专家证言判断标准为参照

在我国司法实践中法官不够重视对鉴定结论的可靠性进行实质审查。美国专家证言采纳规则的先进性启示我们有必要对我国鉴定结论的审查认证进行反思。确立我国鉴定结论的采纳规则,尤其是确立鉴定结论可靠性的采纳规则,有助于防止某些伪科学进入法庭,防止法官滥用自由裁量权,从而对正确认证鉴定结论起到积极的推动作用。     

从“科学的代言人”到“当事人的枪手”——专家证人历史沿革与我国现实考察

英美法系在很早以前就认识到了专家在审判中的重要作用，而具有偏向性专家证人则是对抗制的产物。在中世纪，专家是以陪审团成员或者法官顾问的身份出现在法庭上的，由法官进行引导和控制．以保证其中立性和公正性。16世纪，随着知情陪审团被不知情陪审团所替代，法院开始传唤专家出庭，就某个专业问题向陪审团提供意见和结论。到了18世纪．英美法系审判中对抗的因素越来越多．双方当事人开始传唤专家作为各自的证人出庭提供意见。但18世纪末19世纪初的专家证人并不具有偏向性。直到19世纪中期，专家证人开始为各自当事人的利益服务．在法庭上为就与案件事实相关的专门性问题提出自己的意见．现代意义上的专家证人产生。梳理英美法系专家证人的历史对我国司法鉴定制度改革具有重要的指导意义。我国现已全面确立专家辅助人制度．专家辅助人应当具有中立性．并需构建一系列的程序和制度对专家辅助人的中立性进行保障。     

The biomedical researcher and subpoenas: judicial protection of confidential medical data

An increasing number of medical researchers are being subpoenaed to testify or to supply records in cases in which they have not agreed to become involved as expert witnesses. The researchers' published works are alleged to have formed the basis of the opinions of physicians testifying as expert witnesses in these cases. Although the courts usually protect confidential medical data, the considerable burden of quashing these subpoenas is still imposed upon researchers and their universities. This Article argues that courts should protect these research records from subpoenas.     

Forensic Facial Comparison: Issues of Admissibility in the Development of Novel Analytical Technique

Much contemporary debate in forensic science concerns validity and admissibility of scientific evidence in court. In this paper, three current approaches to facial identification—image superimposition, photogrammetry, and morphological analysis—are considered with regard to criteria for scientific evidence in the United States, and England, and Wales. The aim of the paper is to assess the extent to which facial image comparison meets criteria of admissibility in these jurisdictions. The method used is a comparative evaluation of the methods of facial image comparison and their underlying premises against the range of admissibility criteria reported in court rulings and relevant judicial and scientific inquiries in the United States and the United Kingdom. While the techniques of facial image comparison are generally accepted within their practitioner communities, they are not tested, and their error rates are unknown. On that basis, the methods of facial image comparison would appear not to meet the anticipated standards. They are, nevertheless, admitted in court in the United States, and England, and Wales. This paper concludes that further research in science and law will be necessary to more definitively establish admissibility of facial image comparison evidence, as it will for other nascent and novel methods that are potentially influential in court proceedings.     

澳大利亚专家证据可采性规则研究

在科学技术突飞猛进的时代,随着社会分工的细化和专业化程度的提高,专家证据在诉讼中的作用越来越大。澳大利亚的专家证人制度虽起源于英国,但经过独立后几十年的发展,颇具特色,尤其是在专家证据的可采性方面,已形成了一整套相当具体、完备的规则,如专门知识规则、专家性规则、普通知识规则、基本规则和终局性问题规则等。为了克服专家证据带有偏向性和专家证人被滥用的弊端,澳大利亚在当前的司法改革中提出了不少相应的对策,这为我国亟待改革的司法鉴定制度提供了一些有益的借鉴。     

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WITH PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME

Expert testimony on unsubstantiated social science syndromes such as the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) has been increasingly admitted in courtrooms across the United States. This is a problem because a trier of fact is making a determination based on theories that are inaccurate or incorrect. To remedy this, the standards of admissibility for expert testimony must be heightened. The broad discretion given to trial judges in determining admissibility should be reevaluated and a new rule of evidence for social science testimony should be adopted.     

中美司法精神病学鉴定制度比较

拥有专门知识的人才进入司法程序,凭其专业知识对专门技术问题发表意见。这样的人在大陆法系被称为鉴定人,在英美法系则被称为专家证人,我国使用鉴定人称谓。本文从司法鉴定管理体制、司法鉴定人制度、司法鉴定启动制度及司法鉴定程序制度等方面对中美两国司法精神病学的司法鉴定制度进行比较。最后简要介绍两个特殊的问题:最终争论和结论质证。     

论鉴定结论的证据能力

鉴定证据规则在本质上是一套规范鉴定结论证据能力的规则，为此，我们需要构建完善的证据能力规则和排除规则来规范鉴定人出庭问题，辩护方鉴定结论的使用问题。并要完善相关的其它制度。     

Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System*

Abstract. While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a dialectical context as a set of critical questions of the kind commonly used in models of argumentation.     

Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018

Courts have been dealing with alienating behaviors in high conflict family litigation for hundreds of years. Experts in the behavioral sciences have been writing about mothers and fathers manipulating their children to disparage the other parent for more than seventy years. But in the last two decades some social scientists and legal professionals have questioned the legitimacy of parental alienation as a concept and its admissibility in child abuse and child custody litigation. This study was designed to examine the extent to which courts in the United States have found the concept of parental alienation material, probative, relevant and admissible. Thirty‐four years of cases were found with a WESTLAW query and analyzed. Cases were selected for study only if the record reflected that a judge or an independent expert found the concept of parental alienation to be of value in the litigation. Results illustrate increasing awareness of the concept and document its admissibility in every one of the United States. The numbers, sex of the alienating parent and prevalence of significant custody changes are discussed. Limitations inherent in this form of quantitative analysis are also discussed with recommendations for future research.     

Educator of the court: the role of the expert witness in cases involving autism spectrum disorder

The role of the expert witness in legal contexts is to educate fact finders of the court who may have no background in the expert’s area. This role can be especially difficult for those who assist in cases involving individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As expert assistance on ASD is crucial to ensuring just outcomes for individuals diagnosed with ASD, knowledge on how expert witnesses perceive and approach their roles, and what factors may influence these perceptions, is essential. This qualitative research utilizes semi-structured interviews with a sample of expert witnesses in cases involving ASD, analyzed using a grounded-theory constant-comparative analytic approach. Data reveal that experts appear to view their roles in court as reconstructionists, educators, myth-dispellers, and most of all, communicators, actively using their testimony to fill these roles in cases. These results also allow for the development of a model that illustrates two areas that coalesce to affect how experts view their roles in court: (1) personal experiences of experts in cases in which they have been involved; and (2) influences outside experts’ personal experiences, such as their general opinions or observations regarding ASD and its relationship to the criminal justice system.     

Fingerprint comparison evidence has been under sustained attack in the United States of America for the last number of years: Is the critique with regard to reliability sufficiently penetrating to warrant the exclusion of this valuable evidence?

The decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 US 579 (1993) brought about renewed attention to and scrutiny of fingerprint comparison evidence in the United States of America. In terms of the decision courts were to act as the gatekeepers with respect to the admissibility of scientific expert evidence. This article describes these events and investigates the grounds upon which challenges were made to fingerprint comparison evidence in the courts, as well as the position that was taken by the courts. The article also considers the fundamental test for the admission of expert evidence, and whether the critique pointed out by the defendants in the cases with regard to reliability are sufficiently penetrating to warrant the exclusion of fingerprint comparison evidence.     

Do Jurors “Know” What Isn’t So About Child Witnesses?

Are expert witnesses needed in child sexual abuse cases to educate jurors about children’s memory, suggestibility, and reactions to abuse, or do jurors already know what such experts could tell them? To cast light on this question, we surveyed jurors and jury-eligible college students and compared their beliefs with what is known via scientific research regarding children’s memory and ability to testify, reactions to interrogation, and reactions to sexual abuse. We also asked participants to infer results of four widely cited studies of children’s suggestibility. Participants’ beliefs were consistent with findings from research on some issues (e.g., that children can be led to claim that false events occurred) but diverged from the scientific consensus on other issues (e.g., whether children can remember painful events in infancy). Similarly, participants sometimes overestimated and sometimes underestimated the level of suggestibility observed in empirical studies. Individual differences in accuracy were related to participants’ gender, education and ethnicity, and there was considerable disagreement among participants on many questions. Implications of findings for the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases are discussed.     

Will the law come running? The potential role of "brain fingerprinting" in crime investigation and adjudication in Australia

A major feature of the Australian criminal justice system is that jurors assess witness credibility and are the ultimate finders of fact. Recognising the occasional fallibility of humans in detecting truth and deception, the jury's function may be assisted by highly regulated expert evidence about a variety of scientific techniques. A recent scientific development has been the invention of "brain fingerprinting" (BF) by Dr Larry Farwell in the United States. Brain fingerprinting measures brainwave functioning to detect awareness of crime-relevant information in order to distinguish between guilty and innocent suspects. This article considers whether BF could be used for crime investigation and adjudication in Australia. By examining the rules of expert evidence and the principles relating to "novel scientific evidence", the admissibility of BF in the various Australian jurisdictions is evaluated. The utility of BF in criminal investigations and counter-terrorism initiatives is also canvassed. The authors conclude that, at the present time, it is unlikely that expert testimony on BF will be admitted in Australian criminal trials. However, the technique potentially offers other benefits to the criminal justice system, thereby warranting its consideration as a "criminal and investigative tool of the future".