Forensic Methods and Procedures Applied to Child Custody Evaluations: What Judges Need to Know in Determining a Competent Forensic Work Product

Judges are seeing an increase in the number of forensic reports in the area of child custody. This increase in forensic mental health involvement suggests that judges need to better understand the application of current forensic mental health methodology to assist them in determining a competent forensic work product. Recent literature has argued that child custody evaluators need to craft their reports consistent with scientific methods and procedures as well as legal standards governing admissibility of scientific evidence. This paper provides a framework for judges to assist in determining whether a child custody evaluation has been crafted consistent with current behavioral science literature pertaining to use of forensic mental health methods and procedures.     

The forensic expert witness--an issue of competency

Scientists submitting expert opinions within the legal system are expected to be knowledgeable in the forensic aspects of their particular science, as well as to be ethical and unbiased. Scientists are seldom able to decline a request to provide an expert opinion in their field, even when their forensic expertise is minimal. The competence of scientists providing expert opinions in forensic cases is reviewed here. Three examples of the perils of uninformed "expertise" in forensic biology, medicine and anthropology are presented.     

A cultural change to enable improved decision-making in forensic science: A six phased approach

There has been an increased engagement by researchers in understanding the decision-making processes that occur within forensic science. There is a rapidly growing evidence base underpinning our understanding of decision-making and human factors and this body of work is the foundation for achieving truly improved decision-making in forensic science. Such an endeavour is necessary to minimise the misinterpretation of scientific evidence and maximize the effectiveness of crime reconstruction approaches and their application within the criminal justice system. This paper proposes and outlines a novel six phased approach for how a broadening and deepening knowledge of decision-making in forensic science can be articulated and incorporated into the spheres of research, practice, education, and policy making within forensic science specifically, and the criminal justice system more generally. Phases 1 and 2 set out the importance of systematic examination of the decisions which play a role throughout forensic reconstruction and legal processes. Phase 3 focuses on how these decisions can, and should, be studied to understand the underlying mechanisms and contribute to reducing the occurrence of misleading decisions. Phase 4 highlights the ways in which the results and implications of this research should be communicated to the forensic community and wider criminal justice system. Lastly, the way in which the forensic science domain can move forwards in managing the challenges of human decision-making and create and embed a culture of acceptance and transparency in research, practice and education (learning and training) are presented in phases 5 and 6. A consideration of all 6 connected phases offers a pathway for a holistic approach to improving the transparency and reproducibility of decision making within forensic science.     

Effective use of forensic science in volume crime investigations: Identifying recurring themes in the literature

New scientific, technological and legal developments, particularly the introduction of national databases for DNA and fingerprints, have led to increased use of forensic science in the investigation of crime. There is an assumption, and in some instances specific assertions, that such developments bring improvements either in broad criminal justice terms or more narrowly in terms of economic or practical efficiencies. The underlying presumption is that the new technological opportunities will be understood and effectively implemented. This research investigates whether such increases in activity have also been accompanied by improvements in the effective use of forensic science. A systematic review of thirty-six reports published (predominantly in England and Wales) since the 1980s, which have considered the use of forensic science in the investigation of volume crimes, was carried out. These reports have identified a number of recurrent themes that influenced how effectively forensic science was used in investigations. The themes identified included forensic knowledge and training of investigators, communication and information exchange between specialists and investigators, timeliness of forensic results, interagency relationships and deployment of crime scene examiner resources. The research findings suggest that these factors continue to hinder the effective use of forensic science despite technological advances and this paper considers their potential causes.     

Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison

Since the 1960s, there have been calls for forensic voice comparison to be empirically validated under casework conditions. Since around 2000, there have been an increasing number of researchers and practitioners who conduct forensic-voice-comparison research and casework within the likelihood-ratio framework. In recent years, this community of researchers and practitioners has made substantial progress toward validation under casework conditions becoming a standard part of practice: Procedures for conducting validation have been developed, along with graphics and metrics for representing the results, and an increasing number of papers are being published that include empirical validation of forensic-voice-comparison systems under conditions reflecting casework conditions. An outstanding question, however, is: In the context of a case, given the results of an empirical validation of a forensic-voice-comparison system, how can one decide whether the system is good enough for its output to be used in court? This paper provides a statement of consensus developed in response to this question. Contributors included individuals who had knowledge and experience of validating forensic-voice-comparison systems in research and/or casework contexts, and individuals who had actually presented validation results to courts. They also included individuals who could bring a legal perspective on these matters, and individuals with knowledge and experience of validation in forensic science more broadly. We provide recommendations on what practitioners should do when conducting evaluations and validations, and what they should present to the court. Although our focus is explicitly on forensic voice comparison, we hope that this contribution will be of interest to an audience concerned with validation in forensic science more broadly. Although not written specifically for a legal audience, we hope that this contribution will still be of interest to lawyers.     

Science serving justice: opportunities for enhancing integrity in forensic science in Africa

Forensic science is a unique discipline of applied science. At its core it is a science, yet finds its use in the application to cases that often go to a court of law. Practicing at the intersection of science and law poses distinct challenges, but also holds incredible potential in its ability to serve as a vehicle for integrity. The practice of forensic science in Africa is at a tipping point. Unchartered waters lie ahead for the continent and its forensic scientists. Often working in inadequately resourced environments, obstacles may seem insurmountable. As African forensic scientists, we can overcome these obstacles as we accept that we are connected and united in our goal to allow science to serve justice.     

Is crime scene examination science, and does it matter anyway?

This short piece aims to assess the kind of data collected by Crime Scene Examiners (CSEs), and to discuss whether this collection constitutes a scientific process. It also seeks to examine the balance of roles performed by the CSE, between data gatherer and investigator. The piece also aims to conclude on whether a clearer understanding of the structure of data collected by CSEs might be of some practical use in developing a greater understanding of the architecture of knowledge that forensic science as a whole relies upon. As a piece of work it is unapologetically theoretical in its perspective, and seeks to prompt further discussion regarding the structure of scientific knowledge, and any relevance this might have to its application in a forensic context. Ultimately, it seeks the inclusion of the processes of data gathering performed largely by CSEs within the wider processes of forensic science.     

Forensic neuropsychology: a selective introduction

During the last decade, neuropsychology has emerged as one of the fastest growing disciplines within clinical psychology. One of the most important roles for neuropsychologists is their contribution to the forensic sciences. The present paper reviews how lawyers may best utilize the services of clinical neuropsychologists. Suggestions are also offered to neuropsychologists on how better to meet the needs of lawyers. The following forensic science issues are discussed: the legal framework in which neuropsychologists function; contributions psychologists may make towards answering basic medicolegal questions such as the elucidation of the nature, extent, and duration of head injury sequelae; criteria for acceptable neuropsychological reports; medicolegal aspects of severe head injury, minor head injury (posttraumatic syndrome), and pseudo-head injury (malingering). There are many causes of damage to the nervous system (for example, industrial toxins and medical malpractice) that are eligible for compensation. Examples will be confined to head injury since the basic forensic science principles remain the same, whatever the etiology of such brain damage.     

Of earprints, fingerprints, scent dogs, cot deaths and cognitive contamination--a brief look at the present state of play in the forensic arena

Over the last decades, the importance of technical and scientific evidence for the criminal justice system has been steadily increasing. Unfortunately, the weight of forensic evidence is not always easy for the trier of fact to assess, as appears from a brief discussion of some recent cases in which the weight of expert evidence was either grossly over- or understated. Also, in recent years, questions surrounding the value of forensic evidence have played a major role in the appeal and revision stages of a number of highly publicized criminal cases in several countries, including the UK and the Netherlands. Some of the present confusion is caused by the different ways in which conclusions are formulated by experts working within the traditional approach to forensic identification, as exemplified by (1) dactyloscopy and (2) the other traditional forensic identification disciplines like handwriting analysis, firearms analysis and fibre analysis, as opposed to those working within the modern scientific approach used in forensic DNA analysis. Though most clearly expressed in the way conclusions are formulated within the diverse fields, these differences essentially reflect the scientific paradigms underlying the various identification disciplines. The types of conclusions typically formulated by practitioners of the traditional identification disciplines are seen to be directly related to the two major principles underpinning traditional identification science, i.e. the uniqueness assumption and the individualization principle. The latter of these is shown to be particularly problematic, especially when carried to its extreme, as embodied in the positivity doctrine, which is almost universally embraced by the dactyloscopy profession and allows categorical identification only. Apart from issues arising out of the interpretation of otherwise valid expert evidence there is growing concern over the validity and reliability of the expert evidence submitted to courts. While in various countries including the USA, Canada and the Netherlands criteria have been introduced which may be used as a form of input or output control on expert evidence, in England and Wales expert evidence is much less likely to be subject to forms of admissibility or reliability testing. Finally, a number of measures are proposed which may go some way to address some of the present concerns over the evaluation of technical and scientific evidence.     

Legal Evidence, Police Intelligence, Crime Analysis or Detection, Forensic Testing, and Argumentation: An Overview of Computer Tools or Techniques

Notwithstanding a few seminal precursors from the late 1980s,it is only with the new century that the modelling of reasoningon legal evidence has emerged as a significant area within thewell-established field of AI & Law (active since the 1970s).An overview such as the one in this article has never appearedbefore in the literature. It is three-pronged: it is about themodelling of reasoning about legal evidence, about tools forlegal argumentation, and about select areas in forensic science.For newcomers into the modelling of legal evidence by meansof AI techniques, it is essentialnot to simplistically blunderinto such design choices that would result in flaws making thetools unusable by legal professionals, so it is important tobe aware of ongoing controversies. Other tools are appropriatefor law enforcement, e.g., tools assisting in crime analysis.In the compass of this article, we only very briefly deal withthe modelling of arguments as such, and we only sketchily forayinto forensic science, by selecting some areas within it byway of exemplification.     

Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence.” A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system—but not under the purview of any forensic science organization—may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.     

中世纪欧洲法医学溯源

法医学是应用病理学、生物学、生物化学和其他医学科学理论和技能解决法律问题,为侦查和审判提供证据的科学。法医学学科属性是医学,其目的是解决法律问题,因而法医学同时具有自然科学和人文科学属性。现今,我们对于法医学的研究往往局限在自然科学领域,而对其人文学科属性却有所忽视。当代西方法医学起源自中世纪的欧洲大陆,当时罗马法和教会法占统治地位,它们没有设立陪审团制度,而且允许对嫌疑人进行刑讯逼供,而英美法系的司法审判程序设立了陪审团制度。在这两种司法体制下,法医医学证言、证词逐步形成了两种形式：英美法系控诉式诉讼体制下的言辞证据形式和罗马法诉讼中纠问体制下的书证形式。本文将对中世纪欧洲的法医学进行溯源研究,从欧洲法医学的起源和发展角度,完善法医学史研究内容,为世界法医学史比较研究提供借鉴。     

法证披露模型:应当向法证专家披露什么和法证专家应当披露什么?

法律上的披露问题主要集中在检控方向辩护方提供或者隐瞒了哪些证据。在本文中,我们将披露的概念扩展到更广泛的情境下,在这种情境下,披露失误可能导致误判。我们引入了一个概念模型,即“法证信息披露”,它涉及哪些信息应该披露给法证检验人员,以及法证检验人员应当披露哪些信息。本文全面概述了四类利益相关者的动态交互:法证服务、调查、法律和外部利益相关者。我们通过五个问题讨论了法证信息披露模式的有效实施,即如果要向法证检验人员或者由法证检验人员提供最好的信息,以提高法证决策质素,并尽量减少偏差,则什么时候进行披露?披露什么?如何披露?向谁披露?为什么披露?     

Error and its Meaning in Forensic Science

The discussion of “error” has gained momentum in forensic science in the wake of the Daubert guidelines and has intensified with the National Academy of Sciences' Report. Error has many different meanings, and too often, forensic practitioners themselves as well as the courts misunderstand scientific error and statistical error rates, often confusing them with practitioner error (or mistakes). Here, we present an overview of these concepts as they pertain to forensic science applications, discussing the difference between practitioner error (including mistakes), instrument error, statistical error, and method error. We urge forensic practitioners to ensure that potential sources of error and method limitations are understood and clearly communicated and advocate that the legal community be informed regarding the differences between interobserver errors, uncertainty, variation, and mistakes.     

The contribution of forensic science to crime analysis and investigation: forensic intelligence

The debate in forensic science concentrates on issues such as standardisation, accreditation and de-contextualisation, in a legal and economical context, in order to ensure the scientific objectivity and efficiency that must guide the process of collecting, analysing, interpreting and reporting forensic evidence. At the same time, it is recognised that forensic case data is still poorly integrated into the investigation and the crime analysis process, despite evidence of its great potential in various situations and studies. A change of attitude is needed in order to accept an extended role for forensic science that goes beyond the production of evidence for the court. To stimulate and guide this development, a long-term intensive modelling activity of the investigative and crime analysis process that crosses the boundaries of different disciplines has been initiated. A framework that fully integrates forensic case data shows through examples the capital accumulated that may be put to use systematically.     

The barriers to achieving an evidence base for bitemark analysis

Forensic dentistry is the union of two scientific disciplines, both of which are undergoing a renewed scientific rigor. In forensic science the advent of the Daubert ruling has required that judges assess the forensic value of 'expert testimony' ensuring that techniques, methodologies and practices are not only commonly accepted (as was the previous hurdle during the Frye era) but that error rates, assessment of reliability and validation studies are published to support their use. This new degree of judicial scrutiny has been mirrored in the field of dentistry itself, where organisations search and summarise randomised controlled trials in order to recommend best practice and devise clinical care pathways that are firmly grounded in proven scientific research. Despite the obvious drive from both of these professions, forensic dentistry, and in particular the sub-discipline of bitemark analysis, has been remarkably slow to address the obvious deficiencies in the evidence base that underpins this element of forensic science. Reviews of the literature reveal that the vast majority of published works are case reports, and very little primary literature exists. This paper reviews those studies that have assessed aspects of bitemark analysis including the crucial issue of the uniqueness of the human dentition; the application of transparent overlays and the application of statistical probabilities in bitemark conclusions. There are numerous barriers to undertaking high quality research in the field of bitemark analysis, the most important of which is the use of a gold-standard that is acceptable both in terms of diagnostic research but is also forensically relevant. If bitemark analysis is to continue to play a role in the judicial process then there is an urgent need for high quality studies that meet the levels of forensic and scientific scrutiny applied to other disciplines within the criminal justice system. Studies are required to determine not that the human dentition is unique, but how this asserted uniqueness is represented on human skin and other substrates. The error rates associated with the analysis of bitemarks are required on a procedural level as well as an individual practitioner basis and scales and interpretative indices of bitemark severity and forensic significance should be validated and introduced into common use.     

网络环境下的法医学循证

法医学是当前司法鉴定中的重要组成部分,其研究内容广泛,具有高度的专业性。随着网络技术的发展、信息资源的增加以及人们法律意识的增强,法医学必然会面临许多新问题,对诉讼证据的要求标准也越来越高。鉴于此,在法医学领域应建立起循证的理念,通过循证的方式在法医学以及相关领域内寻求最合适的解决法医学实务中具体问题的证据,循证不但能够及时解决法医学领域的现行问题,其对于法医学的进步与发展也将具有重大的推动作用。本文综述了循证的基本理论及其在法医学领域的作用,以及循证的途径、方法、证据的评价,并探讨网络环境下法医学循证的应用价值。     

The forensic psychiatrist of the future

The rate of change in scientific knowledge and the growing psychiatric sophistication of attorneys and courts have made it increasingly difficult for forensic psychiatrists to retain proficiency in the full spectrum of potential professional activities. As the consumers of forensic services become more sophisticated, forensic psychiatrists have an increasing need to become scientifically informed and a decreasing need to become legally informed. Traditional training in forensic psychiatry, which emphasizes clinical, legal, and institutional knowledge and experience, gives short shift to behavioral science and other technical knowledge that can enhance the validity of forensic assessments and their value to the legal system and society. Forensic psychiatrists can best respond to these changes and maximize the value of their assessments by narrowing their focus to some subset of the four branches of the discipline: criminal behavior, mental disability, forensic child psychiatry, and legal aspects of psychiatric practice. Maximal proficiency in each of these four branches requires a greater depth of knowledge and experience than was once sufficient among those who practiced in all four areas. Fellowship training programs and professional organizations should lead forensic psychiatry into the twenty-first century by organizing their efforts along these four parallel tracks.